Of course it is not our business to determine those boundaries in someone else’s relationship.
Yet my reaction to the behavior described is very largely determined by what I imagine as the relationship context. The reason I did not have your reaction to this story is because I implicitly assumed that there was no boundary the husband had set about the fact of having clothes end up in the hamper by his hands.
I was somewhat troubled by the story, and the conversation in this subthread has clarified why—the relationship context is crucial to determining the ethics of the behavior, and the ethical line or the necessary context was not discussed seriously in the article. While I find it unlikely that this particular example was crossing a line in their relationship, similar strategies could easily be used in an attempt to cross explicit or implicit boundaries in a way I would find abhorrent.
There is one point on which I am not clear whether we are drawing the line in the same place.
In the absence of any prior negotiation one way or another, do you consider the wife’s behavior unethical? That seemed to be what you suggested with your initial comment, that it would only be acceptable in the context of a prior explicit agreement.
I think I fall on the side of thinking it is sometimes acceptable in some possible middle cases, but I’m not completely comfortable with my decision yet and would be interested in hearing arguments on either side.
I am clear (and think you will agree) that it is ok to use this strategy to reinforce a previous agreement, and NOT ok to use it to break/bend/adjust a previous agreement. It is the situation with no prior agreement that I am interested in.
To describe it semi-formally.
Party A wants to use positive reinforcement on party B in order to get them to do X
Middle cases I consider to be important (aside from there being some explicit agreement/boundary)
Party B has given some indication (but not an explicit statement/agreement) that doing X would be acceptable or desirable in principle—PR OK
Party B has given some indication (not explicit statement/agreement) that doing X would be a undesirable in principle --- PR NOT OK
Party B has given no indication one way or another -- ??
In this last case, are social expectations relevant? In the particular case of clothes in hamper, there are clear social expectations that most people normatively desire clothes in hamper. Perhaps our difference lies in whether we consider social expectations a relevant part of the context.
My tentative line is that where no indication has been given, reinforcing social expectations is acceptable, and violating social expectations is at least dubious and probably not OK without discussion.
If social expectations matter, then questions about which social circle is relevant come into play. If party A and party B would agree about which social expectation is relevant, then that is the correct one.
The interesting subcase would be where the relevant social expectations are different for party A and for Party B. My current position is that party A’s best information about what party B would choose as a relevant set of social expectations should determine the ethics.
Of course it is not our business to determine those boundaries in someone else’s relationship.
Yet my reaction to the behavior described is very largely determined by what I imagine as the relationship context. The reason I did not have your reaction to this story is because I implicitly assumed that there was no boundary the husband had set about the fact of having clothes end up in the hamper by his hands.
I was somewhat troubled by the story, and the conversation in this subthread has clarified why—the relationship context is crucial to determining the ethics of the behavior, and the ethical line or the necessary context was not discussed seriously in the article. While I find it unlikely that this particular example was crossing a line in their relationship, similar strategies could easily be used in an attempt to cross explicit or implicit boundaries in a way I would find abhorrent.
There is one point on which I am not clear whether we are drawing the line in the same place.
In the absence of any prior negotiation one way or another, do you consider the wife’s behavior unethical? That seemed to be what you suggested with your initial comment, that it would only be acceptable in the context of a prior explicit agreement.
I think I fall on the side of thinking it is sometimes acceptable in some possible middle cases, but I’m not completely comfortable with my decision yet and would be interested in hearing arguments on either side.
I am clear (and think you will agree) that it is ok to use this strategy to reinforce a previous agreement, and NOT ok to use it to break/bend/adjust a previous agreement. It is the situation with no prior agreement that I am interested in.
To describe it semi-formally.
Party A wants to use positive reinforcement on party B in order to get them to do X
Middle cases I consider to be important (aside from there being some explicit agreement/boundary)
Party B has given some indication (but not an explicit statement/agreement) that doing X would be acceptable or desirable in principle—PR OK
Party B has given some indication (not explicit statement/agreement) that doing X would be a undesirable in principle --- PR NOT OK
Party B has given no indication one way or another -- ??
In this last case, are social expectations relevant? In the particular case of clothes in hamper, there are clear social expectations that most people normatively desire clothes in hamper. Perhaps our difference lies in whether we consider social expectations a relevant part of the context.
My tentative line is that where no indication has been given, reinforcing social expectations is acceptable, and violating social expectations is at least dubious and probably not OK without discussion.
If social expectations matter, then questions about which social circle is relevant come into play. If party A and party B would agree about which social expectation is relevant, then that is the correct one.
The interesting subcase would be where the relevant social expectations are different for party A and for Party B. My current position is that party A’s best information about what party B would choose as a relevant set of social expectations should determine the ethics.