In Stefan Magen & Karolina Prochownik (eds.), Advances of Experimental Philosophy of Law. Bloomsbury Press (forthcoming)

Authors
Markus Kneer
University of Zürich
Levin Güver
University of Zürich
Abstract
In many spheres, the law takes the legal concept of causation to correspond to the folk concept (the correspondence assumption). Courts, including the US Supreme Court, tend to insist on the "common understanding" and that which is "natural to say" (Burrage v. United States) when it comes to expressions relating to causation, and frequently refuse to clarify the expression to juries. As recent work in psychology and experimental philosophy has uncovered, lay attributions of causation are susceptible to a great number of unexpected factors, some of which seem rather peripheral to causation. One of those is the norm effect (Knobe & Fraser, 2008): Agents who, in acting as they do, break a salient norm, are more likely to be considered as having caused a certain consequence than when they do not violate a norm. According to some (e.g., Alicke, 1992) this constitutes a bias. According to others (e.g., Sytsma, 2020), the folk concept of causation is sensitive to normative factors, and there’s nothing wrong with that. In this paper, we explore the question whether the norm effect should be considered a bias from the legal perspective on the one hand, and from the psychological perspective on the other. To do this, we test whether norms which are nonpertinent to the consequences or outright silly also impact causation judgements. The data from two preregistered experiments (total N=593) clearly show they do. This, we argue, makes the bias interpretation plausible from the psychological perspective, and both plausible and problematic from the legal perspective. It also shows that the law should abstain from unreflectively assuming conceptual correspondence between legal and ordinary language concepts.
Keywords Causation  Law  Norms  Bias
Categories (categorize this paper)
Buy the book Find it on Amazon.com
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

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

Cause and Norm.Christopher Hitchcock & Joshua Knobe - 2009 - Journal of Philosophy 106 (11):587-612.
Graded Causation and Defaults.Joseph Y. Halpern & Christopher Hitchcock - 2015 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 66 (2):413-457.
No Luck for Moral Luck.Markus Kneer & Edouard Machery - 2019 - Cognition 182:331-348.

View all 42 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Cause and Norm.Christopher Hitchcock & Joshua Knobe - 2009 - Journal of Philosophy 106 (11):587-612.
From Cause to Causation a Peircean Perspective.M. Hulswit - 2002 - Springer Science & Business Media.
A Partial Theory of Actual Causation.Brad Weslake - 2015 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.
Backward Causation.Jan Faye - 2008 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Event Causation and Agent Causation.E. J. Lowe - 2001 - Grazer Philosophische Studien 61 (1):1-20.
Double Prevention and Powers.Stephen Mumford & Rani Lill Anjum - 2009 - Journal of Critical Realism 8 (3):277-293.
The Irreducibility of Causation.Richard Swinburne - 1997 - Dialectica 51 (1):79–92.
K otázce možnosti zpětné kauzality.Tomáš Machula - 2008 - Organon F: Medzinárodný Časopis Pre Analytickú Filozofiu 15 (2):168-177.
Contextualising Causation Part II.Julian Reiss - 2013 - Philosophy Compass 8 (11):1076-1090.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2022-01-27

Total views
50 ( #224,911 of 2,499,765 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
50 ( #16,733 of 2,499,765 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes