Conscious Will, Reason-Responsiveness, and Moral Responsibility

Empirical evidence challenges many of the assumptions that underlie traditional philosophical and commonsense conceptions of human agency. It has been suggested that this evidence threatens also to undermine free will and moral responsibility. In this paper, I will focus on the purported threat to m...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The journal of ethics 2013-09, Vol.17 (3), p.205-232
1. Verfasser: Schlosser, Markus E.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 232
container_issue 3
container_start_page 205
container_title The journal of ethics
container_volume 17
creator Schlosser, Markus E.
description Empirical evidence challenges many of the assumptions that underlie traditional philosophical and commonsense conceptions of human agency. It has been suggested that this evidence threatens also to undermine free will and moral responsibility. In this paper, I will focus on the purported threat to moral responsibility. The evidence challenges assumptions concerning the ability to exercise conscious control and to act for reasons. This raises an apparent challenge to moral responsibility as these abilities appear to be necessary for morally responsible agency. I will argue that this challenge collapses once the underlying conditions on moral responsibility are specified in sufficient detail. I will argue, in other words, that the empirical evidence does not support a challenge to the assumption that we are, in general, morally responsible agents. In the final section, I will suggest that empirical research on human agency is nevertheless relevant to various questions about moral responsibility.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s10892-013-9143-0
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1399495203</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>42629779</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>42629779</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3260-c1fa3687bca968b54971c4d1a9188c9f31f736643070bf07c36614bdfa48ebe53</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kEtLAzEQxxdRsD4-gAdhQbw1OpNkN8lJpPiCilAUjyGbZmXLulszrdBvb8qqePI0Gf6PCb8sO0G4QAB1SQjacAYomEEpGOxkIywUZ7oEs5veQnMmi0LuZwdECwAsuYFRdjXpO_JNv6b8tWnbcT4LjvqOzQItk9J8hi4QjXPXzfPHPro2_1Gqpm1Wm6Nsr3YthePveZi93N48T-7Z9OnuYXI9ZV7wEpjH2olSq8o7U-qqkEahl3N0BrX2phZYK1GWUoCCqgbl04KymtdO6lCFQhxmZ0PvMvYf60Aru-jXsUsnLQpjpCk4iOTCweVjTxRDbZexeXdxYxHslpMdONnEyW45WUiZ8-9mR961dXSdb-g3yFWpOSqZfHzwUZK6txD__OCf8tMhtKBVH39LJU_0lTLiCxFTf_8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1399495203</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Conscious Will, Reason-Responsiveness, and Moral Responsibility</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><creator>Schlosser, Markus E.</creator><creatorcontrib>Schlosser, Markus E.</creatorcontrib><description>Empirical evidence challenges many of the assumptions that underlie traditional philosophical and commonsense conceptions of human agency. It has been suggested that this evidence threatens also to undermine free will and moral responsibility. In this paper, I will focus on the purported threat to moral responsibility. The evidence challenges assumptions concerning the ability to exercise conscious control and to act for reasons. This raises an apparent challenge to moral responsibility as these abilities appear to be necessary for morally responsible agency. I will argue that this challenge collapses once the underlying conditions on moral responsibility are specified in sufficient detail. I will argue, in other words, that the empirical evidence does not support a challenge to the assumption that we are, in general, morally responsible agents. In the final section, I will suggest that empirical research on human agency is nevertheless relevant to various questions about moral responsibility.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1382-4554</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1572-8609</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10892-013-9143-0</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Dordrecht: Springer</publisher><subject>Cognition &amp; reasoning ; Criminals ; Education ; Empirical evidence ; Empiricism ; Ethics ; Free will ; Human agency ; Moral responsibility ; Morality ; Philosophy ; Political Philosophy ; Pure reason ; Saliency ; Social psychology ; Theory of values and moral philosophy ; Theory of values and moral philosophy. Philosophy of action</subject><ispartof>The journal of ethics, 2013-09, Vol.17 (3), p.205-232</ispartof><rights>Springer Science+Business Media 2013</rights><rights>Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3260-c1fa3687bca968b54971c4d1a9188c9f31f736643070bf07c36614bdfa48ebe53</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3260-c1fa3687bca968b54971c4d1a9188c9f31f736643070bf07c36614bdfa48ebe53</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/42629779$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/42629779$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,799,27903,27904,41467,42536,51297,57995,58228</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=27682174$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Schlosser, Markus E.</creatorcontrib><title>Conscious Will, Reason-Responsiveness, and Moral Responsibility</title><title>The journal of ethics</title><addtitle>J Ethics</addtitle><description>Empirical evidence challenges many of the assumptions that underlie traditional philosophical and commonsense conceptions of human agency. It has been suggested that this evidence threatens also to undermine free will and moral responsibility. In this paper, I will focus on the purported threat to moral responsibility. The evidence challenges assumptions concerning the ability to exercise conscious control and to act for reasons. This raises an apparent challenge to moral responsibility as these abilities appear to be necessary for morally responsible agency. I will argue that this challenge collapses once the underlying conditions on moral responsibility are specified in sufficient detail. I will argue, in other words, that the empirical evidence does not support a challenge to the assumption that we are, in general, morally responsible agents. In the final section, I will suggest that empirical research on human agency is nevertheless relevant to various questions about moral responsibility.