Argumentation and the problem of agreement

Aikin, Scott F.; Casey, John P.

doi:10.1007/s11229-022-03680-4

Cited by 7 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…First, there may be an explicit declaration that certain types of information will be deliberately suppressed. For example, there are strict rules on the types of information-such as "similar fact evidence" about a defendant's past misconduct-that can be presented to jurors (Goldman 1991;Ahlstrom Vij 2013). Jurors are informed about these constraints, so when lawyers later present arguments that intentionally suppress information, the jurors are aware that this might be happening.…”

Section: Innocent Expectationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is Rational Manipulation Permissible?

Breakey

2023

Ethic Theory Moral Prac

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rational manipulation is constituted by the following conditions: (i) A aims to persuade B of thesis X; (ii) A holds X to be true and rationally justifiable; (iii) A knows of the existence of evidence, argument or information Y. While Y is not itself misinformation (Y is factually correct), A suspects B might take Y as important evidence for not-X; (iv) A deliberately chooses not to mention Y to B, out of a concern that it could mislead B into believing not-X; and, (v) B has no compelling reason to expect A will avoid mentioning Y in this way. A’s behavior is rational insofar as A aims to use reasons to persuade B to believe a thesis that A holds as true and justified. Yet it is manipulation because A deliberately avoids furnishing B with information that B might regard as relevant, to ensure B arrives at the correct belief. I argue that we have good reason to think that A’s action will be wrongly manipulative because it disrespects B’s consent, epistemic autonomy, and personal autonomy. That said, context is critical, and there are many times evidence is intentionally occluded that are not rational manipulation. Even so, ethical arguers should beware of ambiguous contexts, such as when there are conflicting expectations about argumentation roles and goals.

show abstract

Section: Innocent Expectationsmentioning

confidence: 99%