The Deceiving Game

Abstract The moral comparison of the three venues deception—lying, falsely implicating, and nonverbal deception—is a central, ongoing debate in ethics deception. To date there has been no attempt to advance through experimental philosophy. Using methods economics, we devised strategic game test positions debate. Our article presents results shows how philosophical analysis allows drawing valid normative conclusions. conclusions testify against dominant position debate—that lying is morally worse than all non-lying deceptions. They offer prima facie support view that venue deception makes difference.