Explain Yourself: The Ethics of Soliciting Advice

Many of our decisions, from the profoundly life-changing to the ultimately inconsequential, involve receiving advice from others. Whether from qualified experts, trusted companions, or complete strangers, the advice we receive from others often plays a significant role in determining both how we act and, in many cases, the extent to which our pursuits are successful. Given this, one might expect to find a considerable literature on the moral dimensions of advisory relationships. And, to be sure, it is not as if an ethical analysis of advice has gone completely overlooked by moral philosophers. Indeed, a rich and engaging literature has developed over the last few decades that takes up the ethics of advice from the perspective of the advisor (e.g., Hinchman 2005; Fleming 2016; Jonas 2017; Archard 2021). But while much has been said about what might be owed by those engaged in the practice of giving advice, relatively little has been said about the sorts of moral obligations that might attach to the practice of receiving advice. With the above case in mind, this paper defends two claims about the duties advisees owe to their advisors. First, I argue that advisees such as Arnold owe to advisors such as Betty what I will alternately call a duty of explanation or a duty to explain. In other words, I argue that when advisees opt not to follow the advice of their advisors, advisors are entitled to, and advisees are obliged to provide, an explanation for this decision. Second, I argue that the strength of this obligation will track the extent to which the advisory relationship from which it arises occurs within the context of a greater relationship in which trust plays a constitutive role, such as friendship. Thus, while Arnold would owe Betty an explanation in the case described even if they were strangers, the fact that Betty is a close friend to Arnold renders his duty to explain himself a particularly stringent one. The paper proceeds as follows. Section 2 defends an account of advice according to which advising represents a form of directive testimony the defining feature of which is an intention on the part of the advisor to deliberate and issue practical recommendations from the perspective of the advisee. In Section 3, I establish the first central claim of the paper by demonstrating why we ought to understand Arnold as obligated to explain himself to Betty. Section 4 takes up the second central claim of the paper. Here, I begin by establishing the existence of duties to explain between strangers. I then demonstrate that, to the extent that we are inclined to find duties of explanation owed to friends weightier than those owed to strangers, this intuition is best explained by the significance of trust to relations of friendship. Finally, in Section 5, I identify two qualifications for the attribution of duties to explain. For duties of explanation to arise, I argue, advice must be solicited, and there must be a reasonable expectation that one's decision not to heed the advice will be revealed to one's advisor. Let us begin by considering why the practice of advising exists in the first place. Central to this explanation is the simple fact that “[a]s practical agents, we need to decide what to do” (Fleming 2016, 183). And the problem, in turn, is that at any given time, or with respect to any given decision, there are often a great many things we could do, and it is not always obvious what we should do. As such, when presented with a set of alternatives for which no option reveals itself as clearly superior, we must engage in the “rationally non-optional” task of deliberating among to which of would be best for us to deliberating between among other an of the that for and of to our we to identify of that are to us or to to to this by engaging in and that at our among is the practice of giving and receiving advice. are practical agents, and as a of our many and (Fleming 2016, 183). we receive advice, we are to a perspective on our with the to in our or Given this of the role of advice, how should we the of many understand advising as a form of directive act (e.g., and 2021). to an act a directive if it to the to of directive on account and, advising But while such an account of advising is no it is not obvious to that advisory are best as in the described by what the of directive The of an act represents the in For this to be one of or that the But as and the is not the that a the that it is a that it is in and And this to a than a or or that the be In the of the in the of a and to intention that his or the it be as for the to and The for this intention are than on Here, an intention as as the takes advice to a to act in account to that the in be and I it that advisors that the advice they be by their advisees as a to act in this it is not that advisors the of the Indeed, I it that the of such a is what advising from or the account of by and account of advising as to to the in advice, to trust that the advice has a to act in And that this of the practice of advising an of advice as a of Indeed, we find for advice as a form of testimony in the of In advice, advisors to the claim that the of their as a for the to act in is that the account of I is not For is to between advice and testimony 2021). In to which to takes it that the to not to for between testimony and advice to what we the of a to to to ultimately in that takes it that ultimately in to to But I no to testimony and advice to be in this to that the in the case described or is at of both that his they not they ought to to their and that they to their it is not to that has presented a case of advising in the first place. the two in which we might the of advice. to the of advice in a that account of directive takes advice to a on the part of the to act by the advisee. and I that a of the of directive is of that one's be