Free Will and the Cross-Level Consequence Argument

Abstract

Christian List has recently constructed a novel formal framework for representing the relationship between free will and determinism. At its core is a distinction between physical and agential levels of description. List has argued that, since the consequence argument cannot be reconstructed within this framework, the consequence argument rests on a ‘category mistake’: an illicit conflation of the physical and agential levels. I show that an expanded version of List’s framework allows the construction of a cross-level consequence argument.

Links

PhilArchive

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

  • Only published works are available at libraries.

Similar books and articles

What’s wrong with the consequence argument: A compatibilist libertarian response.Christian List - 2019 - Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 119 (3):253-274.
What’s Wrong with the Consequence Argument: A Compatibilist Libertarian Response.Christian List - 2019 - Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 119 (3):253-274.
What the Consequence Argument Is an Argument For.Justin A. Capes - 2019 - Thought: A Journal of Philosophy 8 (1):50-56.
The supervenience argument.Jason Turner - 2004 - Florida Philosophical Review 4 (1):12-24.
The Incompatibility of Free Will and Naturalism.Jason Turner - 2009 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 87 (4):565-587.
The Irrelevance of Indeterministic Counterexamples to Principle Beta.Thomas M. Crisp & Ted A. Warfield - 2000 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 61 (1):173-184.
So-far incompatibilism and the so-far consequence argument.Stephen Hetherington - 2006 - Grazer Philosophische Studien 73 (1):163-178.
The Consequence Argument and the Definition of Determinism.Christopher Hughes - 2015 - Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia 71 (4):705-724.
Van Inwagen’s Consequence Argument.Michael Huemer - 2000 - Philosophical Review 109 (4):525-544.
The consequence argument revisited.Daniel Speak - 2011 - In Robert Kane (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Free Will, 2nd edition. Oxford University Press. pp. 115-130.

Analytics

Added to PP
2020-11-17

Downloads
429 (#45,914)

6 months
119 (#33,372)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Jonathan Birch
London School of Economics

Citations of this work

Sellars on compatibilism and the consequence argument.Jeremy Randel Koons - 2022 - Philosophical Studies 179 (7):2361-2389.
Determination from Above.Kenneth Silver - 2023 - Philosophical Issues 33 (1):237-251.

Add more citations

References found in this work

An Essay on Free Will.Peter Van Inwagen - 1983 - New York: Oxford University Press.
Why Free Will is Real.Christian List - 2019 - Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard University Press.
Are we free to break the laws?David Lewis - 1981 - Theoria 47 (3):113-21.
Emergent Chance.Christian List & Marcus Pivato - 2015 - Philosophical Review 124 (1):119-152.

View all 18 references / Add more references