The moral psychology of determinism

Evans, Jeremy

doi:10.1080/09515089.2012.713163

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Neither does it stand in the way of changes through societal or therapeutic intervention. In fact, this realization may have beneficial consequences to society, in the sense that a greater understanding to the causes of deviant behavior makes us less willing to consider retaliation and more prone to consider therapy [Evans 2012].…”

Section: Will Conscious and Freementioning

confidence: 99%

Brain and Mind

Leeuwen¹

2013

philosophiascientiae

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Le débat sur les relations esprit-cerveau a été centré sur des questions relatives au libre arbitre. J'examine ce débat et conclus que les neurosciences n'ont pas de raisons méthodologiques, ontologiques ou théoriques convaincantes, pas plus que de raisons empiriques, pour rejeter la notion de libre arbitre. Parallèlement, je reconnais que la question est très controversée, à la fois en science et dans la société. Le problème se situe dans l'incompatibilité entre notions scientifiques du cerveau et notions pré-scientifiques de l'esprit. Par conséquent, je propose d'envisager les relations esprit-cerveau sur une base empirique plus profonde et incontestée que l'on peut trouver dans la psychophysique. Je discute deux cas dans lesquels le contenu d'une expérience psychophysique, et sa dynamique, correspondent à la dynamique cérébrale. Dans un cas, la correspondance est une identité de type ; dans l'autre, il s'agit d'une instanciation multiple : plusieurs types radicalement différents d'activités donnent lieu à la même dynamique perceptive. Ces deux exemples illustrent que, bien que l'identité des types soit possible, elle peut être souvent hautement contextualisée. Par conséquent, on doit appréhender les relations esprit-cerveau une par une plutôt que les fonder d'un seul bloc.

show abstract

Section: Will Conscious and Freementioning

confidence: 99%

Brain and Mind

Leeuwen¹

2013

philosophiascientiae

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The Empirical Argument Against Virtue

Upton

2015

J Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The virtues are under fire. Several decades' worth of social psychological findings establish a correlation between human behavior and the situation moral agents inhabit, from which a cadre of moral philosophers concludes that most moral agents lack the virtues. Mark Alfano and Christian Miller introduce novel versions of this argument, but they are subject to a fatal dilemma. Alfano and Miller wrongly assume that their requirements for virtue apply universally to moral agents, who vary radically in their psychological, physiological, and personal situations; I call this the 'content problem.' More troubling, however, the content problem leads to what I call the 'structural problem:' Alfano and Miller each structure their argument against the virtues as a modus tollens argument and, owing to the breadth of the content problem, each must constrain their argument with a ceteris paribus clause. But the ceteris paribus clause precludes each argument's validity. More important, however, the resulting conception of virtue implicitly endorsed by Alfano and Miller holds that virtues are idealized models; but since idealized models do not even purport accurately to describe (much of) the world, neither novel version of EAV gains any empirical traction against the virtues. The upshot is an old story whose moral has yet, within the empirical study of the virtues, adequately to be internalized: it is imperative that the empirical observation of character traits proceed via longitudinal studies.

show abstract

Manipulating Belief in Free Will and Its Downstream Consequences: A Meta-Analysis

Genschow

Cracco

Schneider

et al. 2022

Pers Soc Psychol Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ever since some scientists and popular media put forward the idea that free will is an illusion, the question has risen what would happen if people stopped believing in free will. Psychological research has investigated this question by testing the consequences of experimentally weakening people’s free will beliefs. The results of these investigations have been mixed, with successful experiments and unsuccessful replications. This raises two fundamental questions: Can free will beliefs be manipulated, and do such manipulations have downstream consequences? In a meta-analysis including 145 experiments (95 unpublished), we show that exposing individuals to anti–free will manipulations decreases belief in free will and increases belief in determinism. However, we could not find evidence for downstream consequences. Our findings have important theoretical implications for research on free will beliefs and contribute to the discussion of whether reducing people’s belief in free will has societal consequences.

show abstract

The moral psychology of determinism

Cited by 3 publications

References 41 publications

Brain and Mind

Brain and Mind

The Empirical Argument Against Virtue

Manipulating Belief in Free Will and Its Downstream Consequences: A Meta-Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About