On the morality of deception--does method matter? A reply to David Bakhurst.

Citations Over TimeTop 10% of 1993 papers

Abstract

Does it signify morally whether a deception is achieved by a lie or some other way? David Bakhurst has challenged my view that it can signify. Here I counter his criticisms--firstly, by clarifying the terminology: What counts as a lie? Secondly, by exploring further what makes lying wrong. Bakhurst maintains that lying is wrong in that it infringes autonomy--and other deceiving stratagems, he says, do so equally. I maintain that lying is wrong in that it endangers trust--and other types of deceiving stratagems do not do so equally. Lying to patients, I contend, is an abuse of their trust. Other forms of their intentional deception need not be so, although, in our autonomy-minded culture, they are likely to be so.

Related Papers

• → Lying and Deception in Games(2019)83 cited
• → Guidelines to catch a liar(2004)40 cited
• → On deception and lying: An overview of over 100 years of social science research(2022)16 cited
• → On the morality of deception--does method matter? A reply to David Bakhurst.(1993)17 cited
• Lying and Deception in Games(2020)