Vigilance and control

Abstract

We sometimes fail unwittingly to do things that we ought to do. And we are, from time to time, culpable for these unwitting omissions. We provide an outline of a theory of responsibility for unwitting omissions. We emphasize two distinctive ideas: (1) many unwitting omissions can be understood as failures of appropriate vigilance, and; (2) the sort of self-control implicated in these failures of appropriate vigilance is valuable. We argue that the norms that govern vigilance and the value of self-control explain culpability for unwitting omissions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Clarke (2014: 164) is the inspiration for the example. Mele (2006), Murray (2017), Graham (2014), and Sher (2006) discuss similar cases.

  2. 2.

    The notion of responsibility is a multi-headed beast. In this paper, we’re interested in the accountability sense of responsibility, where an individual is responsible in the accountability sense only when the individual’s conduct makes it appropriate to resent or be indignant toward that individual (see Shoemaker 2015). Hence, we are interested in a kind of responsibility implicated in making it appropriate for individuals to bear certain Strawsonian reactive attitudes toward one another. In what follows, our use of the term ‘responsibility’ tracks this phenomenon. While there are interesting issues surrounding alternative kinds of responsibility (such as attributability, answerability, legal responsibility, etc.), we set these aside to focus on accountability. Thus, the use of ‘responsibility’ functions as shorthand for ‘the accountability kind of responsibility’.

  3. 3.

    This formulation presumes that the objects of responsibility are states of affairs. However, nothing substantive hangs on this presumption. We could easily translate this into an action-centered view, where an agent is responsible in virtue of her control in acting so as to bring about a certain state of affairs.

  4. 4.

    For applications of tracing strategies to the problem of responsibility for unwitting omissions, see Timpe (2011) and Fischer and Tognazzini (2009).

  5. 5.

    Despite controversy about the source of these limitations, nobody disagrees that there are such limitations. Try as hard as you want, you’ll never be able to do two two-digit math problems simultaneously. Whether this is a matter of limited metabolic resources, functional limitations, structural limitations, or whatever else is irrelevant to our account.

  6. 6.

    Many philosophers likely understand this division of computational labor as the division between System-1 and System-2 processing (sometimes labeled the Dual Process Theory). While the label is useful, many cognitive scientists question the System-1/System-2 framework and the presuppositions of that framework. Since the original proposal of the two-system division over 40 years ago (Posner and Snyder 1975), the hypothesis has been criticized and significantly revised (see Cohen et al. 1990 for overviews; see Cohen 2017 for criticisms). These advancements and revisions, however, do not affect the points that we make below. Our view does not depend on any substantive formulation of the Dual Process Theory or a specific view on the mechanisms or circuits that realize these information-processing structures or the sorts of processes that count as either habitual or controlled are irrelevant to our argument.

  7. 7.

    Sometimes, as they say, it’s better to be lucky than to be good. But we want to set aside cases where Randy gets lucky and has the relevant thought in some way that is disconnected from any interesting notion of cognitive control. We suspect there are interesting things to say if he has the thought because he is hit by a stray cosmic ray, or because of the workings of a bourbonic thought induction field of a mad scientist, or even the more pedestrian case of a mechanism disconnected from cognitive control. Whatever the proper verdict in those cases, however, they are not the phenomenon that is of interest to us.

  8. 8.

    In what follows, we build our account on the presumption of a species-typical neural system. There could be either modest departures from this species-typical set-up or localized functional deficits at the neurobiological or mechanistic level that raise interesting questions about how culpability interacts with shifting environmental conditions. A full theory should have something to say concerning agents with non-typical cognitive control mechanisms or alternative computational bases for vigilance. However, our interest is in ordinary, paradigmatic cases of unwitting omissions, so we are (reluctantly) putting aside those intriguing varieties of cases.

  9. 9.

    There could be alternative, bottom-up kinds of processing relevant to vigilance (see Gadziola and Wesson 2016). What is important for our account is that there is at least one plausible, coherent story about the realization of vigilance in some kind of neural machinery. We do not suggest that it is the only story or the full story. So, for example, this is compatible with the idea that agents that lack species-typical neural architecture—or have completely different sorts of neurobiological structures—can be vigilant.

