David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophical Studies 151 (2):159-176 (2010)
Recent studies by experimental philosophers demonstrate puzzling asymmetries in people’s judgments about intentional action, leading many philosophers to propose that normative factors are inappropriately influencing intentionality judgments. In this paper, I present and defend the Deep Self Model of judgments about intentional action that provides a quite different explanation for these judgment asymmetries. The Deep Self Model is based on the idea that people make an intuitive distinction between two parts of an agent’s psychology, an Acting Self that contains the desires, means-end beliefs, and intentions that are the immediate causal source of an agent’s actions, and a Deep Self, which contains an agent’s stable and central psychological attitudes, including the agent’s values, principles, life goals, and other more fundamental attitudes. The Deep Self Model proposes that when people are asked to make judgments about whether an agent brought about an outcome intentionally, in addition to standard criteria proposed in traditional models, people also assess an additional ‘Concordance Criterion’: Does the outcome concord with the psychological attitudes of the agent’s Deep Self? I show that the Deep Self Model can explain a very complex pattern of judgment asymmetries documented in the experimental philosophy literature, and does so in a way that has significant advantages over competing models.
|Keywords||Experimental philosophy Intentional action Knobe effect Folk psychology|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Alfred R. Mele & Fiery Cushman (2007). Intentional Action, Folk Judgments, and Stories: Sorting Things Out. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 31 (1):184–201.
Steven A. Sloman, Philip M. Fernbach & Scott Ewing (2012). A Causal Model of Intentionality Judgment. Mind and Language 27 (2):154-180.
Steven Sverdlik (2004). Intentionality and Moral Judgments in Commonsense Thought About Action. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology 24 (2):224-236.
Robrecht Vanderbeeken (2004). Models of Intentional Explanation. Philosophical Explorations 7 (3):233 – 246.
Fiery Cushman (2008). Crime and Punishment: Distinguishing the Roles of Causal and Intentional Analyses in Moral Judgment. Cognition 108 (2):353-380.
Alessandro Lanteri (2009). Judgements of Intentionality and Moral Worth: Experimental Challenges to Hindriks. Philosophical Quarterly 59 (237):713-720.
Jennifer Cole Wright & John Bengson (2009). Asymmetries in Judgments of Responsibility and Intentional Action. Mind and Language 24 (1):24-50.
Paulo Sousa & Colin Holbrook (2010). Folk Concepts of Intentional Action in the Contexts of Amoral and Immoral Luck. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 1 (3):351-370.
Chandra Sripada & Sara Konrath (2011). Telling More Than We Can Know About Intentional Action. Mind and Language 26 (3):353-380.
Florian Cova & Hichem Naar (2012). Testing Sripada's Deep Self Model. Philosophical Psychology 25 (5):647 - 659.
Added to index2009-07-11
Total downloads168 ( #2,916 of 1,011,615 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #64,700 of 1,011,615 )
How can I increase my downloads?