as a to this of we within the of directive between to be as a a or a both of which the of that be I understand the in by of his in to to be a or a than advice. In us little to that advice represents a form of it is that not of testimony of of testimony will often be than both and directive in the case of might we between the that, at on the account a act is directive if and if it an intention on the part of the that be by the as a to act in I will by of is that advising must a form to this for a act of testimony to be directive in the that advice, it must involve a of the is in and to for a and if has any has a that that are particularly of that could the that should to this to an case in which that are of that should to a that has that and a for in the first case is one of while the second case represents an of is in the second case to on and deliberate from Indeed, in the to to the of And while that, in to it is that to a for is has no to issue a that is by In the of the case of as in a for In as a perspective on that an And, to the extent that has on this perspective or that to the a and for to such an Thus, advice is from testimony directive testimony from when the takes their to a and for the to act in and for the to In turn, a expect this when they deliberate in a that to on the perspective of the is the of the for a to as a is the trust of the the trust has in the fact that the has to on perspective and that the has or that an advisor their to as advice to it up as with I in this paper a of according to which feature to is an intention on the part of the advisor to up and deliberate from the perspective of the advisee. complete account of this practice will that we about what it to up and deliberate from Here, I to a of on for others the to the that we act for in when our about how to act are by In the I to that to to deliberate from in the that advice from to to deliberate in a that is by their that this not that we must to deliberate on their in a or would to be the case when for to on the perspective of one's in is to deliberate such that the to and for are the of one's advisee. that we a of what the practice of advising we are to up the central of a paper and the role of might be a of moral But we to such a first two about the of advice I First, that our is on what we might call the the set of that on their practical and the in which they are to one be sure, act in that are to their or to their of their I that when we it is often we are in a that is And, at when giving advice, we should not the practical revealed by to be to their perspective if they are to be to their Second, that the is by engaging in with the is to need not deliberate or from perspective for practical recommendations to of for an to or to Indeed, there is a between our perspective and the of and it be the case that we will the of or their As such, while of advising must at to deliberate from the it the case that advisors or to a of the first central claim of the when advisees decide not to follow advice, they are obligated to explain this decision to their advisors. I begin by first the in a I then the claims by of a case of advice given between I it that if we claims then we are in the that advisees decide not to heed advice are obligated to explain this decision to their advisors. it is not obvious that claims ought to be In what of this I the of to the claims and establish With this case as our us of the claims in the above and we to The first claim in the what is on when Arnold Betty for advice, given our of advice. For Arnold to Betty for advice, according to our is for to to deliberate from his perspective as to or not should the and then to The second claim the is that the act of to deliberate and issue recommendations from one's perspective trust in their to were we to this of it is why we should to their advice in the first place. is the practice of advice to practical the advice we receive is of a practical in when we to be a on our at a of Thus, we that Arnold trust in to deliberate from his perspective by to might be that we often advice from friends on we to be of our friends as any of we our to and engage in we not such as as duties of explanation for the we must that advisory in and of duties of In I would that sorts of as of that on the by and an intention on the part of the advisor that their be by their as a to act in But in it is that one's advisor is about a of decision, it is not that that be as for In other words, the advisor not to trust in the a advisor And, in turn, the of advice not trust in the when they engage in with an Thus, we ought to from the not that advisory not duties of that engaging in with is not to as an advisory than advising an to find for the role of trust in the practice of advising in the Hinchman what it to advice. that, according to of advising involve an to on the part of the advisor In other words, to on to one's to trust one's to up their perspective and in a that is by their But then that as advising be as an to to to advice is to to be trusted the of their advice as a to act in And to an advisor to be trusted I argue, to trust in their to up and deliberate from one's to a form of trust is as the claim are with in as of for this claim from the literature on to to to others is one of that significant in the for on the of of in trust relations as an feature of In I it is to that a in by others as of and in as a of when to while many of our in by others as a of are of a and we as the claim in as a of by or about is to while I to be by the of as a of I a and in as a of by or close Thus, when Arnold Betty for advice, Arnold in Betty an in by Arnold as a of advice on the issue of his decision. And Arnold in a relationship to this is for and it is to his and The claim in the that the act of from the recommendations of an advisor in their to deliberate from one's I this claim to be an of claim that to