  10. 10.

    This is based on a case in Zimmerman (1986: 205).

  11. 11.

    The inference here relies on a simple blame-implies-can principle (cf. Buckwalter and Turri 2015; Henne et al. 2016). If S is blameworthy for A-ing, then S can avoid bringing it about the A-ing occurs in virtue of her agency. If S can avoid bringing it about that A occurs in virtue of her agency, then whether A-ing occurs in virtue of her agency is not a matter of luck. Hence, if A-ing occurs as a matter of luck, then S is not blameworthy for A-ing. We rely on the idea that individuals cannot be held to account for occurrences outside their control. If an occurrence is a matter of luck, then whether there is such an occurrence lies beyond the agent’s control.

  12. 12.

    Of course, one’s self-conception will include much more than this. Perhaps one’s self-conception divides into normative and descriptive elements. If that is the case, then the aspects of one’s self-conception that are important for this paper are the normative elements. Also, the notion of ‘self’ at issue here likely varies cross-culturally, as Heine et al. (1999) suggest.

  13. 13.

    Amaya and Doris (2014: 258–260) also discuss an agent’s “zone of secure competence” with respect to similar cases (what we call ‘unwitting omissions’ they call ‘performance mistakes’; as far as we can tell, performance mistakes appear to be a subclass of unwitting omission). However, Amaya and Doris claim that normative competences constitute the zone of secure competence, and equate these normative competences with appropriately reasons-responsive mechanisms. Our discussion of competence provides a fuller characterization (we think) of what these normative competences are, how they link up with other aspects of our psychology, and why these competences are considered normative.

  14. 14.

    Of course, there will be some question as to how we sort out the excusing kinds of ignorance from the non-excusing kinds, though some of that machinery will derive from a more systematic account of the norms of vigilance. In spite of this problem, it remains true that there are relatively clear-cut examples of ignorance that make a demand unreasonable and thereby furnishes the agent with an excuse.

  15. 15.

    While our discussion of competence is indebted to Raz’s (2011) account, we depart from him in significant ways. One notable way is that Raz’s account of competence focuses entirely on the agent’s beliefs about her competence and self-conception. Some have criticized Raz’s account on just this point (see, e.g., Watson 2016) since it seems that agents can be and are deceived (perhaps systematically) about the abilities that they have and the degree to which agents can reliably exercise these abilities (see Kruger and Dunning 1999). Our account, however, avoids this criticism. While we incorporate agential beliefs into our story, we think that de facto reliability is more fundamental. While beliefs about one’s abilities and competence has some downward influence on de facto reliability, empirical research suggests that beliefs cannot account for the full range of facts about agential competence and reliability (see Protzko and Aronson 2016; Flore and Wicherts 2015). In this way, we take it that our account of competence is better suited to the empirical facts than Raz’s account.

