In this paradigm there are three types of people:

1. Those who manipulate, flatter, and use other people for their own enrichment and pleasure. These people often have more wealth and status than any other group.

2. Those who are easily--almost naturally--manipulated, flattered, and used, who seem to be either content being so treated or unaware that they are, and really have no great drive to change that (call them "sheep").

3. Those who live according to the categorical imperative or golden rule, who will not allow themselves to be manipulated or used, and yet refuse on moral principles to be disingenuous or manipulative of anyone else.

I think many of us see ourselves as the third type, and feel good about being there. But as I observe men like L Ron Hubbard, Joseph Smith, Benny Hinn, etc., I wonder if there is, *really*, anything wrong with being a type 1 person?

It could be argued that the majority of people fit into type 2--they not only respond to, but seem to relish, disingenuous flattery, claims of certainty, nonsensical metaphysical promises, etc.

A type 1 person who provides them with this--whether it be a prophet, politician, or psychic--is revered by the masses, even when a certain number of people see through their charades. They even seem to being happiness to the masses, and even when their victims lose their shirts they find great mystical reasons why it is okay that they did so. They often amass fortunes and seem to even come to believe that they are doing a great service to the world.

So my question is this: is it truly ethically wrong to be a type 1 person? Are there any compelling non-religion based morals that would prohibit it?

I think most of us dont fit any one type but float around all three types throughout our lives.

First, by agreeing that it's "OK" to manipulate and use others, you're tacitly agreeing that it's "OK" for others to manipulate and use YOU. I'm betting you don't think that's OK.

Second...I can't. I actually tried (a few "sales" type jobs). I'm not capable of it. I either crack up 'cause I can't lie so outrageously without finding it hilarious, or I am so clearly lying that others can spot it easily. I just don't have the con-man genes, I guess. Then again, I also don't have the type 2 genes, having figured out that's what was happening to me in TSCC by 21, and never looking back. Maybe the two are related? ;-)

I think you are right about that point number 1. To be consistent I would have to say that when I am being a sheep and allowing myself to be manipulated to enrich or strengthen someone else, I can't rasie an ethical complaint. So I don't really see that as an objection to the morality of using others per se.

Just because you are in sales does not mean you have to lie. If you have to lie about the product you are selling, it is time to find a different product.

In Mormon reasoning, as long as you are doing it for the glory of your God it is okay.

How do you think they justify all their abuses up to and including dead name stealing?

I think I get what you are saying but I think it is unethical. In my opinion manipulating and using people is dishonest behavior. In other words, you are, in a sense, lying, to get what you want from them.

While it may seem like there are many people out there, especially Mormons, who seem like they "deserve" to get manipulated because they seem like they want it, I'm not so sure that is fully the case. I don't think most people want to be manipulated. They just don't realize they are.

My parents who were converted when they were a young adult couple most certainly got manipulated into the church. After 30 long years in the church they learned the truth and they were MAD. Had they known about the problems with history of the church and so forth, they would not have joined. But they were good but simply folks who trusted in others. When issues arose the manipulation always won out.

Would most BIC Utah Mormons want to join the church and be manipulated had they not been conditioned (and manipulated) from birth to believe in it? Nope.

I was manipulated from birth to follow the cult. I don't think I deserved it. I only wanted to do what was right and from being a young child I was taught by my parents and all the adults around me that the church was true and could be trusted. It took years to shake off that mental chain to realize I was actually being manipulated and used.

Another way to look at it is, would it be ethical to manipulative and use someone who was mentally handicapped? Of course not. But that is on the end of the spectrum. Where do we draw the line? Is it ethical for a very smart person to manipulate and use someone who is not?

One thing that really shocked me about teaching is how many teachers there are who will manipulate kids. And I'm not talking giving kids a reward for doing the right thing, but teachers who will lie to kids to get what they want. And now I'm not above doing it myself on occasion when I am desperate (I deal with children who sometimes have severe behavior issues.) You might equate people who go into the helping professions with a sincere personality, but it is more complex than that.

But when you manipulate as a way of life, you are treating other people as things. To me, that is the mark of a sociopath.

I used to work in sales, but it worked for me because I liked and believed in the products I sold. I felt that I was delivering quality goods for money spent. The one time when I was selling a line that was more of a commodity I didn't enjoy it and I didn't last very long at it.

I think that for people who posess basically sincere personalities, it is hard for them to imagine that there are others who are not sincere.

I think that what's wrong with it (primarily) is that it requires dishonesty. And dishonesty ultimately eats away at a person.

So, in the end, what looked like a win/win - abusing others who appear to welcome abuse - is in reality a lose/lose.

IMO, the dishonesty and abuse, which superficially may appear to be good or at least benign, are the darkest parts of Mormonism. They hurt all Mormons from what I can tell.

