Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Abstract Many philosophical accounts of manipulation are blind to the extent to which actual people fall short of the rational ideal, while prominent accounts in political science are under-inclusive. We offer necessary and sufficient conditions – Suitable Reason and Testimonial Honesty – distinguishing manipulative from non-manipulative influence; develop a ‘hypothetical disclosure test’ to measure the degree of manipulation; and provide further criteria to assess and compare the morality of manipulation across cases. We discuss multiple examples drawn from politics and from public policy with particular attention to recent debates about the ethics and politics of nudge.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Keith Dowding
Australian National University
Alexandra Oprea
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Economics and Philosophy
Australian National University
University at Buffalo, State University of New York
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Dowding et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
synapsesocial.com/papers/68e757a4b6db6435876cf086 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266267124000063
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: