Cognitive Systems Research 34:54-70 (2015)
AbstractIn a widely read essay, “For the Law, Neuroscience Changes Nothing and Everything,” Joshua Greene and Jonathan Cohen argue that the advance of neuroscience will result in the widespread rejection of free will, and with it – of retributivism. They go on to propose that consequentialist reforms are in order, and they predict such reforms will take place. We agree that retributivism should be rejected, and we too are optimistic that rejected it will be. But we don’t think that such a development will have much to do with neuroscience – it won’t, because neuroscience is unlikely to show that we have no free will. We have two main aims in this paper. The first is to rebut various aspects of the case against free will. The second is to examine the case for consequentialist reforms. We take Greene and Cohen’s essay as a hobbyhorse, but our criticisms are applicable to neurodeterministic anti-free-willism in general. We first suggest that Greene and Cohen take proponents of free will to be committed to an untenable homuncular account of agency. But proponents of free will can dispense with such a commitment. In fact, we argue, it is Greene and Cohen who work with an overly simple account of free will. We sketch a more nuanced conception. We then turn to the proposal for consequentialist reforms. We argue that retributivism will fall out of favor not as a consequence of neuroscience-driven rejection of free will, but rather, as a result of a familiar feature of moral progress – the expanding circle of concern. In short, retributivism can and must die, but neuroscience will not kill it – humanity will.
Similar books and articles
For the Law, Neuroscience Changes Nothing and Everything.Joshua Greene & Cohen & Jonathan - 2006 - In Semir Zeki & Oliver Goodenough (eds.), Law and the Brain. Oxford University Press.
Neuroscience, Free Will and Responsibility.Walter Glannon - 2009 - Journal of Ethics in Mental Health 4:1-6.
Free Will Skepticism and Its Implications: An Argument for Optimism.Gregg Caruso - 2019 - In Elizabeth Shaw (ed.), Free Will Skepticism in Law and Society. New York: pp. 43-72.
Neuroscience, Choice, and the Free Will Debate.Jason Shepard & Shane Reuter - 2012 - American Journal of Bioethics - Neuroscience 3 (3):7-11.
Will Neuroscientific Discoveries About Free Will and Selfhood Change Our Ethical Practices?Chris Kaposy - 2008 - Neuroethics 2 (1):51-59.
My Brain Made Me Do It: The Exclusion Argument Against Free Will, and What’s Wrong with It.Christian List & Peter Menzies - 2017 - In H. Beebee, C. Hitchcock & H. Price (eds.), Making a Difference: Essays on the Philosophy of Causation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Vargas-Style Revisionism and the Problem of Retributivism.Stephen G. Morris - 2015 - Acta Analytica 30 (3):305-316.
American Thought: A Critical Sketch. By M. R. Cohen (Edited by F. S. Cohen). (The Free Press, Glencoe, Illinois. 1954.Pp. 360. Price $5.00.). [REVIEW]L. Jonathan Cohen - 1956 - Philosophy 31 (117):166-.
From Intentions to Neurons: Social and Neural Consequences of Disbelieving in Free Will.Davide Rigoni & Marcel Brass - 2014 - Topoi 33 (1):5-12.
The Neuroscientific Study of Free Will: A Diagnosis of the Controversy.Markus E. Schlosser - 2014 - Synthese 191 (2):245-262.
Surrounding Free Will: Philosophy, Psychology, Neuroscience.Alfred R. Mele (ed.) - 2014 - Oup Usa.
The Actor's Brain: Exploring the Cognitive Neuroscience of Free Will.Sean Spence - 2009 - Oxford University Press.
Free Will According to John Duns Scotus and Neuroscience.Sally K. Severino - 2012 - Zygon 47 (1):156-174.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads