« Sixth Circuit Declines to Delay Affirmative-Action Ban -- What's the U.S. News Impact? | Main | The Constitution as Contract (of Adhesion) »

Sunday, December 31, 2006

Intuitions About Blaming Fred

Over at Concurring Opinions, my colleague Deven Desai recently dipped a toe into the free will / moral responsibility can of worms.  His post reminds me that I've got some questions about a fun and interesting experiment Eddy Nahmias, et al., did a couple of years ago.  In the experiment, Nahmias, et al., used a short hypothetical to flush out college students' "folk intuitions" about moral responsibility in a deterministic world.  I'll post something about the results later, but first I'm curious to know whether Prawfsblawg readers have the same folk intuitions the students had.  Here's the hypothetical:

Imagine there is a world where the beliefs and values of every person are caused completely by the combination of one's genes and one's environment.  For instance, one day in this world, two identical twins, named Fred and Barney, are born to a mother who puts them up for adoption.  Fred is adopted by the Jerksons and Barney is adopted by the Kindersons.  In Fred's case, his genes and his upbringing by the selfish Jerkson family have caused him to value money above all else and to believe it is OK to acquire money however you can.  In Barney's case, his (identical) genes and his upbringing by the kindly Kinderson family have caused him to value honesty above all else and to believe one should always respect others' property.  Both Fred and Barney are intelligent individuals who are capable of deliberating about what they do. 

One day, Fred and Barney each happen to find a wallet containing $1000 .... After deliberation, Fred Jerkson, because of his beliefs and values, keeps the money.  After deliberation, Barney Kinderson, because of his beliefs and values, returns the wallet to its owner.  [The hypothetical also explains that had Fred had been adopted by the Kindersons, not the Jerksons, he would have returned the wallet].

Nahmias, et al., asked subjects whether Fred was "morally blameworthy for keeping the wallet."  I'm curious to know how Prawfsblawg readers would answer (what's your folk intuition?); I'm also curious about what Prawfsblawg readers would predict "most people" would say (what are your intuitions about the relevant folk intuitions?).  So what do you think? (1) Do you think Fred is morally blameworthy for keeping the wallet?  (2) What do you think most people would say?

Posted by Anders Kaye on December 31, 2006 at 09:08 AM in Legal Theory | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c6a7953ef00d83508420d69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Intuitions About Blaming Fred:

Comments

The "deterministic world" posited at the beginning of the hypothetical question is simply our own world with a story (about determinism) appended to it.

My moral intuitions would not change from what they are now in our present world.

Posted by: Anthony D'Amato | Dec 31, 2006 6:42:47 PM

1) I think that Fred, as someone who has been taught the value of money, is certainly morally blameworthy for helping to deprive his fellow man of his money. After all, "Do unto others..." is the most fundamental tenet of morality. Since Fred would likely want his lost wallet returned if he were in that situation, he cannot keep a stranger's wallet and remain blameless.

2) Also, I think most people would agree that Fred is morally blameworthy-- at least I would hope so.

Another good question related to this hypothetical:
Are Fred's parents, the Jerksons, morally blameworthy for raising their son to have such a blatant disregard for other people's belongings?

Posted by: Paul Washington | Dec 31, 2006 1:49:58 PM

My folk intiution is that he's morally blameworthy.

I also think almost everyone will say he's moral blameworthy and a high percentage will say that other people won't (that's my folk intuition that American's have a complex about personal reponsibility - they're responsible, damn it, but all those OTHER people just refuse to take responsibility for anything).

Posted by: Katie | Dec 31, 2006 10:39:38 AM

OK. I'll bite.

(1) My folk intuition is that Fred is morally blameworthy for keeping the wallet.

(2) I think most people would say that Fred is not morally blameworthy for keeping the wallet.

Posted by: Stephen Aslett | Dec 31, 2006 2:39:00 AM

Minor digression: The full text of the Nahmias article costs "$31.12 plus tax."

Booo, Routledge!

Posted by: James Grimmelmann | Dec 30, 2006 7:17:30 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.