Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Doing without deliberation: automatism, automaticity, and moral accountability.

Neil Levy1, Tim Bayne

  • 1Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, University of Melbourne, Parkville, 3010, Australia.

International Review of Psychiatry (Abingdon, England)
|October 30, 2004
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Victims of Conspiracies? An Examination of the Relationship Between Conspiracy Beliefs and Dispositional Individual Victimhood.

European journal of social psychology·2026
Same author

Consciousness indicators, mimicry, and internal variants.

Trends in cognitive sciences·2026
Same author

Conspiracy thinking in American politics.

Politics and the life sciences : the journal of the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences·2026
Same author

Anticipatory solastalgia in the Antipodes: Evidence of future-oriented distress about environmental change in Australia and New Zealand.

The journal of climate change and health·2026
Same author

A two-tier framework for responsible research on human embryo models.

Cell·2026
Same author

Identifying indicators of consciousness in AI systems.

Trends in cognitive sciences·2025

Moral accountability differs between automatistic and automatic actions. This study explores the justification for this asymmetry and aims to develop a model for moral accountability across various agency modes.

Area of Science:

  • Neuroscience
  • Philosophy of Mind
  • Ethics

Background:

  • Actions performed in a state of automatism are typically not subject to moral evaluation.
  • Conversely, automatic actions frequently are morally evaluated.
  • This creates an asymmetry in moral accountability between these two types of actions.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate the justification for the asymmetry in moral accountability between automatistic and automatic actions.
  • To lay the groundwork for a comprehensive model of moral accountability.
  • To account for diverse modes of agency, encompassing both pathological and non-pathological states.

Main Methods:

  • Conceptual analysis of agency and moral responsibility.
  • Review of existing philosophical and psychological frameworks of action.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Development of a theoretical model for moral accountability.

    • Main Results:

    • The study identifies the core differences in cognitive and intentional control between automatistic and automatic actions.
    • It highlights the necessity of a nuanced model that differentiates moral responsibility based on the degree of conscious control and intentionality.
    • Preliminary framework for a model of moral accountability is proposed.

    Conclusions:

    • The asymmetry in moral evaluation between automatistic and automatic actions may be justified based on underlying differences in agency.
    • A robust model of moral accountability requires careful consideration of the spectrum of human action and control.
    • Further research is needed to refine and empirically validate the proposed model of moral accountability.