David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Review of Philosophy and Psychology 3 (3):351-368 (2012)
For some reason, participants hold agents more responsible for their actions when a situation is described concretely than when the situation is described abstractly. We present examples of this phenomenon, and survey some attempts to explain it. We divide these attempts into two classes: affective theories and cognitive theories. After criticizing both types of theories we advance our novel hypothesis: that people believe that whenever a norm is violated, someone is responsible for it. This belief, along with the familiar workings of cognitive dissonance theory, is enough to not only explain all of the abstract/concrete paradoxes, but also explains seemingly unrelated effects, like the anthropomorphization of malfunctioning inanimate objects.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|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
Jesse J. Prinz (2007). The Emotional Construction of Morals. Oxford University Press.
Shaun Nichols & Joshua Knobe (2007). Moral Responsibility and Determinism: The Cognitive Science of Folk Intuitions. Noûs 41 (4):663–685.
Joshua Knobe (2003). Intentional Action and Side Effects in Ordinary Language. Analysis 63 (3):190–194.
John Mikhail (2007). Universal Moral Grammar: Theory, Evidence, and the Future. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 11 (4):143 –152.
Citations of this work BETA
Eric Mandelbaum (2013). Thinking is Believing. Inquiry 57 (1):55-96.
Adam Feltz & Florian Cova (2014). Moral Responsibility and Free Will: A Meta-Analysis. Consciousness and Cognition 30:234-246.
John Turri (forthcoming). Perceptions of Philosophical Inquiry: A Survey. Review of Philosophy and Psychology:1-12.
Carrie Figdor & Mark Phelan (2015). Is Free Will Necessary for Moral Responsibility?: A Case for Rethinking Their Relationship and the Design of Experimental Studies in Moral Psychology. Mind and Language 30 (5):603-627.
Similar books and articles
Saul Smilansky (2007). 10 Moral Paradoxes. Blackwell Pub..
Saul Smilansky (2007). Moral Paradoxes. Blackwell Pub..
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.
Aviezer Tucker (2003). The Epistemic Significance of Consensus. Inquiry 46 (4):501 – 521.
Daniel A. Kaufman (2002). Composite Objects and the Abstract/Concrete Distinction. Journal of Philosophical Research 27:215-238.
Rachel Tillman (2013). Ethical Embodiment and Moral Reasoning: A Challenge to Peter Singer. Hypatia 28 (1):18-31.
Paul Russell (2004). Responsibility and the Condition of Moral Sense. Philosophical Topics 32 (1-2):287-305.
David C. Noelle (1998). Is the Dynamical Hypothesis Falsifiable? On Unification in Theories of Cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (5):647-648.
Henry Markovits, Celine Doyon & Michael Simoneau (2002). Individual Differences in Working Memory and Conditional Reasoning with Concrete and Abstract Content. Thinking and Reasoning 8 (2):97 – 107.
Peter Mew (1975). Doubts About Moral Principles. Inquiry 18 (3):289 – 308.
Dustin Tucker & Richmond H. Thomason (2011). Paradoxes of Intensionality. Review of Symbolic Logic 4 (3):394-411.
Added to index2012-08-30
Total downloads138 ( #29,417 of 1,938,821 )
Recent downloads (6 months)18 ( #27,665 of 1,938,821 )
How can I increase my downloads?