Order:
  1.  81
    Causal Responsibility and Counterfactuals.David A. Lagnado, Tobias Gerstenberg & Ro'I. Zultan - 2013 - Cognitive Science 37 (6):1036-1073.
    How do people attribute responsibility in situations where the contributions of multiple agents combine to produce a joint outcome? The prevalence of over-determination in such cases makes this a difficult problem for counterfactual theories of causal responsibility. In this article, we explore a general framework for assigning responsibility in multiple agent contexts. We draw on the structural model account of actual causation (e.g., Halpern & Pearl, 2005) and its extension to responsibility judgments (Chockler & Halpern, 2004). We review the main (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   34 citations  
  2.  3
    The Deceiving Game.Shlomo Cohen & Ro'I. Zultan - 2021 - Journal of the American Philosophical Association 7 (4):453-473.
    The moral comparison of the three venues of deception—lying, falsely implicating, and nonverbal deception—is a central, ongoing debate in the ethics of deception. To date there has been no attempt to advance in the debate through experimental philosophy. Using methods of experimental economics, we devised a strategic game to test positions in the debate. Our article presents the experimental results and shows how philosophical analysis of the results allows drawing valid normative conclusions. Our conclusions testify against the dominant position in (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  3.  9
    Genomic Privacy, Identity and Dignity.Shlomo Cohen & Ro'I. Zultan - 2022 - Journal of Medical Ethics 48 (5):317-322.
    Significant advancements towards a future of big data genomic medicine, associated with large-scale public dataset repositories, intensify dilemmas of genomic privacy. To resolve dilemmas adequately, we need to understand the relative force of the competing considerations that make them up. Attitudes towards genomic privacy are complex and not well understood; understanding is further complicated by the vague claim of ‘genetic exceptionalism’. In this paper, we distinguish between consequentialist and non-consequentialist privacy interests: while the former are concerned with harms secondary to (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark