• DOI:10.1111/J.1468-0068.2007.00666.X
• Corpus ID: 1007051

Moral Responsibility and Determinism: The Cognitive Science of Folk Intuitions

@article{Nichols2007MoralRA,
  title={Moral Responsibility and Determinism: The Cognitive Science of Folk Intuitions},
  author={Shaun Nichols and Joshua Knobe},
  journal={No{\^u}s},
  year={2007},
  volume={41},
  pages={663-685}
}

• Shaun Nichols, J. Knobe
• Published 1 December 2007
• Philosophy
• Noûs

The dispute between compatibilists and incompatibilists must be one of the most persistent and heated deadlocks in Western philosophy. Incompatibilists maintain that people are not fully morally responsible if determinism is true, i.e., if every event is an inevitable consequence of the prior conditions and the natural laws. By contrast, compatibilists maintain that even if determinism is true our moral responsibility is not undermined in the slightest, for determinism and moral responsibility are perfectly consistent.1 The debate between these two positions has invoked many different resources, including quantum mechanics, social psychology, and basic metaphysics. But recent discussions have relied heavily on arguments that draw on people’s intuitions about particular cases. Some philosophers have claimed that people have incompatibilist intuitions (e.g., Kane 1999, 218; Strawson 1986, 30; Vargas 2006); others have challenged this claim and suggested that people’s intuitions actually fit with compatibilism (Nahmias et al. 2005). But although philosophers have constructed increasingly sophisticated arguments about the implications of people’s intuitions, there has been remarkably little discussion about why people have the intuitions they do. That is to say, relatively little has been said about the specific psychological processes that generate or sustain people’s intuitions. And yet, it seems clear that questions about the sources of people’s intuitions could have a major impact on debates