Persuasion vs Manipulation

My brother made a post on facebook about the difference between persuasion and manipulation. Here is what I offered in reply, with some minor changes:

Perhaps "persuasion" is a somewhat neutral word (evil men persuade as well as good). I think there is a good reason for distinguishing between the two words: some people mistake persuasion for manipulation.

Personally, I think manipulation involves an intent to treat someone as (a) an object that cannot decide on their own, or (b) as one that the manipulator believes should not act according to their own will. This is in contrast to inviting someone (as a person who has a right to choose) to make a choice the persuader thinks is good. One reason some people confuse persuasion with manipulation is that they think it is wrong to impose consequences for any action or exercise of free will. Such a belief often comes from the supposition that anything natural is good--including human desires, and that any attempt to change consequences is to destroy free will and go against nature. This belief--that natural desires are good--is to misunderstand the nature of temptation. Someone recently said that temptation wouldn't be tempting if it wasn't exciting, or enticing. Part of persuasion is teaching truth, setting artificial consequences that are a shadow of much longer-term consequences.

A child might object to their parent's consequences for stealing a cookie, but not understand that the punishment is a tool for teaching about larger consequences and deeper character-building. Is the child manipulated or persuaded to not steal cookies? Persuasion involves warning of the consequences, and helping that child to become someone who is already civilized and ready for a civilized world. When I say "Civilization" here, I am writing about of love of others and the ability to peaceably coexist with others, than of technical advancements.

Manipulation, then, is about trying to violate agency. When a child is told that they will be punished for stealing cookies, the parents are not manipulative because they (1) act out of love for the child, and are preparing the child to be mature and civilized and because (2) they have not desired to take away the child's agency, to choose to steal.

When people start talking about God, the issue becomes more complex. If god created everything, including our desires--if our choices were mechanistically predetermined by Him, then we would justifiably argue that our choices are not really ours--they were God's, and we could blame God for making any (every) evil choice merely by creating us. We would feel trapped by our choices--unable to escape God's exact calculation of each event. My religion teaches that our personality, our judgment or intelligence, was never created, but was eternal. I venture into opinion here, but I think we were unable to act before God gave us bodies of spirit, then of flesh. We did not have any way to interact until we had something to do it with. I think there are weaknesses to this opinion, but that's all right.

Let me propose a world view like this: If we are all eternal beings at some level, then something about our nature exists that cannot be changed or violated, or rather would be wrong to change. However, just as peaceable people cannot tolerate criminals to continue in their midst, God cannot allow those who choose to act in antisocial and harmful ways to continue to live with those who do. A separation is necessary. Moreover, God could not justify any separation until it was proved with actions, choices. Finally, if God did not set consequences for our actions in this life, our choices would have no meaning. If it made no difference whether we stole and ate a cookie or not (if there was no cookie enjoyment at the end, nor any depriving others of that enjoyment) then what would it even mean to steal a cookie? It would mean nothing. However, in the context of parenthood, sometimes parents who might even want to give them the cookie, give them a commandment not to take cookies without asking in order to let them learn about consequences by making the right or wrong choices. God has something far greater than we can imagine, in store for us. Every commandment and choice we are given here is to help us mature enough and become good enough at decision-making so that we can live with Him eternally, which life is the greatest of all. God still permits us to make choices of preference which are not judged as right or wrong. He also leaves us enough choice between consequences. What would a choice be if both alternatives were not enticing or desirable? It would be meaningless. So temptation is desirable. I want to sin, too--but I put my faith in God--that his commandments will ultimately lead to a better life, not just this life but the continuation of life in eternity.