Surely it isn’t an issue in the context of a show? These shows usually come with disclaimers, and the magician only ethically crosses a line if he starts manipulating people. I’ve never seen this.
Yes I agree it
shouldn't be an issue because it is in the context of the show and there is usually a disclaimer but the outcome of this study suggests people are still swayed by such performances regardless of what should be. Not really surprising since people often take information from questionable sources countless times, for instance many people get their science interpretations from their religious outlets rather than science outlets. Realistically people should be wary of information concerning claims made from non professionals or people with competing interests, like a magician wanting to enhance his show some way.
Similarly to above where people will take information from bad places if it is dressed a way they like, Brown's is giving himself a veneer of the credibility of science with his claims. While his intent is likely to achieve a grander effect in his act there is a bit of accidental misinformation happening even though this is not his intent at large. The intent of the sender doesn't change the some of the outcome of how the pieces are viewed by the public/receiver/audience.
Once I put a piece of information out there for others it is up to the viewer to ascribe their own take on that information. The viewer does not do this in a vacuum and the viewership has many levels of competency and information on the subject. I feel I have a certain responsibility to curate that information I am responsible for in a way that does minimal harm when I put that information out there. To do this I must see how my actions effect those around me and take how they view that information into consideration when I craft my performance. If a waiver or disclaimer doesn't do the job and I know that and continue detrimental actions I would think I am complicit in that negative outcome.
While you say its fine unless he starts manipulating people I think he bears some of the onus to address this because his actions prime people for such manipulation outside of the context of the show.
I remember David Blaine once stepping into this territory by guessing a loved ones name who it turned out had recently passed. The spectator teared up a bit and he took the opportunity to tell her that everything was ok and he said he was at peace. Did he cross a line? Maybe, but the woman seemed comforted and for the many religious people of the world is this really any different to having faith?
I would have to see how Blaine handled this because its not totally clear from what you wrote;
1) If he left the person with the feeling that he contacted the dead person in some I feel even if she were happier after he said what he did then he did something unethical. It primes or keeps enabling people to be delusional in a way that leaves them to be taken advantage of. It plays with their emotions in a way that he profits in some way from while the receiver possibly gets a detrimental idea reinforced.
2) If he said they were at peace meaning that simply that the person is no longer in pain then that is more ethical in my mind. That action lets the receiver make the choices and fill in the blanks where they want, iceberg writing theory style (kind of like RealityOnes presentation above). This way you do not attack their worldview concerning their loved ones death and give them some comfort at the same time.
I would hope that religions faith and faith in psychics were different but they hang their hats on similar hooks. This is a touchy area here because there are many arguments that equivocate using the word faith. While the intent and or methods of many psychics are questionable the intent of those using religion usually more wholesome. However they both suffer from similar problems from my point of view where intent doesn't matter because of the possible problematic outcomes from using such reasoning.
I take a Gettier Problem approach to this idea where how the ideas are warranted are important. We sometimes meet on common ground where our conclusions are the same with other peoples but how we got there is different. A conclusion can still be right but not actually supported by the premises used by some arguments. Problems can stem from these types of compromises, for instance non factual premises can get get legitimized in the eyes of the user this way and then used to come to wrong conclusions elsewhere.
I think that is a disservice to the audience or receiver when such compromises are used this way because it kicks the can down the road instead of dealing with how we warrant our ideas in a healthier manner. While number 2 above similarly kicks the can down the road for another go at another time and place it does so for the sake of the persons feelings in that situation. Someone pining the loss of a loved one is not the time or place to get all philosophical about how we warrant our ideas.
For me, magic inspires wonder. That wonder could make someone question their reality and their perceptions of the world and even their existence if you do it right. Isn’t that a wonderful thing?
To inspire wonder is the intent, but intent doesn't change the outcome of how an audience perceives the information they receive nor is it the sole outcome of the performance. My goal would be to inspire wonder while not crossing any ethical lines. That being said I think you can in most cases script a way to keep that intent and reduce the chances of having the audiences critical faculties diminished. However I am unsure if this can be done with say Brown's act because I think the ambiguity is central to his performance. He wants to leave you thinking maybe he is doing what he says he is.
To me that is certainly in a grey area ethically. After all we both agree that it is in the context of a show and perhaps the audience takes the information with too much credibility. I just lean towards the performer needing to take on the onus to address issues that arise from their performance a way that doesn't enable the exploitation the audiences tendencies in a detrimental way outside of the show.
My writing is still a bit scattered. Apologies for this.