Abstract
Moral and legal systems serve as parallel frameworks that guide social behavior, yet they often intersect in ways that produce ethical conflict. This study explores the tension between belief in free will, a moral concept linked to personal responsibility, and its influence on support for capital punishment in jury-based sentencing, including responses to neuroimaging data. Previous research suggests that belief in free will promotes prosocial morality but may also increase condemnation of others’ wrongdoing. Our aim is to understand how perceived agency influences moral judgment and the consequences of promoting scientific claims about free will without fully considering public interpretation. Positioned at the intersection of moral psychology, legal decision-making, and cognitive neuroscience, we designed two experimental studies. In Study 1, participants undergo a Velten-style manipulation to induce doubt in free will, then evaluate a mock crime scenario involving the death penalty. Attitudes are assessed using the FAD-Plus (Free Will and Determinism Plus) scale. In Study 2, we introduce manipulated evidence—genetic, neuroimaging, or behavioral—to examine whether biological explanations moderate moral judgment. EEG signals are recorded in both studies to observe neural correlates of decision-making, including potential changes in error-related negativity (ERN). Although data collection is forthcoming, we hypothesize that reduced belief in free will will lower support for capital punishment, especially when paired with biological evidence. Understanding how free will beliefs shape moral and legal judgment is essential, particularly when such beliefs may influence punitive decisions in justice systems and broader social contexts.
Details
Presentation Type
Paper Presentation in a Themed Session
Theme
KEYWORDS
Free Will, Moral Psychology, Capital Sentencing, Legal Decision-Making, Cognitive Neuroscience
