Cover of The Journal of Philosophy
Already a subscriber? - Login here
Not yet a subscriber? - Subscribe here

Browse by:



Displaying: 1-4 of 4 documents


1. The Journal of Philosophy: Volume > 118 > Issue: 6
Emanuel Viebahn The Lying-Misleading Distinction: A Commitment-Based Approach
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
The distinction between lying and mere misleading is commonly tied to the distinction between saying and conversationally implicating. Many definitions of lying are based on the idea that liars say something they believe to be false, while misleaders put forward a believed-false conversational implicature. The aim of this paper is to motivate, spell out, and defend an alternative approach, on which lying and misleading differ in terms of commitment: liars, but not misleaders, commit themselves to something they believe to be false. This approach entails that lying and misleading involve speech-acts of different force. While lying requires the committal speech-act of asserting, misleading involves the non-committal speech-act of suggesting. The approach leads to a broader definition of lying that can account for lies that are told while speaking non-literally or with the help of presuppositions, and it allows for a parallel definition of misleading, which so far is lacking in the debate.
2. The Journal of Philosophy: Volume > 118 > Issue: 6
William MacAskill, Aron Vallinder, Caspar Oesterheld, Carl Shulman, Johannes Treutlein The Evidentialist's Wager
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Suppose that an altruistic agent who is uncertain between evidential and causal decision theory finds herself in a situation where these theories give conflicting verdicts. We argue that even if she has significantly higher credence in CDT, she should nevertheless act in accordance with EDT. First, we claim that the appropriate response to normative uncertainty is to hedge one's bets. That is, if the stakes are much higher on one theory than another, and the credences you assign to each of these theories are not very different, then it is appropriate to choose the option that performs best on the high-stakes theory. Second, we show that, given the assumption of altruism, the existence of correlated decision makers will increase the stakes for EDT but leave the stakes for CDT unaffected. Together these two claims imply that whenever there are sufficiently many correlated agents, the appropriate response is to act in accordance with EDT.
3. The Journal of Philosophy: Volume > 118 > Issue: 6
New Books
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
4. The Journal of Philosophy: Volume > 118 > Issue: 6
Call for Submissions: The Isaac Levi Prize
view |  rights & permissions | cited by