Sincerity

Moorean constructions are famously odd: it is infelicitous to deny that you believe what you claim to be true. But what about claiming that p, only to immediately put into question your evidence in support of p? In this paper, we identify and analyse a class of quasi-Moorean constructions, which we label counterevidentials. Although odd, counterevidentials can be accommodated as felicitous attempts to mitigate one’s claim right after making it. We explore how counterevidentials differ from lexicalised mitigation operators, parentheticals, and (...) anaphoric mitigation devices, and consider some cognate non-assertoric constructions. We conclude by exploring the implications of our analysis for theorising about linguistic responsibility, assertion, and lying. (shrink)

Evidentialism holds that a person’s beliefs should align with their evidence. Berislav Marušić denies this. Consider when a person promises or resolves to complete a difficult endeavour, such as staying married or quitting smoking forever. Given the difficulty of the endeavour, there is a significant chance they will fail. In such cases, Marušić argues, the normative demands of ‘sincerity’ require the person to believe they will succeed—that is, they should believe they will fulfil their promise or resolution—despite their evidence indicating (...) a significant chance of failure. Thus, Marušić argues, people should form contra-evidential beliefs in such cases. I defend Evidentialism against Marušić’s challenge. I argue that requirements to be sincere when making promises and resolutions cannot create requirements to form beliefs against the evidence. Instead, sincerity restricts what we can promise and resolve to do. We must only promise and resolve to do things that our evidence suggests that (given that we committed) we will do. By highlight costs of contra-evidential promises, resolutions, and beliefs, I argue that restricting ourselves to evidence-aligned beliefs better supports our aims, agency, and relationships. Finally, I propose redesigning marriage vows to better align with the available evidence and human values. (shrink)

Sometimes agents sincerely profess to believe a claim and yet act inconsistently with it in some contexts. In this paper, I focus on mismatch cases in the domain of religion. I distinguish between two kinds of representations: prompts and default states. Prompts are representations that must be salient to agents in order for them to play their belief-appropriate roles, whereas default states play these roles automatically. The need for access characteristic of prompts is explained by their vehicles: prompts are realized (...) in symbolic systems or even artifacts that make them inapt for automatic regulation of inference and behavior. I argue that some mismatch cases are explained by the fact that agents often report the contents of prompts when they report their beliefs, but behavior is controlled by prompts only when they are made salient to agents. I show that a number of otherwise puzzling findings in the cognitive science of religion, concerning belief intuitiveness, are illuminated by the distinction. (shrink)

What is lying? This entry provides a general overview of scholarly attempts to define lying in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions. First, it addresses the distinction between lying and misleading, considering whether only explicit statements can be lies. The second topic is insincerity, and how it can vary in degrees under conditions of uncertainty. Its final part discusses whether lying requires an intent to deceive and genuine assertoric force.

La menzogna è oggetto di interesse di molte discipline, che spaziano dalla filosofia morale alla linguistica, dalla psicologia empirica alla giurisprudenza. Qualunque riflessione sulla menzogna, però, ha bisogno in primo luogo di stabilire l’oggetto della sua analisi: che cosa sia la menzogna, e in cosa differisca da altre forme di inganno e manipolazione. Questo articolo offre un’introduzione al dibattito filosofico sul concetto di menzogna, dalle prime riflessioni di Sant’Agostino fino alla filosofia contemporanea. Tratteremo della connessione fra la menzogna e altri (...) concetti d’interesse filosofico come l’asserzione, la sincerità, le intenzioni del parlante, e la distinzione fra contenuto letterale e arricchimento pragmatico, offrendo al lettore un’introduzione alle più importanti distinzioni concettuali tracciate in più di duemila anni di riflessione filosofica sull’argomento. (Lying is of interest for many disciplines, ranging from moral philosophy to linguistics, from empirical psychology to jurisprudence. However, any reflection on lying needs first to establish the object of its analysis: what lying is, and how it differs from other forms of deceit and manipulation. This article provides an introduction to the philosophical debate on the concept of lying, from the early reflections of St. Augustine to contemporary philosophy. We will discuss the connection between lying and other concepts of philosophical interest such as assertion, sincerity, speaker’s intentions, and the distinction between literal content and pragmatic enrichment, providing the reader with an introduction to the most important conceptual distinctions stemmed from more than two thousand years of philosophical reflection on the matter.). (shrink)

