Experimental Philosophy, Robert Kane, and the Concept of Free Will

Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
Trends in experimental philosophy have provided new and compelling results that are cause for re-evaluations in contemporary discussions of free will. In this paper, I argue for one such re-evaluation by criticizing Robert Kane’s well-known views on free will. I argue that Kane’s claims about pre-theoretical intuitions are not supported by empirical findings on two accounts. First, it is unclear that either incompatibilism or compatibalism is more intuitive to nonphilosophers, as different ways of asking about free will and responsibility reveal different answers. Secondly, I discuss how a study by Josh May supporting a cluster concept of free will may provide ethicists with a reason to give up a definitional model, and I discuss a direction future work might take. Both of these objections come from a larger project concerned with understanding the cognitive mechanisms that people employ when they make judgments about agency and responsibility—a project that promises not only to challenge contemporary philosophy, but to inform it.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
OTTEPR
Upload history
Archival date: 2015-11-21
View other versions
Added to PP index
2015-04-08

Total views
297 ( #16,512 of 53,510 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
42 ( #15,582 of 53,510 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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