References

  1. Agule, C. K. (2016). Resisting tracing’s siren song. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy,10(1), 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ahrens, M. (2016). Home fires involving cooking equipment. Quincy, MA: NFPA Fire Analysis and Research.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Amaya, S. (2013). Slips. Noûs,47(3), 559–576.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Amaya, S., & Doris, J. (2014). No excuses: Performance mistakes in morality. In J. Clausen & N. Levy (Eds.), Handbook of neuroethics (pp. 253–272). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Björnsson, G. (2017). Explaining away epistemic skepticism about culpability. In D. Shoemaker (Ed.), Oxford studies in agency and responsibility (Vol. 4). New York, NY: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Brown, J. W. (2017). Models of anterior cingulate cortex function in cognitive control. In T. Egner (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of cognitive control (pp. 259–273). London: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Buckwalter, W., & Turri, J. (2015). Inability and obligation in moral judgment. PLoS ONE,10(8), e0136589.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Clarke, R. (2014). Omissions: Responsibility, agency, and metaphysics. New York, NY: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Cohen, J. D. (2017). Cognitive control: Core constructs and current considerations. In T. Egner (Ed.), Wiley handbook of cognitive control (pp. 3–28). New York, NY: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cohen, J., Dunbar, K., & McClelland, J. L. (1990). On the control of automatic process: A parallel distributed processing account of the Stroop effect. Psychological Review,97, 332–361.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Crocker, J., & Wolfe, C. T. (2001). Contingencies of self-worth. Psychological Review,108(3), 593–623.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Darwall, S. (2006). The second-person standpoint: Morality, respect, and accountability. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Doris, J. M. (2018). Collaborating agents: Values, sociality, and moral responsibility. Behavioral and Brain Sciences,41, e65.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Einstein, G. O., & McDaniel, M. A. (2005). Prospective memory: Multiple retrieval processes. Current Directions in Psychological Science,14(6), 286–290.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ekstrom, L. (2000). Free will: A contemporary study. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Evans, J. S. B. T., & Stanovich, K. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science,8, 223–241.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Fischer, J. M., & Ravizza, M. (1998). Responsibility and control: A theory of moral responsibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Fischer, J. M., & Tognazzini, N. A. (2009). The truth about tracing. Noûs,43(3), 531–556.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Flore, P. C., & Wicherts, J. M. (2015). Does stereotype threat influence performance of girls in stereotyped domains? Journal of School Psychology,53(1), 25–44.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Fricker, M. (2016). What’s the point of blame? A paradigm based explanation. Noûs,50(1), 165–183.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Gadziola, M. A., & Wesson, D. W. (2016). The neural representation of goal-directed actions and outcomes in the ventral striatum’s olfactory tubercle. The Journal of Neuroscience,36(2), 548–560.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Graham, P. A. (2014). A sketch of a theory of moral blameworthiness. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research,88(2), 388–409.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Guerrero, A. A. (2007). Don’t know, don’t kill: Moral ignorance, culpability, and caution. Philosophical Studies,136, 59–97.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Harman, E. (2011). Does moral ignorance exculpate? Ratio,24(4), 443–468.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Hartman, R. J. (2016). Against luck-free moral responsibility. Philosophical Studies,173(10), 2845–2865.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1999). Is there a universal need for positive self-regard? Psychological Review,106(4), 766–794.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Henne, P., Chituc, V., De Brigard, F., & Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2016). An empirical refutation of ‘ought’ implies ‘can’. Analysis,76(3), 283–290.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Henne, P., Pinillos, Á., & De Brigard, F. (2017). Cause by omission and norm: Not watering plants. Australasian Journal of Philosophy,95(2), 270–283.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist,52, 1280.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Kool, W., & Botvinick, M. M. (2014). A labor/leisure tradeoff in cognitive control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,143(1), 131–141.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Kool, W., Gershman, S., & Cushman, F. (2017). Cost-benefit arbitration between multiple reinforcement-learning systems. Psychological Science,28(9), 1321–1333.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,77(6), 1121–1134.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Mason, E. (2015). Moral ignorance and blameworthiness. Philosophical Studies,172, 3037–3057.