is to to trust we this, then it that to from the recommendations of is to they in a that is by In other words, it is to that they are a of practical what ought to do. to the case at Arnold has Betty to deliberate from his and has his on of that not with the that the would of his with the Arnold to the that to deliberate on his gone in has to in a that is by his In this Arnold in to deliberate from his perspective and at the of for I it that a is when or or their Given this, as the claim of the I it that of a to we from claims and that Betty has both a in as and a in as by we from claim that Arnold in Betty by not to heed advice. In clearly that to a particularly of between a testimony and it In the we not to testimony In when we we the of the in a that Arnold and then to heed advice, to to not that not advice as on his would be the case if that testimony what ought to is that or his decision to the advice clearly that the of one has the set of that Arnold then one should not the in Thus, Arnold not and in by Arnold as a of advice on the of as a of practical of his for this in the first and this is to his the claim that an obligation Arnold to the to The on is I not to claim that Arnold is in any obligated to follow advice, I understand the obligation to the to to be a or an Betty for advice not Arnold any obligation to follow the advice of advice a if Arnold not to advice, then is obligated to the this to an of that to and that for we the to the of our advisors when we opt not to their advice as the claim to explain to explain to our advisors is to with a form of is to engage with as a practical and to why their to up our perspective has to an that or our In it us to to the that the directive of the act of us to and explain why we not our as a to act in the they And while it is by no that such an explanation will the to their the of our duty to explain is not to or the to and on the role of his Betty has on the that advice will and that be is to to advisory to the best of his and one this obligation is to explain himself when to advice. might this on for the of our it be the case that one one's duty to explain when one the or recommendations of one's advisor. I that what is of one's explanation is that it be I is the to to a Thus, it be that the explanation Arnold to Betty is that the what ultimately to do. the extent that this is Arnold has his obligation to explain himself even if the of that is by such an explanation is obligation is to one by in one's I to claims in the And in I to the first central claim of the as in claim As in the case of advisory are they are the of on the part of advisors, in as is about role as an is that in a relationship to this such that it is to his And while be to follow advice is the act of to us advice an obligation to that might from establishing this of In in we not to the advice we are we the to the of our advisors by to in a that is and with the I that duties of explanation as a of the of trust in an advisory But one might that duties of explanation be to advisees not to heed advice their to the advisory relationship Thus, to the second of the to and ultimately two for the existence of duties to explain. explanation for the existence of duties to explain to the that we obligations to our the about that, things we ought to a of our friends in their or (e.g., and the when we not to heed the advice of a as in the case of we this to this of duties of explanation find their in as a form of for to an obligation of to the advisory relationship itself is first of to this explanation about friendship. and us two for First, as we and other to be any of practical for of duties to to be and Second, even if could be as a claim about it is not that in the first place. and a of according to which has a duty to to in a to one's and it is that such a of the about the of there are many in which we would not our friends to to a to Indeed, there are a great many in which we would for our friends to to a to and and and are that should be then we must to duties of even if is it is not that it is up to the task of duties of For as will I we are in duties of explanation even in the case of advice between duties of But it is not obvious that one's decision not to heed the advice of a friend a of one's obligations to is that such a decision in this to deliberate from one's But this to with their and, even their to deliberate from one's is to it to to the of a friend while at the that they to deliberate from one's Thus, if duties of explanation they find their in second explanation to the simple that for advice and then to it is a to do, and that we ought to on this of no to the advisory relationship itself is duties of explanation as a of of the on I find this explanation if it is that it is to and then to heed advice, this explanation little to what this a of is at in mind, to a of the they others. The I the of and then to heed advice in of the it the of advisors. In the of an account of what in this a to do, I no to the account I As of the to the existence of duties to I that account is among the first of the two central advisees duties of explanation by us our to the In this I demonstrate that the strength or of duties to explain is not of advisory and explain why this is The is that the strength of duties to explain according to the greater context within which of advising place. I argue that duties of explanation are when we with our advisors in a greater relationship by such as friendship. us begin by considering a case of advice between strangers. is in a and should I to the to the and this the and then and the to the and such as as in to the should I to to the than is the act an to than a of as Arnold has Betty to in of of his a decision, has to in of his of as to what to to the in this that is a and might be in a to the as to an of has a form of trust by to In has in an in by as a of advice. Thus, advice, not