Similarly, questions about whether coercive states are to be preferred to anarchy or whether coercion (as it is usually conceived) is essential to state function are not resolvable through the narrower consideration of coercion itself.
Instead, ethical considerations were present at the borders of coercion, particularly in relation to pressure and restrictions applied towards patients, especially those admitted voluntarily.
Nuclear deterrence thus pushes to the forefront consideration of two facts that recent philosophy of coercion tends to obscure: one, the deep connection between the credibility of one's threats and the demonstrable ability and willingness to execute them; and two, the dynamic or strategic nature of coercive interactions.
Ethical considerations that are particularly pertinent include the risk of coercion of participants [ 4], and the potential for the blurring of role boundaries between researcher and participant [ 9].
Consideration of throffers forms part of the wider question of coercion and, specifically, the possibility of a coercive offer.
Lamond's claim about law's coerciveness stems from a number of considerations, but undoubtedly one is his understanding of the nature of coercion itself, which was discussed in Section 2.5 above.
According to Robert Audi, for example, "if religious considerations are not appropriately balanced with secular ones in matters of coercion, there is a special problem: a clash of Gods vying for social control.
However, informal coercion, such as psychological pressure involving persuasion or the threat of coercion more often gave rise to ethical considerations.
This work is worth consideration here, since their conclusions may impact how we understand the nature of coercion, and its place in law and politics.
Wertheimer, Haksar, Lamond, and Oberdiek, for instance, seem to find no problem accepting that there is "justified coercion" — that is, acts which are coercive on a moralized theory of coercion (baseline or otherwise), yet which are ultimately justified by other considerations (Oberdiek 1976; Haksar 1976; Wertheimer 1987; and Lamond 2000 and 2001).
