Introduction

Manipulation can be taken to mean an act of making a person or people to change their minds on a particular issue through coercion. There are always positive and negative reasons for changing peoples mind, but most people would still think that manipulation is wrong. Manipulation sometimes reaches a point that people start using violent ways. It achieves this point if a person or people refuse to accept the change of mind. Violence is the use of physical force to hurt the other party to make them feel inferior or to instill fear in them (Chloe, 142-171.). Manipulation can be defined as a type of impact that is neither intimidation nor balanced influence. This portrayal quickly brings up the issue: Is every kind of effect that is neither pressure nor discerning control a type of manipulation? If manipulation does not involve the whole coherent space of impacts that are neither sound influence nor intimidation, at that point what recognizes it from different types of effects that are neither compulsion nor levelheaded control?

Characterization of manipulation

Manipulation is often related to being “sidestep,” “challenge,” or else “disrupt” the objective’s reasonable consideration. It is not in every case clear, in any case, no matter the case is implied by way ofthe meaning of influence or simply as an announcement about manipulation (maybe one that somewhat clarifies its moral status). Barnhill,(2014: 73)argued that “however, let us think about whether that manipulation sidesteps reason can fill in as a meaning of manipulation.Manipulation is influencing the way a person is thinking and acting making him end up behaving like the other person in one way or the other. It is the reason for the success or the failure of the person”. The possibility that manipulative impacts sidestep the objective’s ability for thoughtful pondering is engaging for no less than two reasons.

To begin with, it appears to be sensible to believe that since manipulation contrasts from real influence, it must impact conduct by implies that do not draw in the objective’s reasonable limits. Second, it appears to be natural to portray types of impact that do sidestep the objective’s ability for intelligent conversation as Machiavellian.For instance, assume that subliminal publicizing worked in how it is usually—however presumably mistakenly—depicted so that being presented to a subliminal message asking you to “Drink Coke” could impact your conduct without connecting with your components of rational thought. Instinctively such an impact would appear to be a reasonable instance of manipulation.

A second way to deal with manipulation regards it as a type of duplicity and binds it thoughtfully to misleading. The association among manipulation and misleading is a typical subject in both non-philosophical and philosophical exchanges of manipulation. In writing on publicizing, for instance, the charge that (probably a few) promoting is manipulative regularly lays on the case that it makes deceptions or deceiving affiliations. Orwell, (1947) argued that “Also, in his talk of guarantees, T. M. Scanlon denounces manipulation as a method for instigating deceptions and desires. Shalom Cohen offers a to some degree diverse record of the connection between manipulations, as per which the qualification lies in the techniques by which the objective is incited to embrace a deception (Cohen inevitable). Be that as it may, even on this more nuanced see, there is as yet a strong association among manipulation and trickiness. Albeit a few variants of the craftiness see treat manipulation as resembling trickery in that both actuate deceptions and abandon it at that, increasingly far-reaching forms of the view treat manipulation as a lot more broad classification of which duplicity is an uncommon case. Though misleading is the intentional endeavor to trap somebody into receiving a flawed conviction, progressively sweeping adaptations of the craftiness account consider manipulation to be the conscious endeavor to fool somebody into embracing any broken mental state—confidence, want, feeling, and so forth.

A third method to portray manipulation is to regard it as a sort of strain to do as the influencer wishes. On this record, strategies like passionate extortion and companion weight are worldview instances of manipulation, since they apply pressure on the objective by forcing costs for neglecting to do what the controller wishes. Orwell, (1984) argued that“War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is a strength.” One method of reasoning for regarding manipulation as a type of weight is the perception that manipulation is neither levelheaded influence nor compulsion. It appears to be conceivable, at that point, to assume that there is a continuum between reasonable influence and compulsion concerning the dimension of weight being applied, with balanced influence applying no weight, intimidation applying most extreme weight, and the center locale, manipulation, applying weight that misses the mark regarding being coercive. Along these lines, we may touch base at the possibility that manipulation is a type of weight that does not ascend to the dimension of compulsion. It is at this stage that sometimes force is used to the point whereby violence erupts. This shows that sometimes manipulation and violence are linked together. Orwell, (1947), argues that “it is the human instinct to get up each day, you can go to work, you can gather your vast check your investments no matter how little it is, and rest around evening time in the wake of watching your shows.” It is the dream of anybody to be free from being controlled by anybody or by a situation.

Conclusion

Manipulation cannot be judged as just being contrary. Some times manipulation is a necessity to save people from a disaster or to save a person from destroying himself. A good example is in the case when a dangerous person let’s say a terrorist hides a bomb somewhere, and person x sees him doing so. The criminal then looks at the person with a look trying to warn him/her against telling anybody. An investigator then after sometimes finds out that person x knows the location of the bomb and has to do everything in her power to make person x show the place. The danger in his/her silence is that the whole city would come down crumbling killing a lot of people. This form of manipulation by the agent is for the good of everyone and so cannot be rated as being immoral. When a politician tries to manipulate peoples mind by telling them his vision and mission if they elect him/her is not, but when they start bribing and doing other underhand methods, then it becomes immoral.  This means that manipulation should not be generalized as bad.

Works cited

Ahmann, Chloe. “It’s exhausting to create an event out of nothing”: Slow Violence and the Manipulation of Time.” Cultural Anthropology 33.1 (2018): 142-171.

Barnhill, Anne. “What is manipulation.” Manipulation: Theory and practice 50 (2014): 72.

Steinhoff, William. George Orwell and the Origins of 1984. Vol. 13. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1975.

Do you need high quality Custom Essay Writing Services?