Ethics

Is it right for an author to publish a nonfiction piece arguing for a view the author does not really support? For example, say a tax professor writes and publishes an article arguing for a change in the tax law. The professor believes the change is worth considering, but should ultimately be rejected. Is it appropriate for the professor to publish an article arguing in favor of the reform (acknowledging perspectives against the proposal but concluding that it should be accepted)?

Comments

That's an interesting question. Certainly we don't begrudge a person advocating a position she may not support when it's her role to advocate this position. I'm thinking here of lawyers and certain members of government. However, in these cases the idea (though perhaps not the reality) is that truth and overall goodness will be achieved through a general process or system of advocacy. (Also, in such cases, arguments aren't put forth in the author's name alone, but rather on behalf of a client or agency.) One might argue that non-fiction can sometimes be part of a similar system--so that there's some good in throwing out proposals, suggestions and arguments one may not endorse in order that they be digested by a process that will, precisely through grappling with a variety of positions, arrive at a more comprehensive, nuanced and accurate view of reallity. (In certain moments I view professional philosophy in this way.)

But these cases seem exceptional to me. Even when the system allows it, the disingenous author violates or suspends a sort of implicit agreement that, in non-fiction at least, she will aim to communicate things that are informative and truthful. (One of our luminaries, Paul Grice, argued that successful communication--oral or inscribed--depends upon (and plays off of) certain implicit "maxims" such as that the speaker will not say something she believes to be false.)

Notice your reaction to the case at hand: not only do you wonder whether the professor has done something wrong, but I bet you find yourself perplexed as you try to assess the proposal itself. Compelling arguments have been given for a change in tax law, but these need to be weighed somehow against the fact that the expert who put them forward doesn't endorse them. Even if this isn't wrong, it's a recipe for communication break-down.

Read another response by Joseph G. Moore

Read another response about Ethics