Kenan Institute for Ethics, Duke University.
Department of Philosophy, Florida State University.
Cogn Sci. 2020 Aug;44(8):e12873. doi: 10.1111/cogs.12873.
The claim that common sense regards free will and moral responsibility as compatible with determinism has played a central role in both analytic and experimental philosophy. In this paper, we show that evidence in favor of this "natural compatibilism" is undermined by the role that indeterministic metaphysical views play in how people construe deterministic scenarios. To demonstrate this, we re-examine two classic studies that have been used to support natural compatibilism. We find that although people give apparently compatibilist responses, this is largely explained by the fact that people import an indeterministic metaphysics into deterministic scenarios when making judgments about freedom and responsibility. We conclude that judgments based on these scenarios are not reliable evidence for natural compatibilism.
常识认为自由意志和道德责任与决定论是相容的,这一观点在分析哲学和实验哲学中都起着核心作用。在本文中,我们表明,支持这种“自然相容论”的证据被人们构建决定论情景时所采用的非决定论形而上学观点所破坏。为了证明这一点,我们重新审视了两项经典研究,这些研究曾被用来支持自然相容论。我们发现,尽管人们给出了明显相容论的反应,但这在很大程度上可以解释为,当人们对自由和责任进行判断时,他们会将非决定论形而上学引入到决定论情景中。我们的结论是,基于这些情景的判断并不是自然相容论的可靠证据。