Lies, Control, and Consent: A Response to Dougherty and Manson

Ethics 128 (2):446-461 (2018)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
Tom Dougherty argues that culpably deceiving another person into sex is seriously wrong no matter what the content about which she is deceived. We argue that his explanation of why deception invalidates consent has extremely implausible implications. Though we reject Dougherty’s explanation, we defend his verdict about deception and consent to sex. We argue that he goes awry by conflating the disclosure requirement for consent and the understanding requirement. When these are distinguished, we can identify how deceptive disclosure invalidates consent. This alternative explanation also allows for a response to Neil Manson’s recent criticisms of Dougherty’s argument.
Reprint years
2017, 2018
PhilPapers/Archive ID
BROLCA-4
Upload history
First archival date: 2018-01-05
Latest version: 6 (2018-01-05)
View other versions
Added to PP index
2017-12-19

Total views
1,320 ( #2,473 of 55,984 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
416 ( #795 of 55,984 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.