Assertion, Lying, and Untruthfully Implicating

In Sanford C. Goldberg (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Assertion. Oxford University Press (2019)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
This chapter explores the prospects for justifying the somewhat widespread, somewhat firmly held sense that there is some moral advantage to untruthfully implicating over lying. I call this the "Difference Intuition." I define lying in terms of asserting, but remain open about what precise definition best captures our ordinary notion. I define implicating as one way of meaning something without asserting it. I narrow down the kind of untruthful implicating that should be compared with lying for purposes of evaluating whether there is a moral difference between them. Just as lying requires a robust form of assertion, so the kind of untruthful implicating to be compared with lying requires a robust form of implicating. Next, I set out various ways of sharpening the Difference Intuition and survey a range of approaches to justifying one class of sharpenings. I finish by sketching an approach to justifying an alternative sharpening of the Difference Intuition, which is inspired by John Stuart Mill's discussion of lying.
Reprint years
2018, 2019
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Upload history
First archival date: 2018-01-08
Latest version: 2 (2018-08-02)
View other versions
Added to PP index

Total views
457 ( #13,645 of 2,448,233 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
63 ( #9,694 of 2,448,233 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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