David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 12 (5):511-524 (2009)
Some theorists think that the more we get to know about the neural underpinnings of our behaviors, the less likely we will be to hold people responsible for their actions. This intuition has driven some to suspect that as neuroscience gains insight into the neurological causes of our actions, people will cease to view others as morally responsible for their actions, thus creating a troubling quandary for our legal system. This paper provides empirical evidence against such intuitions. Particularly, our studies of folk intuitions suggest that (1) when the causes of an action are described in neurological terms, they are not found to be any more exculpatory than when described in psychological terms, and (2) agents are not held fully responsible even for actions that are fully neurologically caused.
|Keywords||Responsibility Neuroscience Free will Experimental philosophy Mental illness Law|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
J. A. Fodor (1974). Special Sciences (Or: The Disunity of Science as a Working Hypothesis). Synthese 28 (2):97-115.
Jonathan Haidt (2001). The Emotional Dog and Its Rational Tail. Psychological Review 108 (4):Psychological Review.
Daniel Kahneman, Paul Slovic & Amos Tversky (eds.) (1982). Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge University Press.
Joshua Knobe (2003). Intentional Action and Side Effects in Ordinary Language. Analysis 63 (3):190–194.
Andrea Kohn Maikovich (2005). A New Understanding of Terrorism Using Cognitive Dissonance Principles. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 35 (4):373–397.
Citations of this work BETA
Eric Mandelbaum (2013). Thinking is Believing. Inquiry 57 (1):55-96.
Gunnar Björnsson & Karl Persson (2013). A Unified Empirical Account of Responsibility Judgments. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 87 (3):611-639.
Daniel Buchman, Judy Illes & Peter Reiner (2011). The Paradox of Addiction Neuroscience. Neuroethics 4 (2):65-77.
Felipe De Brigard & William Brady (2013). The Effect of What We Think May Happen on Our Judgments of Responsibility. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 4 (2):259-269.
Ron Berghmans, Johan de Jong, Aad Tibben & Guido de Wert (2009). On the Biomedicalization of Alcoholism. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 30 (4):311-321.
Similar books and articles
Friderik Klampfer (2004). Moral Responsibility for Unprevented Harm. Acta Analytica 19 (33):119-161.
Joseph Raz (2010). Being in the World. Ratio 23 (4):433-452.
Peter Vallentyne (2011). Responsibility and False Beliefs. In Carl Knight & Zofia Stemploska (eds.), Justice and Responsibility. Oxford University Press.
Douglas Birsch (2004). Moral Responsibility for Harm Caused by Computer System Failures. Ethics and Information Technology 6 (4):233-245.
Eddy A. Nahmias (2006). Folk Fears About Freedom and Responsibility: Determinism Vs. Reductionism. Journal of Cognition and Culture 6 (1-2):215-237.
David Faraci & David Shoemaker (2010). Insanity, Deep Selves, and Moral Responsibility: The Case of JoJo. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 1 (3): 319-332.
Andy Taylor (2010). Moral Responsibility and Subverting Causes. Dissertation, University of Reading
Eddy A. Nahmias, Stephen G. Morris, Thomas Nadelhoffer & Jason Turner (2005). Surveying Freedom: Folk Intuitions About Free Will and Moral Responsibility. Philosophical Psychology 18 (5):561-584.
Zofia Stemplowska (2008). Holding People Responsible for What They Do Not Control. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 7 (4):355-377.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads52 ( #30,612 of 1,100,892 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #58,761 of 1,100,892 )
How can I increase my downloads?