Skip to main content
Log in

Free Will, Moral Responsibility, and the Problem of “OOMPH”

  • Published:
The Journal of Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Thomas Reid developed an important theory of freedom and moral responsibility resting on the concept of agent-causation, by which he meant the power of a rational agent to cause or not cause a volition resulting in an action. He held that this power is limited in that occasions occur when one's emotions or other forces may preclude its exercise. John Martin Fischer has raised an objection – the not enough ‘Oomph’ objection – against any incompatibilist account of freedom and moral responsibility. In this essay I argue that Fischer's not enough ‘Oomph’ objection fails to provide any reasons for rejecting Reid's incompatibilist, agent-causation account of freedom and moral responsibility.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to William L. Rowe.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rowe, W.L. Free Will, Moral Responsibility, and the Problem of “OOMPH”. J Ethics 10, 295–313 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10892-005-5779-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10892-005-5779-8

Keywords

Navigation