Lies come in different sizes. There are little white lies, slight stretches, exaggerations, fibs, and whoppers. Such terms can reflect different aspects of lies, but one of these is how far a lie is from what the liar really thinks. This paper proposes that this dimension of lie-size reflects a scalar aspect of sincerity. Drawing inspiration from the study of truthlikeness, the paper elucidates this aspect of sincerity, which I call “truthful-likeness”. Truthful-likeness reflects how sincere a reply to a question (...) is, based on how close the speaker takes the reply to be to their best available one. A related measure, expected subjective truth factor, reflects how sincere a constative act that is not a reply to a question is, based on how close to being true the speaker thinks it is. (shrink)

Moore’s paradox, the infamous felt bizarreness of sincerely uttering something of the form “I believe grass is green, but it ain’t”—has attracted a lot of attention since its original discovery (Moore 1942). It is often taken to be a paradox of belief—in the sense that the locus of the inconsistency is the beliefs of someone who so sincerely utters. This claim has been labeled as the priority thesis: If you have an explanation of why a putative content could not be (...) coherently believed, you thereby have an explanation of why it cannot be coherently asserted. (Shoemaker 1995). The priority thesis, however, is insufficient to give a general explanation of Moore-paradoxical phenomena and, moreover, it’s false. I demonstrate this, then show how to give a commitment-theoretic account of Moore Paradoxicality, drawing on work by Bach and Harnish. The resulting account has the virtue of explaining not only cases of pragmatic incoherence involving assertions, but also cases of cognate incoherence arising for other speech acts, such as promising, guaranteeing, ordering, and the like. (shrink)

Sincerity is essential to communication: without a norm of sincerity, we could hardly trust what other people tell us. But what does it take to be sincere, exactly? And why is sincerity so important? Sincerity and Insincerity offers a comprehensive review of existing philosophical work on the nature of sincerity and its epistemic value. It puts forward a novel, fine-grained account of what sincerity and insincerity are, and dives into the grey area between the two, identifying various ways in which (...) speakers can be partially sincere. Integrating ideas from different philosophical subfields and traditions, it offers an updated perspective on what makes sincerity epistemically valuable, giving serious consideration to the idea that sincerity is the norm of assertion. Overall, this Element provides a novel, informed perspective on what sincerity is, how it works, and why it matters. (shrink)

Retraction maneuvers are common currency and play a significant role in our discursive practices, as well as in our social and political lives. By expanding upon previous work (Caponetto 2020) and engaging with recent contributions to the topic (esp., Kukla, Steinberg 2021), I set out to unpack the illocutionary fabric of retraction. I construe retraction as a higher-order speech act whose definitional function is to cancel the normative update enacted by some previous, lower-order speech act. I identify and examine a (...) set of general felicity conditions for retraction. The picture that emerges includes the following features. (i) Retraction operates on felicitous speech acts: since you cannot cancel what was never done, any attempt to retract an infelicitous act would result in an infelicitous retraction. (ii) One can only retract one’s own speech acts—as such, retracting involves admitting responsibility or authorship. (iii) Depending on the act to be retracted, a retraction may require that the audience recognizes and accepts the speaker’s attempt to retract. I conclude by stressing that retractions are often accompanied by reason-stating assertions, whose insincerity may affect the felicity of the retraction. (shrink)

