Online research in philosophy

Recently, a number of authors—including Hitchcock & Knobe (2009) and Alicke, et al. (in press)—have argued that normative considerations are ubiquitous in causal cognition. In this paper, we first argue that these claims depend on a very large inferential leap that is not warranted either by the empirical data or on theoretical grounds. We then provide positive reasons—based both in theory and two novel experiments that we conducted—to think that the influence of normative considerations on causal cognition is not nearly (...) as widespread as has been claimed by these authors. Norms can play a significant cognitive role, but their influence is not ubiquitous. (shrink)

Philosophical Psychology, Volume 0, Issue 0, Page 1-18, Ahead of Print.

Empirical work on the use of causal language by ordinary people indicates that their causal attributions tend to be sensitive not only to purely descriptive considerations, but also to broadly moral considerations. For example, ordinary causal attributions appear to be highly sensitive to whether a behavior is permissible or impermissible. Recently, however, a consensus view has emerged that situates the role of permissibility information within a broader framework: According to the consensus, ordinary causal attributions are sensitive to whether or not (...) a behavior is generally out of the norm, where being out of the norm might indicate deviation from a prescriptive norm (a broadly moral consideration) or deviation from a statistical norm (a purely descriptive consideration). In contrast, we conjecture that ordinary causal attributions are more directly connected to broadly moral judgments about normative responsibility (the responsibility view). We present the results of a series of new experimental studies that are consistent with the responsibility view, while indicating that the consensus position is seriously mistaken. (shrink)

Knobe argues in his target article that asymmetries in intentionality judgments can be explained by the view that concepts such as intentionality are suffused with moral considerations. We believe that the “culpable control” model of blame can account both for Knobe's side effect findings and for findings that do not involve side effects.