It is unclear which of two partners is today in charge of doing the dishes and which of doing the laundry. Laundry is more work than dishes. B tells A: “Honey, if you do the dishes I will do the laundry”. Not blackmail.
It is assumed based on custom that B will do the laundry, but unclear who does the dishes today. Laundry is more work than dishes. B tells A: “Honey, unless you do the dishes, I won’t do laundry”. Blackmail.
That’s more theft than blackmail. When B refuses to do laundry, B is acting on the intrinsic value of not doing laundry. That’s different from the car paint example, since threatening to paint the car green is not based on the intrinsic value of painting the car green.
It is unclear which of two partners is today in charge of doing the dishes and which of doing the laundry. Laundry is more work than dishes. B tells A: “Honey, if you do the dishes I will do the laundry”. Not blackmail.
It is assumed based on custom that B will do the laundry, but unclear who does the dishes today. Laundry is more work than dishes. B tells A: “Honey, unless you do the dishes, I won’t do laundry”. Blackmail.
This shows that an “assumed status quo” is necessary to define blackmail. I proposed in the other thread a definition inspired by this example.
That’s more theft than blackmail. When B refuses to do laundry, B is acting on the intrinsic value of not doing laundry. That’s different from the car paint example, since threatening to paint the car green is not based on the intrinsic value of painting the car green.
I think I agree with the status quo point.