In this paper, I argue (1) that the contents of some delusions are believed with sufficient confidence; (2) that a delusional subject could have a conscious belief in the content of his delusion (p), and concurrently judge a contradictory content (not-p) – his delusion could be transparent, and (3) that the existence of even one such case reveals a problem with pretty much all existing accounts of lying, since it suggests that one can lie by asserting what one consciously and (...) confidently believes is true, and (4) sincerity, since it suggests that asserting a proposition you believe is true is neither sufficient nor necessary for sincerity. If I am right about (1) and (2), then (3) and (4) follow easily. Therefore, the paper is mainly devoted to an analysis of transparent delusion and defending (1) and (2). (shrink)

I argue that what speakers mean or express can be determined by their implicit or unconscious states, rather than explicit or conscious states. Further, on this basis, I show that the sincerity conditions for utterances can also be fixed by implicit states. This is a surprising result which goes against common assumptions about speech acts and sincerity. Roughly, I argue that the result is implied by two plausible and independent theories of the metaphysics of speaker meaning and, further, that this (...) is a robust basis on which to make an inference, with a fair degree of confidence, about the relationship between expression and implicit attitudes. (shrink)

Sam Berstler has recently argued for a fairness-based moral difference between lying and misleading. According to Berstler, the liar, but not the misleader, unfairly free rides on the Lewisian conventions which ground public-language meaning. Although compelling, the pragmatic and metasemantic backdrop within which this moral reason is located allows for the generation of a vicious explanatory circle. Simply, this backdrop entails that no speaker has ever performed an assertion. As I argue, escaping the circle requires rejecting Berstler’s fairness-based reason against (...) lying. The problem is a general one: the wrong of lying cannot be founded on the goods of language. (shrink)

This paper examines the connection between lies, deception, and self-deception. Understanding this connection is important because the consensus is that you cannot deceive yourself by lying since you cannot make yourself believe as true a proposition you already believe is false – and, as a liar, you must assert a proposition you believe is false. My solution involves refining our analysis of lying: people can lie by asserting what they confidently believe is true. Thus, self-deceivers need not replace one belief (...) with another; rather, they may just increase existing credence in a proposition they already believe is true. (shrink)

En Sobre un presunto derecho a mentir por filantropía[1] Kant expone el deber incondicionado de veracidad, que ha sido problemático para la filosofía kantiana porque parece obligar a las personas a ser veraces en todas sus declaraciones, sin importar si son comunicaciones públicas o privadas. Llamaré extensiva a la interpretación que sostiene la obligación de ser veraces en todas las declaraciones y mostraré que es causa de inconsistencias con la Doctrina del Derecho. Las inconsistencias se resuelven con una interpretación restrictiva (...) de este deber: la obligación de veracidad es aplicable solo a las comunicaciones públicas. Si mi interpretación es correcta, todas las comunicaciones públicas, ya sean hechas por ciudadanos o funcionarios, tienen la obligación de ser veraces, pero no en las privadas. Mi interpretación es consistente con el resto de los textos donde Kant habla de la comunicación pública. (shrink)

Many theorists assume that a request is sincere if the speaker wants the addressee to perform the act requested. I argue that this assumption predicts an implausible mismatch between sincere assertions and sincere directives and needs to be revised. I present an alternative view, according to which directive utterances can only be sincere if they are self-directed. Other-directed directives, however, can be genuine or fake, depending on whether the speaker wants the addressee to perform the act in question. Finally, I (...) argue that this new perspective opens the door to a satisfying theory of authentic expression, for both assertive and directive utterances. Authenticity consists in the combination of genuine and sincere speech, for example, in the case of assertion, when speakers assert something which they both believe (sincerity) and want the addressee to believe (genuineness). (shrink)

This paper argues that bullshit is a practical resource for self-deceiving individuals, or those who merely prefer to avoid self-examination, insofar as it is able to provide a mask for poor doxastic hygiene. While self-deception and bullshit are distinct phenomena, and bullshit does not cause self-deception, bullshit disrupts the capacity to interrogate the motivational biasses that fuel deception. The communicative misdirection engaged in by ordinary social bullshitters is applied reflexively by the self-deceiver to distort, evade, and obfuscate the self-deceiver's self-accounting. (...) This discussion presupposes a broadly narrative approach to self-awareness and discusses how a motivated susceptibility to bullshit offers an explanation how our reports about ourselves can be frequently at odds with reality, and suggests that a complacency about rational validation of belief outside of self-certainty, i.e., the prevalence of bullshit, is even more of a threat than Frankfurt thought it to be. (shrink)

