Affiliation:
1. IHPST, CNRS
2. Faculty of Philosophy, University of Groningen
3. Institute of Philosophy, KU Leuven
Abstract
There is widespread agreement among philosophers about the Mens Rea Asymmetry (MRA), according to which praise requires intent, whereas blame does not. However, there is evidence showing that MRA is descriptively inadequate. We hypothesize that the violations of MRA found in the experimental literature are due to what we call “moral compositionality,” by which we mean that people evaluate the component parts of a moral problem separately and then reach an overall verdict by aggregating the verdicts on the component parts. We have subjected this hypothesis to the test and here report the results of our experiment. We explore several explanations of the experimental findings and conclude that they present a puzzle to moral theory.
Publisher
University of Michigan Library
Subject
General Earth and Planetary Sciences,General Environmental Science
Reference39 articles.
1. Intentional Action in Ordinary Language: Core Concept or Pragmatic Understanding?;Adams, F.A. Steadman;Analysis,2004
2. A Theory of Moral Praise;Anderson, R. A.M. J. CrockettD. A. Pizarro;Trends in Cognitive Sciences,2020
3. Moral Worth;Arpaly, A.;Journal of Philosophy,2002
4. Seriousness Checks are Useful to Improve Data Validity in Online Research;Aust, F.B. DiedenhofenS. UllrichJ. Musch;Behavior Research Methods,2013