I think you are being harsh.

Its not manipulation if your just trying to be a leader and if you really believe in what your saying.

Manipulation is just using the emotions of someone to get them to follow you or do something. It's just the same as trying to use their reason, but you use their emotions. That is no worse and if you are trying to do good in the world then anything else.

Yep, Himmler was a leader. And he believed in what he was saying. And people were only too happy to follow him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Himmler

Dishonest narcissists that lead through manipulation, and sycophantic codependents that follow through manipulation, deserve no quarter or deference.

"and if you really believe in what you're saying."

Invoking the credo of every MLM ever. Hmm.

So when you say that the codependents who follow deserve no quarter or deference, would you apply that to the families that "gave" their daughters to JS and BY as plural wives? Because sometimes I feel that way, but then they truly seemed like victims with no other options at other times.

I've played both of the aforementioned dysfunctional roles in my life.

The older I get, the less comfortable I am in either role.

Healthy, symbiotic, empathetic, respectful roles are the ones I try to emulate.

Yes, I feel sorry for the children / teenagers / young adults who are given unhealthy role models. But like Mr. Burr stated in a previous thread, at some point in one's life, if you really want to be happy and emotionally centered, you need to shed the demons of your mind, grow up, and become a whole human. At some point in one's life, excusing poor behavior on other's poor behavior becomes a tinny and silly excuse.

55 year old women, who talk in baby voices, and kick their children out of their lives because of who their children love, and passively-aggressively interact with everyone, and have no idea how to have an orgasm, and cannot balance a checkbook? No, I don't feel sorry for them. They do make me queasy when I get too close though.

55 year old men, who believe latinos and women and blacks and children and non-mormons are beneath them, who decry teenage masturbation, while having an affair with the RS president, who get what they want at work and home and church by bullying, who believe this world is here to cater to their needs and wants, whose wives haven't had an orgasm in 35 years, who have no ability to empathize with those less fortunate, who believe their penis is made of gold, who think nothing of the footprint that their 8 children add to an already overpopulated world, who have a superficial, almost non-existent relationship with those children. No, I don't feel sorry for them. They do make me agitated when I get close though.

For most dyed-in-the-wool TBMs, the escher puzzle that they live in is of their own construction. All they need to do is "step off".

But, of course, most never will.

http://www.mcescher.com/gallery/recognition-success/waterfall/



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 06/24/2015 07:34PM by schlock.

You cannot manipulate someone with their knowledge. If they know what you are doing, they are just humoring you. If they don't, you are abusing their trust and use their affections for your own gains.

When I started my student teaching long ago in California, I was teaching junior high age kids. I remember thinking how much influence I seemed to have with my young students and how easy it would be for a bad person to psychologically damage them. Even doing the best we can, we sometimes cause hurt. For bad people, the damage they do can be devastating.

I'm not sure you have enough types. If L. Ron Hubbard is the example of type 1, which type would include Abraham Lincoln?

I don't think it makes sense to lump fraud and leadership together under 'manipulation'. Leadership may be persuasive, but it's not deceptive. Salesmen sell you your dreams; leaders sell you their dreams.

What makes Hubbard bad is not that he persuaded people, but that he persuaded people to believe damaging nonsense.

Yet thousands of people would testify that Hubbard and Smith or someone else like them saved their lives, their marriages, brought them great success, got them off drugs, etc., etc., etc...

And thousands of jack-booted storm troopers would testify that nazism saved germany, brought them great success, restored pride to their countrymen, etc., etc., etc.

Your point?

Just because somebody swears by something, that doesn't make it good or right or noble.

Miscegenation laws in the deep south were supported by an overwhelming majority of the populace.

And?

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."--Jesus Quoted from the Bible's New Testament

While I don't believe much of the Bible to be true (I am an atheist/agnostic after all), I find myself in agreement with this one. If you personally are going to manipulate other people to get what you want, then be prepared for hurt and angry people who have been manipulated by you to seek revenge for what you did to them.

That aside, I should note that much of U.S. society is built upon the manipulation of others for our own personal or financial gain. Selling is all about manipulation regardless of how good you believe the product actually is, because your intended customer may not have been looking to purchase your product in the first place, and your goal as a salesperson is to change the potential customer's mind.

All of that said, I also agree that we sometimes can't help but manipulate people even if it is not our intention to do so. Learning to forgive ourselves for our own behaviors is, to my way of thinking, part of the maturing process.

You mean like getting a 14 year old girl to have sex with an older man by saying god wants them to? Or like Joe the prophet convincing other men's wives that they need to have sex with him so they will go to heaven? Nothing wrong with that at all. Nope. Can't fault anyone for getting a piece of ass can we?