Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Unintentional deception still deceives
  1. Doug Hardman
  1. Psychology, Bournemouth University, Poole, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Doug Hardman, Psychology, Bournemouth University, Poole, BH12 5BB, UK; dihardman{at}


In my recent article, Pretending to care, I argue that a better understanding of non-doxastic attitudes could improve our understanding of deception in clinical practice. In an insightful and well-argued response, Colgrove highlights three problems with my account. For the sake of brevity, in this reply I focus on the first: that my definition of deception is implausible because it does not involve intention. Although I concede that my initial broad definition needs modification, I argue that it should not be modified by involving intention but by involving responsibility.

  • Ethics- Medical
  • Philosophy- Medical

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.


  • Contributors The author is responsible for all aspects of the article.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles

  • Original research
    Doug Hardman
  • Response
    Nicholas Colgrove

Other content recommended for you