Techniques that work by going around a person's judgement treat them as a mechanism

The argument

Proponents of this position argue that the characteristic resources of persuasion operate below the level at which a person can assess them. Timing, repetition, the order in which things are mentioned, the fear or flattery attached to an option, the company the proposal is seen in: these change what people conclude without ever presenting themselves as reasons. Proponents argue that this is what generates the distinctive ethical problem, because the subject is not in a position to weigh what is acting on them. The mechanism is the removal of the one safeguard that argumentation leaves in place. When a reason is offered, the person can examine it, find it wanting and decline it, and the arguer's influence runs entirely through that examination. When an effect is produced by repetition or by the arrangement of alternatives, there is nothing for the person to examine, and declining is not an option they can exercise because they cannot see what to decline. Proponents argue this is why the objection survives even when the persuader's aims are good: the method has set aside the subject's own judgement, and doing so without their knowledge is a wrong independent of the outcome. Proponents add that the asymmetry shows in what each practice can survive being disclosed. An argument loses nothing when its workings are explained; explaining them is simply making the argument again. Most techniques of persuasion are weakened or destroyed by disclosure, which proponents take as a sign that they depend on not being examined. On this account a practice that works best unnoticed is one that will keep producing ethical dilemmas, because concealment is doing part of the work.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Critics argue the disclosure test is not as clean as it appears. Pointing out that an argument has been arranged to lead somewhere does change how it lands, and audiences discount reasoning they believe was assembled by an interested party. They add that many ordinary and unobjectionable practices work without presenting reasons, including clear writing, a well-chosen example and a calm manner, so operating below the level of explicit reasons cannot by itself be the wrong. Others object that people are not as defenceless as the account implies, since audiences routinely recognise and resist attempts to move them, which is a form of examination the premise denies them.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Critics argue the premise draws the line in the wrong place. Vividness, order and emphasis do not bypass judgement so much as inform it, since what makes a consideration salient is part of what makes it available to be weighed at all. [Rejecting P2] The claim that the subject cannot decline is disputed. Audiences discount for tone, notice when they are being hurried and resist appeals they find crude, which is examination of the influence even where the influence was not offered as a reason. [Rejecting P3] Critics contest the disclosure test. Explaining that an argument was assembled to reach a particular conclusion does weaken it, while many persuasive devices survive disclosure intact, including a clear structure and a well-chosen illustration.