Abstract

Philosophers have long debated whether, if determinism is true, we should hold people morally responsible for their actions since in a deterministic universe, people are arguably not the ultimate source of their actions nor could they have done otherwise if initial conditions and the laws of nature are held fixed. To reveal how non-philosophers ordinarily reason about the conditions for free will, we conducted a cross-cultural and cross-linguistic survey (N = 5,268) spanning twenty countries and sixteen languages. Overall, participants tended to ascribe moral responsibility whether the perpetrator lacked sourcehood or alternate possibilities. However, for American, European, and Middle Eastern participants, being the ultimate source of one’s actions promoted perceptions of free will and control as well as ascriptions of blame and punishment. By contrast, being the source of one’s actions was not particularly salient to Asian participants. Finally, across cultures, participants exhibiting greater cognitive reflection were more likely to view free will as incompatible with causal determinism. We discuss these findings in light of documented cultural differences in the tendency toward dispositional versus situational attributions.

Highlights

  • The question of whether free will is compatible with determinism has fueled an intricate debate among philosophers (Strawson, 1963; Frankfurt, 1969; Fischer et al, 2009), which recent scientific work on human volition has enlivened (Dennett, 2004; Mele, 2008; Caruso, 2012)

  • We found that participants blamed and punished agents whether they only lacked alternate possibilities (Miller and Feltz, 2011) or whether they lacked sourcehood (Nahmias et al, 2005; Nichols and Knobe, 2007)

  • Our study revealed a dramatic cultural difference: Throughout the Americas, Europe, and the Middle East, participants viewed the perpetrator with sourcehood as freer and more morally responsible than the perpetrator without sourcehood

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The question of whether free will is compatible with determinism has fueled an intricate debate among philosophers (Strawson, 1963; Frankfurt, 1969; Fischer et al, 2009), which recent scientific work on human volition has enlivened (Dennett, 2004; Mele, 2008; Caruso, 2012). Since determinism implies that agents could not have done otherwise once initial conditions and the laws of nature are held fixed, it follows that free will and moral responsibility are incompatible with determinism. This conclusion was challenged when philosopher Harry Frankfurt (1969) – in an ingenious appeal to counterfactual intervention – provided an influential argument against the principle of alternate possibilities, illustrated in the following thought experiment: Suppose that I want to stay home all day on Sunday to rest for the busy week ahead. Do people ordinarily conceive of free will as Frankfurt does? Some evidence has shown that North Americans typically agree with Frankfurt’s assessment that alternate possibilities are unnecessary for free will or moral responsibility (Miller and Feltz, 2011)

Objectives
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call