This paper is concerned with situations in which a speaker issues many speech acts at the same time. A common example is the publication of a large text such as a book containing many distinct assertions. It is argued that these cases present a challenge for speech act theory related to how we are to understand sincerity. With reference to the well known paradox of the preface, it is argued that sincerity of such bulk speech cannot be understood as a (...) simple conjunction of the sincerity of the encoded acts. A proposal is given according to which sincere bulk speech requires the speaker explicitly and as precisely as possible mark any subsets of her communication about which she has doubts. (shrink)

We argue that the main results of scientific papers may appropriately be published even if they are false, unjustified, and not believed to be true or justified by their author. To defend this claim we draw upon the literature studying the norms of assertion, and consider how they would apply if one attempted to hold claims made in scientific papers to their strictures, as assertions and discovery claims in scientific papers seem naturally analogous. We first use a case study of (...) William H. Bragg’s early 20th century work in physics to demonstrate that successful science has in fact violated these norms. We then argue that features of the social epistemic arrangement of science which are necessary for its long run success require that we do not hold claims of scientific results to their standards. We end by making a suggestion about the norms that it would be appropriate to hold scientific claims to, along with an explanation of why the social epistemology of science—considered as an instance of collective inquiry—would require such apparently lax norms for claims to be put forward. (shrink)

The past few years have seen a dramatic backlash against identity politics from academics such as Michael Sandel, Kwame Appiah, Mark Lilla, and Francis Fukuyama. In the vocabulary of identity conceptions, we can classify this as a reaction to a growing dissatisfaction with the perceived hollowness and ineffectiveness of “authenticity” that calls for a return to “sincerity”—or a “Political New Sincerity.” We argue that a third identity paradigm is in play as well, namely “profilicity.” This profile-based approach to understanding oneself, (...) others, and the world has had a major impact on social and political life, and yet has gone largely unnoticed or otherwise been mis-diagnosed. Our analysis provides a critical reflection on the emergence of profilicity to pave the way for developing insights into our changing sociopolitical and inter-personal landscapes. (shrink)

Arguably, the existence of bald-faced (i.e., knowingly undisguised) lies entails that not all lies are intended to deceive. Two kinds of bald-faced lies exist in the literature: those based on some common knowledge that implies that you are lying and those that involve tell-tale signs (e.g., blushing) that show that you are lying. I designed the tell-tale sign bald-faced lies to avoid objections raised against the common knowledge bald-faced lies but I now see that they are more problematic than what (...) I initially thought. Therefore, I will discuss these lies in more detail, refine the existing cases, and resolve some anticipated objections. I conclude that tell-tale sign bald-faced lies are genuine lies not intended to deceive. (shrink)

In a recent book (_Lying and insincerity_, Oxford University Press, 2018), Andreas Stokke argues that one lies iff one says something one believes to be false, thereby proposing that it becomes common ground. This paper shows that Stokke’s proposal is unable to draw the right distinctions about insincere performative utterances. The objection also has repercussions on theories of assertion, because it poses a novel challenge to any attempt to define assertion as a proposal to update the common ground.

We explore the speech act of amplification and its newfound prominence in online speech environments. Then we point to some puzzles this raises for the strategy of ‘fighting speech with more speech’.

