Two Distinct Moral Mechanisms for Ascribing and Denying Intentionality. Ngo, L., Kelly, M., Coutlee, C. G, Carter, R M., Sinnott-Armstrong, W., & Huettel, S. A Scientific reports, 5:17390, 2015. ![Two Distinct Moral Mechanisms for Ascribing and Denying Intentionality [link]](https://bibbase.org/img/filetypes/link.svg "link")
Paper doi abstract bibtex Philosophers and legal scholars have long theorized about how intentionality serves as a critical input for morality and culpability, but the emerging field of experimental philosophy has revealed a puzzling asymmetry. People judge actions leading to negative consequences as being more intentional than those leading to positive ones. The implications of this asymmetry remain unclear because there is no consensus regarding the underlying mechanism. Based on converging behavioral and neural evidence, we demonstrate that there is no single underlying mechanism. Instead, two distinct mechanisms together generate the asymmetry. Emotion drives ascriptions of intentionality for negative consequences, while the consideration of statistical norms leads to the denial of intentionality for positive consequences. We employ this novel two-mechanism model to illustrate that morality can paradoxically shape judgments of intentionality. This is consequential for mens rea in legal practice and arguments in moral philosophy pertaining to terror bombing, abortion, and euthanasia among others.
@article{ngo_two_2015,
title = {Two {Distinct} {Moral} {Mechanisms} for {Ascribing} and {Denying} {Intentionality}},
volume = {5},
issn = {2045-2322},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep17390},
doi = {10.1038/srep17390},
abstract = {Philosophers and legal scholars have long theorized about how intentionality serves as a critical input for morality and culpability, but the emerging field of experimental philosophy has revealed a puzzling asymmetry. People judge actions leading to negative consequences as being more intentional than those leading to positive ones. The implications of this asymmetry remain unclear because there is no consensus regarding the underlying mechanism. Based on converging behavioral and neural evidence, we demonstrate that there is no single underlying mechanism. Instead, two distinct mechanisms together generate the asymmetry. Emotion drives ascriptions of intentionality for negative consequences, while the consideration of statistical norms leads to the denial of intentionality for positive consequences. We employ this novel two-mechanism model to illustrate that morality can paradoxically shape judgments of intentionality. This is consequential for mens rea in legal practice and arguments in moral philosophy pertaining to terror bombing, abortion, and euthanasia among others.},
language = {en},
journal = {Scientific reports},
author = {Ngo, Lawrence and Kelly, Meagan and Coutlee, Christopher G and Carter, R Mckell and Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter and Huettel, Scott A},
year = {2015},
pmid = {26634909},
keywords = {Mental Health/Bias: Cognitive Psychology, Mental Health/Stigma: Affective Neuroscience},
pages = {17390}
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"3dwTbmGCEn5YupRfz","bibbaseid":"ngo-kelly-coutlee-carter-sinnottarmstrong-huettel-twodistinctmoralmechanismsforascribinganddenyingintentionality-2015","downloads":0,"creationDate":"2018-03-15T15:56:59.209Z","title":"Two Distinct Moral Mechanisms for Ascribing and Denying Intentionality","author_short":["Ngo, L.","Kelly, M.","Coutlee, C. G","Carter, R M.","Sinnott-Armstrong, W.","Huettel, S. A"],"year":2015,"bibtype":"article","biburl":"http://bibbase.org/zotero/davidlloyd3","bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"Two Distinct Moral Mechanisms for Ascribing and Denying Intentionality","volume":"5","issn":"2045-2322","url":"http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep17390","doi":"10.1038/srep17390","abstract":"Philosophers and legal scholars have long theorized about how intentionality serves as a critical input for morality and culpability, but the emerging field of experimental philosophy has revealed a puzzling asymmetry. People judge actions leading to negative consequences as being more intentional than those leading to positive ones. The implications of this asymmetry remain unclear because there is no consensus regarding the underlying mechanism. Based on converging behavioral and neural evidence, we demonstrate that there is no single underlying mechanism. Instead, two distinct mechanisms together generate the asymmetry. Emotion drives ascriptions of intentionality for negative consequences, while the consideration of statistical norms leads to the denial of intentionality for positive consequences. We employ this novel two-mechanism model to illustrate that morality can paradoxically shape judgments of intentionality. This is consequential for mens rea in legal practice and arguments in moral philosophy pertaining to terror bombing, abortion, and euthanasia among others.","language":"en","journal":"Scientific reports","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Ngo"],"firstnames":["Lawrence"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Kelly"],"firstnames":["Meagan"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Coutlee"],"firstnames":["Christopher","G"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Carter"],"firstnames":["R","Mckell"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Sinnott-Armstrong"],"firstnames":["Walter"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Huettel"],"firstnames":["Scott","A"],"suffixes":[]}],"year":"2015","pmid":"26634909","keywords":"Mental Health/Bias: Cognitive Psychology, Mental Health/Stigma: Affective Neuroscience","pages":"17390","bibtex":"@article{ngo_two_2015,\n\ttitle = {Two {Distinct} {Moral} {Mechanisms} for {Ascribing} and {Denying} {Intentionality}},\n\tvolume = {5},\n\tissn = {2045-2322},\n\turl = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep17390},\n\tdoi = {10.1038/srep17390},\n\tabstract = {Philosophers and legal scholars have long theorized about how intentionality serves as a critical input for morality and culpability, but the emerging field of experimental philosophy has revealed a puzzling asymmetry. People judge actions leading to negative consequences as being more intentional than those leading to positive ones. The implications of this asymmetry remain unclear because there is no consensus regarding the underlying mechanism. Based on converging behavioral and neural evidence, we demonstrate that there is no single underlying mechanism. Instead, two distinct mechanisms together generate the asymmetry. Emotion drives ascriptions of intentionality for negative consequences, while the consideration of statistical norms leads to the denial of intentionality for positive consequences. We employ this novel two-mechanism model to illustrate that morality can paradoxically shape judgments of intentionality. This is consequential for mens rea in legal practice and arguments in moral philosophy pertaining to terror bombing, abortion, and euthanasia among others.},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tjournal = {Scientific reports},\n\tauthor = {Ngo, Lawrence and Kelly, Meagan and Coutlee, Christopher G and Carter, R Mckell and Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter and Huettel, Scott A},\n\tyear = {2015},\n\tpmid = {26634909},\n\tkeywords = {Mental Health/Bias: Cognitive Psychology, Mental Health/Stigma: Affective Neuroscience},\n\tpages = {17390}\n}\n\n","author_short":["Ngo, L.","Kelly, M.","Coutlee, C. G","Carter, R M.","Sinnott-Armstrong, W.","Huettel, S. A"],"key":"ngo_two_2015","id":"ngo_two_2015","bibbaseid":"ngo-kelly-coutlee-carter-sinnottarmstrong-huettel-twodistinctmoralmechanismsforascribinganddenyingintentionality-2015","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep17390"},"keyword":["Mental Health/Bias: Cognitive Psychology","Mental Health/Stigma: Affective Neuroscience"],"downloads":0},"search_terms":["two","distinct","moral","mechanisms","ascribing","denying","intentionality","ngo","kelly","coutlee","carter","sinnott-armstrong","huettel"],"keywords":["mental health/bias: cognitive psychology","mental health/stigma: affective neuroscience"],"authorIDs":[],"dataSources":["kRLSZGSDAgwZPh2tM"]}