Brian Haas

We all have been deceived, whether by politicians, pundits or peers. Likely more often than we would wish to admit. But what is it to be deceived? As we argue, victims of deception settle on a false answer to a question. This settling proposal not only makes good on the intuitive idea that sceptical agents are harder to deceive than their non-sceptical peers, but also finds support in the infelicity of reporting an agent as both inquiring and deceived. Want to avoid being duped? Our proposal provides an answer: inquire further, don't settle.

Orthodoxy within the literature on the lying-misleading distinction understands the distinction to be between asserting disbelieved information, maybe with an intention to deceive, and conversationally implicating such information by asserting something believed to be true. The main battleground within Orthodoxy is over what account of assertion can bear this weight. In this paper I argue against Orthodoxy. More specifically, I argue that lying does not require assertion, nor is the relevant attitude disbelief. Speakers can expressively lie when they utter "Ouch!" by not being in acute pain. Expressive lies necessitate a dramatic shift away from the orthodox, assertion-based theory of lying that dominates the literature and towards a heterodox, expressing-based one.

Does lying require an intention to deceive? Deceptionists answer 'Yes', while Non-Deceptionists answer 'No'. Non-Deceptionists point to a host of purported counterexamples in support of their position. Deceptionists are left unconvinced. By forging a stronger link between the lying and action-theoretic literatures, I offer a new argument against the Deceptionist position. One that must be responded to differently if it is to be countenanced by Deceptionists. I conclude by advancing a promising middle ground between these two positions.

Are slurring statements, when applied to members of the slurred group, true, false, or a little bit of both? Intuitions are mixed. And investigating more truth-value judgments is unlikely to cure the stalemate we find ourselves in. Truth-value judgments are just not up to the task. In their place, I propose we look to judgments of lying instead. This change in focus provides a new and better tool for understanding the complex semantics and pragmatics of slurs. As I argue, it also suggests that slurring statements encode, conventionally implicate and presuppose the same information as statements with the slur's neutral counterpart. I then briefly apply this style of argument to the semantics and pragmatics of evaluative language more generally.

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.