Moral Responsibility Intuitions and Their Explanations PDF Download

Author: Jay Spitzley
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category : Philosophy
Languages : en
Pages : 0

Get Book

Book Description
Empirical research suggests that our moral behaviors, judgments, and intuitions have been evolutionarily selected for because they provide strategic solutions to the problems we face as social animals. Nonetheless, a great deal of moral philosophy relies on employing our moral judgments and intuitive moral concepts to guide our understanding of morality and justifications for moral actions. Moral argumentation is commonly guided by thought experiments, counterexamples, attractive principles, as well as concepts like justice and desert. While our moral intuitions and judgments might be helpful in pursuing moral understanding, using these judgments without also appreciating the natural facts about morality will inevitably lead to failures. In this dissertation, I focus on a subset of morality, moral responsibility, and show that certain intuitive views regarding moral responsibility are inherently problematic in light of the empirical explanation of our moral judgments and behaviors. I start by discussing punishment. Punishment has been a topic of great interest to biologists and behavioral economists because of how difficult it is to explain. If morality and moral behavior are adaptive, punishment seems to provide a counterexample; it is not obvious how punishment could straightforwardly benefit the punisher and it certainly does not seem to benefit the one who is punished. I argue that the logic of punishment constrains what sorts of punishment behavior can be adaptive and that our current punishment behaviors and judgments conform to this logic. Thus, I offer an explanation for many of our prevalent and firmly held intuitive judgments and behaviors about punishment. I argue that this explanation illuminates problematic aspects for certain philosophical views and arguments surrounding punishment, as well as moral responsibility more generally. For instance, I argue that this evolutionary explanation poses a problem for anyone who attempts to justify treating people in ways they deserve to be treated because they deserve to be treated that way. More specifically, I argue that desert-based justifications for treatment face a dilemma. Either there is some relationship between justifications for our practices of treating people in ways they deserve to be treated and the evolutionary selective forces that determine what sorts of desert judgments we make or there is no such relationship. If there is no relationship, then we cannot rely on desert judgments to inform us about justifiably deserved treatment. If there is a relationship, then desert-based justifications are at odds with the scientific understanding of our moral judgments. Desert-based justifications for treatment face this dilemma because they both appeal to intuitive judgments about deserved treatment and also require an assumption that is at odds with the evolutionary explanation of our desert intuitions. The problematic assumption stems from the backward-looking nature of desert justifications for treatment. Desert-based justifications do not take any future or forward-looking considerations to be relevant to the justification for such treatment. The concept of desert itself is also thought to be backward-looking, in that the basis of desert is independent of forward-looking considerations. That is, it is normally assumed that if we judge that a person deserves something, it is in virtue of something that person did or some character trait they have that they deserve this, and never because of some fact about the future. Given that desert is central to most understandings of moral responsibility, I investigated whether our everyday concepts of desert and moral responsibility are in fact entirely backward-looking. My results suggest that this is not the case. Therefore, if appealing to intuitions is a valid method of discovering the nature of moral responsibility and desert, it seems either desert is not entirely backward-looking or moral responsibility is not exclusively desert-based. These experimental results also suggest that consequentialist accounts of moral responsibility, which have largely been abandoned due to their counterintuitive nature, are perhaps not so counterintuitive after all. In sum, I argue that progress in understanding morality, and moral responsibility specifically, requires empirical clarity.