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

Ethics 128 (2):446-461 (2018)
  Copy   BIBTEX

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.

Author Profiles

Danielle Bromwich
University of Leeds
Joseph Millum
University of St. Andrews

Analytics

Added to PP
2017-12-19

Downloads
2,573 (#1,696)

6 months
345 (#1,158)

Historical graph of downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.
How can I increase my downloads?