Experimental philosophy and moral responsibility

In Dana Kay Nelkin & Derk Pereboom (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Moral Responsibility. Oxford University Press. pp. 494–516 (2022)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Can experimental philosophy help us answer central questions about the nature of moral responsibility, such as the question of whether moral responsibility is compatible with determinism? Specifically, can folk judgments in line with a particular answer to that question provide support for that answer. Based on reasoning familiar from Condorcet’s Jury Theorem, such support could be had if individual judges track the truth of the matter independently and with some modest reliability: such reliability quickly aggregates as the number of judges goes up. In this chapter, however, I argue, partly based on empirical evidence, that although non-specialist judgments might on average be more likely than not to get things right, their individual likelihoods fail to aggregate because they do not track truth with sufficient independence.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Upload history
First archival date: 2019-05-08
Latest version: 2 (2020-05-24)
View other versions
Added to PP index

Total views
348 ( #22,753 of 71,142 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
56 ( #14,090 of 71,142 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.