Our life with art is suffused with trust. We don’t just trust one another’s aesthetic testimony; we trust one another’s aesthetic actions. Audiences trust artists to have made it worth their while; artists trust audiences to put in the effort. Without trust, audiences would have little reason to put in the effort to understand difficult and unfamiliar art. I offer a theory of aesthetic trust, which highlights the importance of trust in aesthetic sincerity. We trust in another’s aesthetic sincerity when (...) we rely on them to fulfill their commitments to act for aesthetic reasons — rather than for, say, financial, social, or political reasons. We feel most thoroughly betrayed by an artist, not when they make bad art, but when they sell out. This teaches us something about the nature of trust in general. According to many standard theories, trust involves thinking the trusted to be cooperative or good-natured. But trust in aesthetic sincerity is different. We trust artists to be true to their own aesthetic sensibility, which might involve selfishly ignoring their audience’s needs. Why do we care so much about an artist’s sincerity, rather than merely trusting them to make good art? We emphasize sincerity when wish to encourage originality, rather than to demand success along predictable lines. And we ask for sincerity when our goal is to discover a shared sensibility. In moral life, we often try to force convergence through coordinated effort. But in aesthetic life, we often hope for the lovely discovery that our sensibilities were similar all along. And for that we need to ask for sincerity, rather than overt coordination. (shrink)

According to the subjective view of lying, speakers can lie by asserting a true proposition, as long as they believe this proposition to be false. This view contrasts with the objective view, according to which lying requires the actual falsity of the proposition asserted. The aim of this paper is to draw attention to pairs of assertions that differ only in intuitively redundant content and to show that such pairs of assertions are a reason to favour the subjective view of (...) lying over the objective one. (shrink)

If I were to say, “Agnes does not know that it is raining, but it is,” this seems like a perfectly coherent way of describing Agnes’s epistemic position. If I were to add, “And I don’t know if it is, either,” this seems quite strange. In this chapter, we shall look at some statements that seem, in some sense, contradictory, even though it seems that these statements can express propositions that are contingently true or false. Moore thought it was paradoxical (...) that statements that can express true propositions or contingently false propositions should nevertheless seem absurd like this. If we can account for the absurdity, we shall solve Moore’s Paradox. In this chapter, we shall look at Moore’s proposals and more recent discussions of Moorean absurd thought and speech. (shrink)

In the final chapter of Speech Matters, Seana Shiffrin argues that institutions have especially stringent duties to protect speech freedoms. In this article, I develop a few lines of criticism. First, I question whether Shiffrin’s framework of justified suspended contexts is appropriate for institutional settings. Second, I challenge the presumption that the knowledge-gathering function performed by police is necessarily compromised by insincere practices. Third, I criticize Shiffrin’s characterization of the university as involving a complete repudiation of enforced consensus, and I (...) express doubts about the close connection between education and democratic legitimation that Shiffrin endorses. Finally, I raise a problem with the book’s overall argument: even if one agrees that speech freedoms are necessary for moral development, they also may be threatening to moral development. The upshot is that the protection of speech should be modulated in order to account for the potential conflicts between sincerity and other valuable ends, rather than being oriented above all to sincerity. (shrink)

This article defends the view that liars need not intend to deceive. I present common objections to this view in detail and then propose a case of a liar who can lie but who cannot deceive in any relevant sense. I then modify this case to get a situation in which this person lies intending to tell his hearer the truth and he does this by way of getting the hearer to recognize his intention to tell the truth by lying. (...) This case, and further cases that I develop from it, demonstrate that lying without the intention to deceive is possible. (shrink)

ABSTRACT Because Pastafarianism – or the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster – is a parodic religion, common sense suggests its ‘adherents’ should not receive exemptions. However, the prima facie case for excluding Pastafarians is complicated by the fact that many assert their religion is as legitimate as any other religion and that their beliefs are genuine. Indeed, Pastafarians have already obtained exemptions in various countries. Taking the dominant liberal egalitarian, integrity‐based approach to exemptions, this article investigates whether there is (...) a principled, objective basis for excluding Pastafarians that accounts for their assertions. To that end, I examine four tests: a religion, seriousness, obligation, and sincerity test. I assess whether each test can actually exclude Pastafarians, and if it could, can it do so in a way that is consistent with liberal egalitarian commitments. I argue that only a sincerity test – based on consistent behaviour and a willingness to bear the costs of one's beliefs – satisfies both of these conditions, but, on a weak and contingent basis. (shrink)