to it and might be and even by an of his that for in the first place. the other if we that to the that to a at we would that any that might been to has been explanation as to why has not not it the that might been we that, in the of such an be to to the that an explanation is owed to it is that form of explanation is owed in this last then it as advisory in their of duties of In other words, advising need not in the context of a greater the of Arnold and for such obligations to The act of to as one's advisor while in the case be entitled to an explanation from the strength of this is might at we would it if this than a is in this that I the greater context of the advisory relationship is owed in of explanation on the greater relationship in which such advising In it on the extent to which trust plays a significant constitutive role in this greater why this is us the I it that will find the claim that duties of explanation are among friends than among might explain this In what of this I argue that it is the central role by trust in relations of that renders the duties of explanation owed among friends particularly of the of trust to such and Indeed, the on trust in relations of the to of that trust be up in for to that is an of trust which as of the which has for that there is a form of in that the for And, while that two might a one in that we would be to a relationship as one of if the not trust one in any context trust plays a role in relations of to explain that expect friends to be if part of what it is to be a friend is to be then to the extent that we an in by our friends as a we an in by as our both to be to trust our and we to be to trust Thus, while it is the case that we a in as by they with other sorts of this a it is particularly to that friends as The fact that our in as a of is particularly when it is friends to explain the intuition that friends owe particularly duties of explanation when they opt not to one advice to why this is the of As is and and is itself to to the given the constitutive role of trust in relations of this will be greater in when it occurs between And the of between friends is to be the obligations we to advisees to the of advice will be of greater when they receive advice from In to the case of advice given between not to the of in by one as of be sure, I to that there exists a in as a of by strangers. this a as in the above in which for what the existence of duties to explain even between on the one has in as by in to the one has in as by relatively is that this is trust plays an ultimately role in relationship to a need to trust one as a form of our relationship to one not in any on a of trust and As such, of by are not to to the extent that of by friends Thus, we at the second central claim of the the strength of an duty to explain will track the extent to which trust plays an role in their greater relationship with their advisor. trust plays a significant role, as in the case of one's duties of explanation will considerable the other trust plays a relatively role, obligations to the of friends and is a set of of of which will involve trust in and to The of the claim is that we must close to the role of trust in the greater within which we with our duties to explain to in of such two qualifications on the are in The first that, for advice to duties of it must be The second that duties of explanation when there is a reasonable expectation that one's decision not to heed the advice will be revealed to one's advisor. Let us in The first that must for advice to duties of explanation is that the advice be by the advisee. In I advice to be when the an to the advisor to deliberate on the about decision and the of this an not the advice from an is from any obligation to explain for not to heed their advice. why this is the establishing the existence of duties to explain from Section of the of the from the fact that to to as an deliberate on one's to a form of trust in As such, the obligation to explain from the to the one's advisor has in one's in that are with this In when we are considering of advice, no such has been it is the case that no of trust has been the has no of be for in advisor a in by as a of advice. this we which to a duty of explanation on the advisee. The second that must for advice to duties of explanation for the is a reasonable expectation that decision not to heed the advice in will be revealed to advisor. Given Arnold and Betty are close we expect that his decision not to heed advice will be revealed to at expect that the to will has advice. In if a in a and of for a it is reasonable to expect that will to advice. But why should we this of reasonable expectation to as a of an duties of for this by of that to an when one is of the But to why this is at in the context of the on it will be to what is on in this is not Given the of to that not to advice, it will be revealed to that has in to from his And there be no reasonable expectation of this of to we little to a obligation to this In we expect that Betty will of decision, and we expect that of will in as a we on Arnold an obligation to or this I in this paper that advisees are obligated to explain when they not to heed advice. I that the strength of a duty of explanation will the extent to which there exists a greater relationship between the advisor and that on a is in the strength of one's duties of explanation there be in which what would a duty to explain a in the of one's or the fact that an explanation other of the advisor such that would than the duties of explanation described are best as duties that not we on the of I at to to that a analysis of the moral on those receive advice is this is then a will be to those an might to an explanation from their advisor. paper on by the and I owe a to the of the and two for their on an of this paper. The no of

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.