There is outrage because PETA is using financial hardship to coerce an ethical choice. Imagine for a minute if ISIS made the same deal in exchange for living under Sharia law for a month or if the FFRF paid a water bill in exchange for a public pledge disavowing God. Adding insult to injury, PETA isn't offering to pay the water bill of everyone willing to agree to their terms - they'll do it for ten people they pick. In other words, you aren't surrendering your own code of ethics in exchange for money, you're surrendering your own code of ethics in exchange for being judged worthy or unworthy of PETA's money. Finally, PETA has framed it as a sop to the indigent - the "struggling families" canard they start their pitch with leaves no doubt that this is the rich degrading the poor for fun and pageviews. It's a craven grab for attention, as everything PETA does tends to be - they're pretty much the liberal Westboro Baptist Church. What they could have done is driven around Detroit with their "baskets of vegan food" and handed them out to anyone who could show them an overdue water bill until they ran out. They could have even dragged a camera crew around with them. They would have gotten a lot more press, and the majority of it would have been positive. There also would have been zero outrage about PETA enforcing their ethics on anyone - there's a world of difference between "going vegan" and "not looking a gift tofurky in the mouth." But they didn't do that for the exact reason Mormons send their kids out on Mission - getting doors slammed in your face when you're "trying to do a good deed" is the most effective way to turn the young and impressionable inward and away from the temptations and trials of secular life. So PETA figures out a way to deliver charity in the best possible way to deliver maximum outrage so that they can point out to their members that the meat-murderers are so blind with rage they can't even see a gift for what it is.
Well, think about it. Is PETA offering their deal to people who aren't in arrears on their bills? Is PETA offering their deal to people who aren't in an economically blighted community? No, they're seeking out the indigent and unfortunate. Payday loan companies don't approach people with savings, either - they provide ruinous loans to people who think they have no other options. I disagree with the first paragraph -- what coercion exists is created by poverty, not PETA
That particular side effect of Mormon missions had never occurred to me.
PETA is certainly exploiting leverage. But the leverage is not PETA created. As cgod says somewhere down there, the whole thing would be weird and crazy if the government, who took the water away in the first place, was now offering it back with strings attached. But PETA is a third party with no responsibilities in either direction. I just don't see the immorality. I think the instinctive liberal howl of "how awful" is based on a) PETA's prior reputation (fair) and b) an unwillingness to indulge in consequentialism (also generally fair, but maybe not in this case). I should watch that, I really know almost nothing about the Mormons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duress http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undue_influence Because the leverage was not created by PETA, they are not guilty of coercion. However, those with overdue water bills could argue duress. The success of that argument would determine whether or not PETA practiced undue influence over those they are attempting to "help." But the legal definitions don't really matter. The fact is, PETA is claiming "charity" while everyone watching is arguing about whether their actions are kinda shitty, shitty, really shitty or mondo shitty. It's like this: you've been flooded out of your apartment and are floating down the river. I've got a 20' Zodiac with an Evinrude and a full tank of gas. If I roll up on you and help you on my boat, I'm doing you a favor. I'm performing an act of charity. On the other hand, if I roll up on you and offer to help you into my boat if you accept Our Lord Jesus Christ as your personal savior, I'm entering into a contract. And I'm notably not knocking on your door before the flood to make you the same offer - I'm waiting until there's a substantial amount of pressure for you to accept my help. It's shitty. There are ample arguments to be made as to how shitty it is, but there are few arguments to be made that it's unshitty. Here's the thing about rationalism: There's no long game. In order to build up societal constructs out of rationalism that are typically built up out of hardwired human emotional response, one has to delve deeply into social economics and psychology. In order to operate as human without the rational baggage, one need only ask "is this a dick move?" and trust your gut. You're having trouble with this because you're balls deep in rationalist thinking. Rationalist thinking, from my overview of it, breaks social functions down into problems of logic. Problems of logic are always easier to solve when you tightly constrain their boundary conditions... and ethical problems are rarely tightly constrained. Just because PETA didn't create the leverage does not mean that PETA is free and clear to exploit that leverage. Uber didn't take hostages in Sydney either but exploiting human tragedy for your own financial advantage is one of the quickest ways there is to find yourself the subject of a fiery sermon on Sunday. As it was, so shall it ever be, amen. In law, coercion is codified as a duress crime. Such actions are used as leverage, to force the victim to act in a way contrary to their own interests. Coercion may involve the actual infliction of physical pain/injury or psychological harm in order to enhance the credibility of a threat. The threat of further harm may lead to the cooperation or obedience of the person being coerced.
In jurisprudence, duress or coercion refers to a situation whereby a person performs an act as a result of violence, threat or other pressure against the person. Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed.) defines duress as "any unlawful threat or coercion used... to induce another to act [or not act] in a manner [they] otherwise would not [or would]". Duress is pressure exerted upon a person to coerce that person to perform an act that he or she ordinarily would not perform. The notion of duress must be distinguished both from undue influence in the civil law and from necessity.
In jurisprudence, undue influence is an equitable doctrine that involves one person taking advantage of a position of power over another person.