Is there anything wrong with publishing philosophical work which one does not believe (publishing without belief, henceforth referred to as ‘PWB’)? I argue that there is not: the practice isn’t intrinsically wrong, nor is there a compelling consequentialist argument against it. Therefore, the philosophical community should neither proscribe nor sanction it. The paper proceeds as follows. First, I’ll clarify and motivate the problem, using both hypothetical examples and a recent real-world case. Next, I’ll look at arguments that there is something (...) wrong with PWB, and show that none is sound. Then, I’ll give some reasons for thinking a norm against PWB is detrimental to the profession. Do I believe these arguments? If I’m right, it shouldn’t matter. (shrink)

In this essay I offer a new interpretation of Wang Yangming's 王陽明 well-known doctrine of zhi xing he yi 知行合一 by contextualizing it in his endeavor to seek an alternative way of Confucian learning other than Zhu Xi's 朱熹. Both Wang and Zhu Xi understand the ideal of a Confucian sage as cheng 誠, but propose different ways to attain it. To some extent, Wang's original concern has long been neglected. The recent scholarship on Wang's unity of knowing and doing (...) focuses on whether Wang's notion of zhi is restricted to moral knowledge, and whether the dictum makes sense when facing the challenge of weakness of will. Frisina takes Wang's notion of... (shrink)

What is the relationship between lying, belief, and knowledge? Prominent accounts of lying define it in terms of belief, namely telling someone something one believes to be false, often with the intent to deceive. This paper develops a novel account of lying by deriving evaluative dimensions of responsibility from the knowledge norm of assertion. Lies are best understood as special cases of vicious assertion; lying is the anti-paradigm of proper assertion. This enables an account of lying in terms of knowledge: (...) roughly, lying is telling someone something you know ain't so. (shrink)

This book offers fresh perspectives on untruthfulness entailed in various forms of irony, deception and humour, which have so far constituted independent foci of linguistic and philosophical investigation. These three distinct (albeit sometimes co-occurring) notions are brought together within a neo-Gricean framework and consistently discussed as representing overt or covert untruthfulness. The postulates that represent the interface between language philosophy and pragmatics are illustrated with scripted interactions culled from the series House, which help appreciate the complexities of the three concepts (...) at hand. Apart from affording new insights into the nature of irony, deception and humour, this book critically examines previous literature on these notions, as well as relevant aspects of Grice's philosophy of language. Giving a state-of-theart picture of untruthfulness, this publication will be of interest to both experienced and inexperienced researchers studying Grice's philosophy, irony, deception and/or humour. (shrink)

-/- Irony is an intriguing topic, central to the study of meaning in language. This book provides an introduction to the pragmatics of irony. It surveys key work carried out on irony in a range of disciplines such as semantics, pragmatics, philosophy and literary studies, and from a variety of theoretical perspectives including Grice's approach, Sperber and Wilson's echoic account, and Clark and Gerrig's pretense theory. It looks at a number of uses of irony and explores how irony can be (...) misunderstood cross-culturally, before delving into the key debates on the pragmatics of irony: is irony always negative? Why do speakers communicate via irony, and which strategies do they usually employ? How are irony and sarcasm different? Is irony always funny? To answer these questions, basic pragmatic notions are introduced and explained. It includes multiple examples and activities to enable the reader to apply the theoretical frameworks to actual everyday instances of irony. (shrink)

According to the Acceptance Principle, a person is entitled to accept a proposition that is presented as true (asserted) and that is intelligible to him or her, unless there are stronger reasons not to. Burge assumes this Principle and then argues that it has an apriori justification, basis or rationale. This paper expounds Burge's teleological reliability framework and the details of his a priori justification for the Principle. It then raises three significant doubts.