</description><subject>Cognition &amp; reasoning</subject><subject>Criminals</subject><subject>Education</subject><subject>Empirical evidence</subject><subject>Empiricism</subject><subject>Ethics</subject><subject>Free will</subject><subject>Human agency</subject><subject>Moral responsibility</subject><subject>Morality</subject><subject>Philosophy</subject><subject>Political Philosophy</subject><subject>Pure reason</subject><subject>Saliency</subject><subject>Social psychology</subject><subject>Theory of values and moral philosophy</subject><subject>Theory of values and moral philosophy. Philosophy of action</subject><issn>1382-4554</issn><issn>1572-8609</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>88H</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2N</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kEtLAzEQxxdRsD4-gAdhQbw1OpNkN8lJpPiCilAUjyGbZmXLulszrdBvb8qqePI0Gf6PCb8sO0G4QAB1SQjacAYomEEpGOxkIywUZ7oEs5veQnMmi0LuZwdECwAsuYFRdjXpO_JNv6b8tWnbcT4LjvqOzQItk9J8hi4QjXPXzfPHPro2_1Gqpm1Wm6Nsr3YthePveZi93N48T-7Z9OnuYXI9ZV7wEpjH2olSq8o7U-qqkEahl3N0BrX2phZYK1GWUoCCqgbl04KymtdO6lCFQhxmZ0PvMvYf60Aru-jXsUsnLQpjpCk4iOTCweVjTxRDbZexeXdxYxHslpMdONnEyW45WUiZ8-9mR961dXSdb-g3yFWpOSqZfHzwUZK6txD__OCf8tMhtKBVH39LJU_0lTLiCxFTf_8</recordid><startdate>201309</startdate><enddate>201309</enddate><creator>Schlosser, Markus E.</creator><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Netherlands</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88H</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>AABKS</scope><scope>ABSDQ</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GB0</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>M2N</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201309</creationdate><title>Conscious Will, Reason-Responsiveness, and Moral Responsibility</title><author>Schlosser, Markus E.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3260-c1fa3687bca968b54971c4d1a9188c9f31f736643070bf07c36614bdfa48ebe53</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Cognition &amp; reasoning</topic><topic>Criminals</topic><topic>Education</topic><topic>Empirical evidence</topic><topic>Empiricism</topic><topic>Ethics</topic><topic>Free will</topic><topic>Human agency</topic><topic>Moral responsibility</topic><topic>Morality</topic><topic>Philosophy</topic><topic>Political Philosophy</topic><topic>Pure reason</topic><topic>Saliency</topic><topic>Social psychology</topic><topic>Theory of values and moral philosophy</topic><topic>Theory of values and moral philosophy. Philosophy of action</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Schlosser, Markus E.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Religion Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Philosophy Collection</collection><collection>Philosophy Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>DELNET Social Sciences &amp; Humanities Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>Religion Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>The journal of ethics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Schlosser, Markus E.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Conscious Will, Reason-Responsiveness, and Moral Responsibility</atitle><jtitle>The journal of ethics</jtitle><stitle>J Ethics</stitle><date>2013-09</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>17</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>205</spage><epage>232</epage><pages>205-232</pages><issn>1382-4554</issn><eissn>1572-8609</eissn><abstract>Empirical evidence challenges many of the assumptions that underlie traditional philosophical and commonsense conceptions of human agency. It has been suggested that this evidence threatens also to undermine free will and moral responsibility. In this paper, I will focus on the purported threat to moral responsibility. The evidence challenges assumptions concerning the ability to exercise conscious control and to act for reasons. This raises an apparent challenge to moral responsibility as these abilities appear to be necessary for morally responsible agency. I will argue that this challenge collapses once the underlying conditions on moral responsibility are specified in sufficient detail. I will argue, in other words, that the empirical evidence does not support a challenge to the assumption that we are, in general, morally responsible agents. In the final section, I will suggest that empirical research on human agency is nevertheless relevant to various questions about moral responsibility.</abstract><cop>Dordrecht</cop><pub>Springer</pub><doi>10.1007/s10892-013-9143-0</doi><tpages>28</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1382-4554
ispartof The journal of ethics, 2013-09, Vol.17 (3), p.205-232
issn 1382-4554
1572-8609
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_1399495203
source Jstor Complete Legacy; Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals
subjects Cognition & reasoning
Criminals
Education
Empirical evidence
Empiricism
Ethics
Free will
Human agency
Moral responsibility
Morality
Philosophy
Political Philosophy
Pure reason
Saliency
Social psychology
Theory of values and moral philosophy
Theory of values and moral philosophy. Philosophy of action
title Conscious Will, Reason-Responsiveness, and Moral Responsibility
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-24T23%3A05%3A30IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Conscious%20Will,%20Reason-Responsiveness,%20and%20Moral%20Responsibility&rft.jtitle=The%20journal%20of%20ethics&rft.au=Schlosser,%20Markus%20E.&rft.date=2013-09&rft.volume=17&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=205&rft.epage=232&rft.pages=205-232&rft.issn=1382-4554&rft.eissn=1572-8609&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10892-013-9143-0&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E42629779%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1399495203&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=42629779&rfr_iscdi=true