profile-cover
Drag to reposition
profile picture

Gunnar Björnsson

Stockholm University
  •  Home
  •  Publications
    62
    • Most Recent
    • Most Downloaded
    • Topics
  •  Events
    27
  •  News and Updates
    76

 More details
  • Stockholm University
    Department of Philosophy
    Professor
Stockholm University
Department of Philosophy
PhD, 1998
Email (login required)
Homepage
Stockholm, Sweden
0000-0003-3112-0673
Areas of Specialization
Meta-Ethics
Philosophy of Action
Philosophy of Language
Areas of Interest
Meta-Ethics
Moral Responsibility
Philosophy of Language
Metaphilosophy
  • All publications (62)
  •  1609
    How effects depend on their causes, why causal transitivity fails, and why we care about causation
    Philosophical Studies 133 (3): 349-390. 2007.
    Despite recent efforts to improve on counterfactual theories of causation, failures to explain how effects depend on their causes are still manifest in a variety of cases. In particular, theories that do a decent job explaining cases of causal preemption have problems accounting for cases of causal intransitivity. Moreover, the increasing complexity of the counterfactual accounts makes it difficult to see why the concept of causation would be such a central part of our cognition. In this paper, …Read more
    Despite recent efforts to improve on counterfactual theories of causation, failures to explain how effects depend on their causes are still manifest in a variety of cases. In particular, theories that do a decent job explaining cases of causal preemption have problems accounting for cases of causal intransitivity. Moreover, the increasing complexity of the counterfactual accounts makes it difficult to see why the concept of causation would be such a central part of our cognition. In this paper, I propose an account of our causal thinking that not only explains the hitherto puzzling variety of causal judgments, but also makes it intelligible why we would employ such an elusive concept.
    Manipulability Theories of CausationTheories of Causation, MiscCounterfactual Theories of CausationS…Read more
    Manipulability Theories of CausationTheories of Causation, MiscCounterfactual Theories of CausationStatistical Theories of CausationVarieties of CausationCausal PreemptionCausal Reasoning, MiscCausal OverdeterminationNomological Theories of Causation
  •  1941
    A Unified Empirical Account of Responsibility Judgments
    with Karl Persson
    Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 87 (3): 611-639. 2012.
    Skeptical worries about moral responsibility seem to be widely appreciated and deeply felt. To address these worries—if nothing else to show that they are mistaken—theories of moral responsibility need to relate to whatever concept of responsibility underlies the worries. Unfortunately, the nature of that concept has proved hard to pin down. Not only do philosophers have conflicting intuitions; numerous recent empirical studies have suggested that both prosaic responsibility judgments and incomp…Read more
    Skeptical worries about moral responsibility seem to be widely appreciated and deeply felt. To address these worries—if nothing else to show that they are mistaken—theories of moral responsibility need to relate to whatever concept of responsibility underlies the worries. Unfortunately, the nature of that concept has proved hard to pin down. Not only do philosophers have conflicting intuitions; numerous recent empirical studies have suggested that both prosaic responsibility judgments and incompatibilist intuitions among the folk are influenced by a number of surprising factors, sometimes prompting apparently contradictory judgments. In this paper, we show how an independently motivated hypothesis about responsibility judgments provides a unified explanation of the more important results from these studies. According to this ‘Explanation Hypothesis’, to take an agent to be morally responsible for an event is to take a relevant motivational structure of the agent to be part of a significant explanation of the event. We argue that because of how explanatory interests and perspectives affect what we take as significant explanations, this analysis accounts for the puzzling variety of empirical results. If this is correct, the Explanation Hypothesis also provides a new way of understanding debates about moral responsibility.
    Experimental Philosophy: Free WillControl and ResponsibilityResponsibility and Reactive AttitudesExp…Read more
    Experimental Philosophy: Free WillControl and ResponsibilityResponsibility and Reactive AttitudesExperimental Philosophy: Folk MoralityMoral Responsibility, Misc
  • Prev.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Next
PhilPeople logo

On this site

  • Find a philosopher
  • Find a department
  • The Radar
  • Index of professional philosophers
  • Index of departments
  • Help
  • Acknowledgments
  • Careers
  • Contact us
  • Terms and conditions

Brought to you by

  • The PhilPapers Foundation
  • The American Philosophical Association
  • Centre for Digital Philosophy, Western University