In the philosophical literature on the definition of lying, the analysis is generally restricted to cases of flat-out belief. This chapter considers the complex phenomenon of lies involving partial beliefs – beliefs ranging from mere uncertainty to absolute certainty. The first section analyses lies uttered while holding a graded belief in the falsity of the assertion, and presents a revised insincerity condition, requiring that the liar believes the assertion to be more likely to be false than true. The second section (...) analyses assertions that express graded beliefs, exploring how mitigation and reinforcement can alter the insincerity conditions for lying. The last section considers the case of lies that attack certainty (knowledge-lies), understood as attempt to alter the hearer's graded beliefs. (shrink)

This handbook brings together past and current research on all aspects of lying and deception, with chapters contributed by leading international experts in the field. We are confronted daily with cases of lying, deception, bullshitting, and 'fake news', making it imperative to understand how lying works, how it can be defined, and whether it can be detected. A further important issue is whether lying should always be considered a bad thing or if, in some cases, it is simply a useful (...) instrument of human cognition. This volume is the first to offer a comprehensive and up-to-date exploration of these and other issues from the combined perspectives of linguistics, philosophy, and psychology. Chapters offer precise definitions of lying and its subtypes, and outline the range of fields in which lying and deception play a role, from empirical lie detection and the acquisition of lying to its role in fiction, metaphor, and humour. They also describe the tools and approaches that are used by scholars researching lying and deception, such as questionnaire studies, EEG, neuroimaging, and the polygraph. The volume will be an essential reference for students and researchers in a range of fields who are looking to deepen their understanding of all aspects of lying and deception, and will contribute to establishing the vibrant new field of interdisciplinary lying research. (shrink)

This chapter discusses insincerity in light of the fact that many beliefs and intentions are non-transparent. First, for some mental states, one may be in such states without believing that one is. Second, for some mental states, one may believe that one is in such states without being in them. The chapter introduces the difference between deep and shallow conceptions of insincerity. On deep views, insincerity depends on attitudes that may be unconscious, while on shallow views, insincerity depends on one’s (...) conscious mental attitudes. By considering examples involving conflict between what is said and the speaker’s beliefs about her beliefs, the chapter argues that the appropriate attitude to focus on is mental assent, which is an act of conscious judging as the result of consideration. (shrink)

This chapter provides a new theory of the notion of what is said that is central to the book’s account of assertion, and hence of lying. It argues that what is said by utterances, in context, is relative to discourse structure, in particular, to socalled questions under discussion. The chapter shows that utterances of the same declarative sentence can be used to say, and hence assert, different things relative to which question is being addressed. In turn, the same declarative utterance (...) may be a lie relative to one question under discussion and merely misleading relative to another question under discussion. Discourse-insensitive accounts of what is said fail to capture the lying-misleading distinction. A semantics for questions is provided and is employed in a detailed definition of what is said relative to questions under. (shrink)

This chapter provides a detailed account of the notion of the common ground of conversations, which plays a central role in the Stalnakerian account of assertion that the book relies on for its characterization of lying. The chapter specifies that common ground information is defined in terms of acceptance, rather than belief, and shows how this feature allows that bald-faced lies are assertions. Moreover, the chapter demonstrates how the Stalnakerian conception of communication makes room for bald-faced implicatures. A number of (...) objections to this picture of assertion and the common ground definition of lying are rebutted, including issues concerning the notion of proposing information for common ground uptake, as well as problems involving metaphor and malapropism. (shrink)

The notions of what is said and assertion, as relative to questions under discussion, are used to provide an account of the lying-misleading distinction. The chapter argues that utterances are sometimes interpreted relative to the so-called Big Question, roughly paraphrased by “What is the world like?” This observation is shown to account for the fact that, when conveying standard conversational implicatures, what is asserted is likewise proposed for the common ground. The chapter applies the resulting account of the lying-misleading distinction (...) to ways of lying and misleading with incomplete predicates, possessives, presuppositions, pronouns, and prosodic focus. A formal notion of contextual questionentailment is defined which shows when it is possible to mislead with respect to a question under discussion while avoiding outright lying. (shrink)

