Coerced consent

Coerciont doesnt undermine consent but its still wrong because it doesnt pass the rationality line

The coercive strategy
- Involves a conditional threat
- Appeals to the rationality of the victim
  - Expecting you to make the best choice after they’ve eliminated the first option
The coercive strategy: Consider preferences
- Your boss limits your options.
  - Football watching and job
  - Just the job, no football
  - Just the football, no job
  - No job and no football watching
- Your boss limiting your options says “you cant watch football and have a job” and is going to expect you to pick the job which is the “best” option for you.
Two conditions for coerced consent
- Nature of the constraint condition: The threat itself must have some moral feature
- Motivation condition: The threat must be sufficiently weighty in the victims motivations
The nature of the constraint condition
- Alan W and Larry A argue the victim must be entitled not to suffer the threat
  - Potential contents of threats
    - A beating
    - A firing
    - A true but scandalos rumor
    - An eviction
Alan W and Larry A
- Agree about the nature of the constraint
  - In order for a threat or an offer to undermine someone's consent, it has to be that the threat contains something that if it were carried out it would be at the odds of the entitlement to the person being threatened. If its an offer, that they're being entitled to the thing that is being offered unconditionally.
- Disagree about the motivation condition for compliance
  - The relationship between the threat and the person's actual decision about complying to the person's offer.
  - It also has to be harmful enough that it would be reasonable to just comply rather than accept the consequences