Skip to content

Topics Thinkers Changes ContributorsLoading account…

Carmelics

A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

Navigate

Topics
Search
Recent Changes
Contribute
How It Works
Glossary
Thinkers
Contributors
About
Statistics
Terms
Privacy

Database

Statements: —
Perspectives: —
Topics: —

Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

Made within

DC&

Austin

Statements: 321,452
Perspectives: 108,905
Topics: 42

Experimental philosophy research (Nichols, Nahmias) revea... — Carmelics

History Edit See Inverse

Part of a larger discussion

Challenges→Bert acts freely and is morally responsible for his actions

Experimental philosophy research (Nichols, Nahmias) reveals that folk intuitions about responsibility are sensitive to framing and are therefore unreliable as a normative standard.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

1 reason for

1 reason against

Reasons For

1 perspective

Reason for

?

1.Framing effects demonstrate systematic cognitive biases that distort judgment independent of underlying moral facts.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.If folk intuitions conflict depending on presentation, at least one set cannot track moral reality reliably.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.Normative standards require stable principles; intuitions that fluctuate with framing fail this requirement.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

Reasons Against

1 perspective

Reason against

?

1.Framing sensitivity doesn't prove unreliability—it may reveal how context legitimately affects responsibility ascriptions.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.Experimental subjects' brief responses under artificial conditions may poorly represent reflective folk judgment about responsibility.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.Even if intuitions are framing-sensitive, this doesn't establish they lack normative force—facts themselves can be context-dependent.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

Next step

Based on where you are in your exploration

Strongest counterpoint

Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

Key Terms

Experimental philosophy(British philosophy c. 1700): A dominant strand of natural philosophy in England by 1700, associated with figures such as Boyle, Newton, and Locke.
Folk intuitions(in epistemology and metaphysics): The common-sense beliefs and gut feelings that ordinary people have, as opposed to what philosophers or scientists might argue.
Nichols, Nahmias(as cited researchers): Contemporary philosophers who pioneered experimental philosophy research, particularly studying how people's intuitions about moral responsibility are influenced by how situations are described to them.
Normative standard(as used in ethics): A rule or principle that tells us what *should* be the case, what's right or wrong—not just what *is* the case.
framing(Used within behavioral game theory to describe experimentally-derived deviations from standard rational-agent assumptions): Ways in which people differ from purely economic agents in the inferences they draw from information

Connections

2 topics

Free Will & Foreknowledge1 linked Moral Responsibility1 linked

Related

Bert acts freely and is morally responsible for his actions Even if intuitions are framing-sensitive, this doesn't establish they lack norma...Experimental subjects' brief responses under artificial conditions may poorly re...Framing effects demonstrate systematic cognitive biases that distort judgment in...

+3 moreShow less

Framing sensitivity doesn't prove unreliability—it may reveal how context legiti...If folk intuitions conflict depending on presentation, at least one set cannot t...

Details

Type: claim
Perspectives: 2 (1 for, 1 against)
Edits: 1 edit

Normative standards require stable principles; intuitions that fluctuate with fr...