This chapter extends the analysis of insincere language use from the last chapter to non-declarative utterances, including imperative, interrogative, and exclamative utterances. It argues that such utterances communicate information about the speaker’s attitudes. The chapter offers an account of insincerity in the non-declarative realm that is shallow. On this view, a non-declarative utterance is insincere when it is made without a conscious intention to avoid communicating information not matching the speaker’s conscious attitudes. A notion of a communicative act is defined, (...) and the chapter argues that only such acts can be evaluated as insincere or not. A framework for understanding the semantics and pragmatics of non-declarative clause types is sketched and the chapter shows how it explains why non-declaratives cannot be used to lie. (shrink)

This chapter argues for a shallow conception of insincerity. It argues that whether an utterance is insincere depends on the speaker’s conscious attitudes toward what is communicated as well as on his or her conscious intentions in making the utterance. Various ways of speaking spontaneously and of speaking without thinking are considered. A broad characterization of insincerity for declarative utterances is set out, according to which a declarative utterance is when it is made without a conscious intention to contribute an (...) answer to a question under discussion that corresponds to one’s conscious attitudes, while avoiding communicating false information in the process. (shrink)

This chapter extends the analysis of bullshitting from the last chapter to provide an account of the difference between bullshitting and lying. It distinguishes between different kinds of lying. The difference between ordinary lying and Augustinian real lying is explained. The chapters shows that while there is a sense in which ordinary liars are indifferent toward whether their assertions are true or false answers to questions under discussion, such speakers are nevertheless clearly distinguishable from bullshitters. The chapter uses these observations (...) to argue that while lying and bullshitting are not incompatible, most lying is not bullshitting. Both the ordinary liar and the Augustinian real liar are concerned with truth-values, albeit in different ways, while the bullshitter is indifferent toward truth and falsity. (shrink)

This chapter presents the traditional view of lying, according to which to lie is to say something one believes to be false with the intent to deceive. It is argued that this view is too narrow in that lying does not necessarily involve intentions to deceive, and this alternative account of lying is defended against critical attempts to reconcile the deceptive view of lying with so-called bald-faced lying. The chapter ends by laying out the account of lying argued for in (...) the book. According to this view, to lie is to assert something one believes to be false, where assertion is understood as saying something and thereby propose that it become part of the common ground of the conversation. (shrink)

This chapter discusses the phenomenon of bullshitting, traditionally understood as utterances made by speakers who are indifferent toward the truth or falsity of what they say. It argues that indifference toward truth is a more differentiated phenomenon than originally proposed by such accounts. A way of understanding indifference toward truth in terms of indifference toward inquiry and questions under discussion is introduced. The chapter criticizes attempts to characterize bullshitting in terms of Gricean Quality maxims. It shows that speakers may be (...) indifferent toward truth in the sense of being indifferent toward contributing true answers to questions under discussion while caring about the truth-value of their particular assertions. This view is applied to phenomena such as evasion and changing the topic, and argues that lying and bullshitting may sometimes be used to advance inquiry. (shrink)

This chapter argues against accounts of lying in terms of Gricean maxims. It first considers attempts to characterize lying in terms of Grice’s First Maxim of Quality, admonishing speakers to avoid saying what they believe to be false. Even though many lies are instances of covert violations of the First Maxim of Quality, the phenomenon of bald-faced lies demonstrates that some lies overtly violate the First Maxim of Quality. In light of this, one account takes lies to be violations of (...) the First Maxim of Quality, covert or overt. This view is seen to wrongly count ironic utterances as lies. The chapter then goes on to discuss an alternative Gricean conception of lying in terms of the Supermaxim of Quality. Yet this view is seen to wrongly count false implicatures as lies. The chapter concludes that lying cannot satisfactorily be characterized in terms of Gricean maxims. (shrink)