I'm puzzled by the charge of hair-splitting:
I'd have thought a distinction between deceptive and non-deceptive persuasion was part of common sense. And if we can go beyond common sense to specify more exactly what the difference is, then I'd think that a very useful project.
As for who decides -- the deceiver is in a position to know whether he is being deceptive or not. If the person to be deceived understood how the deceiver intended to persuade him, he would not be persuaded, and the deceiver knows this. The deceiver also knows that he doesn't himself want to be persuaded in this fashion.
But just at the level of making the distinction between deceptive or manipulative vs. rational persuasion, I do not mean to be discussing the issue of the morality of deception. Maybe there's never anything morally wrong with deceiving others -- but the distinction between the two kinds of persuasion remains. (For this reason, I'd avoid labeling them "legitimate" and "illegitimate.") For my purposes it's enough to think about the kind of persuasion you don't mind being persuaded by and the kind that you try to guard against.
[This message has been edited by ChrisW (edited April 06, 2004).]
|