Now, note that in the second and first case, if I do what you ask, you now incur a debt to me (this debt comes in the form either of a reaffirmed reciprocal obligation, or of a directly incurred owed favor). In the third case, you incur no such debt.
The premise you propose is that there was no debt/obligation prior to the request/fulfilment. I would reason in the cases of authority/patron parent/child superior/inferior that there existed a prior obligation in both directions independent of the actions happening in the present request/fulfilment.
That is—an obligation from the superior to maintain their duties and an obligation from the inferior to be subservient in exchange for the duties to take care of the responsibilities granted as such.
That is also—any FIRST/SECOND request is also a THIRD request because it involves the complicit party being subservient to the social contract of the superior/inferior relationship.
That is “I choose to because I choose to obey the social contract that I believe is the thing that I want to do. That you wish it done is, perhaps, a happy bonus, but I’d do it regardless.”.
You fail to realise the alternate possibility here. NVC tended to not just make a pure request, but to give the further explanation of the needs behind the request (you know this). The reason for that is the open offer that in the future if you see a chance to act in a way that is SECOND, pure gift, or THIRD “Yes, I will do this, and I’ll do it because I choose to give you a gift. That you wish it done is, perhaps, a happy bonus, but I’d do it regardless.” , you will take that choice as long as you are aware of the possibility of the gift. NVC assumes that humans like giving each other gifts out of the “goodness of their hearts” and encourages the information transfer to enable people to gift each other with future actions (this might be an assumption that you disagree with but you’d better be aware of the assumptions of the system before you try to debate why it’s wrong).
The premise you propose is that there was no debt/obligation prior to the request/fulfilment.
There was no obligation to do that specific thing. The request having been made, there is now an obligation to do that specific thing. So it does not seem like you’re actually disagreeing with me, as far as premises go.
[social contract, etc.]
Bringing in abstractions like the social contract is unrealistic both in the cognitive sense (people don’t think like that in the moment, and in any case few actually hold any such beliefs even in general) and in the pragmatic sense (there is no actual decision to obey the social contract, nor is there any practical opportunity to break with it).
[NVC, etc.]
Yes, I was aware of this. It’s both sufficiently absurd when taken at face value, and sufficiently unethical when seen for what it really is, that I dismissed it as unnecessary to consider in this discussion. I stand by that decision.
In the meta, obligation to comply with requests exists without a present request. Similar to the obligation to not murder people under the social contract whether or not you plan to murder someone or are holding the knife.
people don’t think like that in the moment, and in any case few actually hold any such beliefs even in general
We know different people. I have heard enough times, a version of, “what would they think of me” or “I can’t break the rules”. I happen to have taught people to not care what others think. But have it inherent in my head.
absurd and unethical
Nvc subscribers do not believe it is absurd and I suspect the belief stems from the willingness to themselves subscribe to the system. Ie people who enjoy the SECOND thing. In a THIRD—I like giving gifts for me, way.
The premise you propose is that there was no debt/obligation prior to the request/fulfilment. I would reason in the cases of authority/patron parent/child superior/inferior that there existed a prior obligation in both directions independent of the actions happening in the present request/fulfilment.
That is—an obligation from the superior to maintain their duties and an obligation from the inferior to be subservient in exchange for the duties to take care of the responsibilities granted as such.
That is also—any FIRST/SECOND request is also a THIRD request because it involves the complicit party being subservient to the social contract of the superior/inferior relationship.
That is “I choose to because I choose to obey the social contract that I believe is the thing that I want to do. That you wish it done is, perhaps, a happy bonus, but I’d do it regardless.”.
You fail to realise the alternate possibility here. NVC tended to not just make a pure request, but to give the further explanation of the needs behind the request (you know this). The reason for that is the open offer that in the future if you see a chance to act in a way that is SECOND, pure gift, or THIRD “Yes, I will do this, and I’ll do it because I choose to give you a gift. That you wish it done is, perhaps, a happy bonus, but I’d do it regardless.” , you will take that choice as long as you are aware of the possibility of the gift. NVC assumes that humans like giving each other gifts out of the “goodness of their hearts” and encourages the information transfer to enable people to gift each other with future actions (this might be an assumption that you disagree with but you’d better be aware of the assumptions of the system before you try to debate why it’s wrong).
There was no obligation to do that specific thing. The request having been made, there is now an obligation to do that specific thing. So it does not seem like you’re actually disagreeing with me, as far as premises go.
Bringing in abstractions like the social contract is unrealistic both in the cognitive sense (people don’t think like that in the moment, and in any case few actually hold any such beliefs even in general) and in the pragmatic sense (there is no actual decision to obey the social contract, nor is there any practical opportunity to break with it).
Yes, I was aware of this. It’s both sufficiently absurd when taken at face value, and sufficiently unethical when seen for what it really is, that I dismissed it as unnecessary to consider in this discussion. I stand by that decision.
In the meta, obligation to comply with requests exists without a present request. Similar to the obligation to not murder people under the social contract whether or not you plan to murder someone or are holding the knife.
We know different people. I have heard enough times, a version of, “what would they think of me” or “I can’t break the rules”. I happen to have taught people to not care what others think. But have it inherent in my head.
Nvc subscribers do not believe it is absurd and I suspect the belief stems from the willingness to themselves subscribe to the system. Ie people who enjoy the SECOND thing. In a THIRD—I like giving gifts for me, way.