Cargando…

Free Will, Moral Responsibility, and Scientific Epiphenomenalism

This article addresses two influential lines of argument for what might be termed “scientific epiphenomenalism” about conscious intentions – the thesis that neither conscious intentions nor their physical correlates are among the causes of bodily motions – and links this thesis to skepticism about f...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Mele, Alfred R.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6297865/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30618957
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02536
_version_ 1783381219238477824
author Mele, Alfred R.
author_facet Mele, Alfred R.
author_sort Mele, Alfred R.
collection PubMed
description This article addresses two influential lines of argument for what might be termed “scientific epiphenomenalism” about conscious intentions – the thesis that neither conscious intentions nor their physical correlates are among the causes of bodily motions – and links this thesis to skepticism about free will and moral responsibility. One line of argument is based on Benjamin Libet’s neuroscientific work on free will. The other is based on a mixed bag of findings presented by social psychologist Daniel Wegner. It is argued that both lines of argument are unsuccessful.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6297865
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-62978652019-01-07 Free Will, Moral Responsibility, and Scientific Epiphenomenalism Mele, Alfred R. Front Psychol Psychology This article addresses two influential lines of argument for what might be termed “scientific epiphenomenalism” about conscious intentions – the thesis that neither conscious intentions nor their physical correlates are among the causes of bodily motions – and links this thesis to skepticism about free will and moral responsibility. One line of argument is based on Benjamin Libet’s neuroscientific work on free will. The other is based on a mixed bag of findings presented by social psychologist Daniel Wegner. It is argued that both lines of argument are unsuccessful. Frontiers Media S.A. 2018-12-11 /pmc/articles/PMC6297865/ /pubmed/30618957 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02536 Text en Copyright © 2018 Mele. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Psychology
Mele, Alfred R.
Free Will, Moral Responsibility, and Scientific Epiphenomenalism
title Free Will, Moral Responsibility, and Scientific Epiphenomenalism
title_full Free Will, Moral Responsibility, and Scientific Epiphenomenalism
title_fullStr Free Will, Moral Responsibility, and Scientific Epiphenomenalism
title_full_unstemmed Free Will, Moral Responsibility, and Scientific Epiphenomenalism
title_short Free Will, Moral Responsibility, and Scientific Epiphenomenalism
title_sort free will, moral responsibility, and scientific epiphenomenalism
topic Psychology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6297865/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30618957
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02536
work_keys_str_mv AT melealfredr freewillmoralresponsibilityandscientificepiphenomenalism