    Google Scholar 

  34. McGeer, V. (2015). Building a better theory of responsibility. Philosophical Studies,172(10), 2635–2649.

    Google Scholar 

  35. McGrath, S. (2005). Causation by omission: A dilemma. Philosophical Studies,123(1/2), 125–148.

    Google Scholar 

  36. McKenna, M. (2012). Conversation and responsibility. New York, NY: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  37. McKenna, M. (2013). Reasons-responsiveness, agents, and mechanisms. In D. Shoemaker (Ed.), Oxford studies in agency and responsibility (Vol. 1, pp. 151–183). OUP: New York, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Mele, A. R. (2006). Practical mistakes and intentional actions. American Philosophical Quarterly,43(3), 249–260.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Miller, D. T., & Monin, B. (2016). Moral opportunities versus moral tests. In J. Forgas, L. Jussim, & P. van Lange (Eds.), The social psychology of morality (pp. 40–55). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Murray, S. (2017). Responsibility and vigilance. Philosophical Studies,174(2), 507–527.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Murray, S. (2018). Reference fiction, and omission. Synthese,195(1), 235–257.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Murray, S., Murray, E. D, Stewart, G., Sinnott-Armstrong, W., & De Brigard, F. (2018). Responsibility for forgetting. Philosophical Studies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-018-1053-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Nelkin, D. K. (2011). Making sense of freedom and responsibility. Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Posner, M. I., & Snyder, C. R. R. (1975). Attention and cognitive control. In R. L. Solso (Ed.), Information processing and cognition: The Loyola symposium. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Protzko, J., & Aronson, J. (2016). Context moderates affirmation effects on the ethnic achievement gap. Social Psychological and Personality Science,7(6), 500–507.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Raz, J. (2011). From normativity to responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Rosen, G. (2008). Kleinbart the oblivious and other tales of ignorance and responsibility. Journal of Philosophy,105(10), 591–610.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Roskies, A. L. (2010). Don’t panic: Self-authorship without obscure metaphysics. Philosophical Perspectives,26, 323–342.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Roskies, A. L. (2012). How does the neuroscience of decision making bear on our understanding of moral responsibility and free will. Current Opinion in Neurobiology,22, 1022–1026.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Schapiro, T. (2001). Three conceptions of action in moral theory. Noûs,35(1), 93–117.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Shabo, S. (2015). More trouble with tracing. Erkenntnis,80, 987–1011.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Shenhav, A., Botvinick, M. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2013). The expected value of control: An integrative theory of anterior cingulate cortex function. Neuron,79, 217–240.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Sher, G. (2006). Out of control. Ethics,116(2), 285–301.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Sher, G. (2009). Who knew: Responsibility without awareness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Shoemaker, D. (2015). Responsibility from the margins. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (1985). ‘Ought to have’ and ‘could have’. Analysis,45(1), 44–48.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Smith, A. M. (2005). Responsibility for attitudes: Activity and passivity in mental life. Ethics,115(2), 236–271.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Sripada, C. (2015). Moral responsibility, reasons, and the self. In D. Shoemaker (Ed.), Oxford studies in agency and responsibility (Vol. 3, pp. 242–264). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Sripada, C. (2016). Self-expression: A deep self theory of moral responsibility. Philosophical Studies,173, 1203–1232.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Timpe, K. (2011). Tracing and the epistemic condition on moral responsibility. The Modern Schoolman,88(1–2), 5–28.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Vargas, M. (2012). Why the luck problem isn’t. Philosophical Issues,22(1), 419–436.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Vargas, M. (2013a). Building better beings. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Vargas, M. (2013b). Situationism and moral responsibility: Free will in fragments. In T. Vierkant, J. Kiverstein, & A. Clark (Eds.), Decomposing the will. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Watson, G. (2016). Raz on responsibility. Criminal Law and Philosophy,10(3), 395–409.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Zimmerman, M. (1986). Negligence and moral responsibility. Noûs,20, 199–218.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the audiences for helpful comments, especially those at the Philosophy and Science of Self-Control Conference. Special thanks to Al Mele, Adina Roskies, Katrina Sifferd, Felipe De Brigard, and Chandra Sripada for many conversations on different parts of this project. Finally, special thanks to Walter Sinnott-Armstrong and Santiago Amaya for providing written comments on multiple drafts of this paper that helped us correct many deficiencies. We also want to acknowledge the insightful criticisms of an anonymous referee at Philosophical Studies that helped us make this paper better. Research for this paper was supported by a Philosophy and Science of Self-Control grant from Florida State University through the John Templeton Foundation awarded to both Samuel Murray and Manuel Vargas. The views expressed in this paper are our own and do not reflect the opinions of the other grantees, Florida State University, or the John Templeton Foundation.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Samuel Murray.

Additional information

The views expressed in this paper do not reflect the opinions of the other grantees or Florida State University.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Murray, S., Vargas, M. Vigilance and control. Philos Stud 177, 825–843 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-018-1208-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Vigilance
  • Omission
  • Responsibility
  • Agency
  • Self control