David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophical Studies 56 (June):163-73 (1989)
The objection to R-S accounts that was raised by the possibility of external agents requires the acceptance of two premises, viz., that all R-S accounts allow for puppeteers and that puppeteers necessarily make us unfree. The Metaphilosophical reply shows that to the extent that puppeteers are more problematic than determinism per se, pup-peteers may be explicitly excluded since they violate our paradigm of free will. The Metaphilosophical reply also suggests that we should not expect our mature R-S account to supply logically necessary and sufficient conditions for free will, but rather give us answers that agree with our intuitions regarding paradigms of free and unfree decisions. The Irrelevancy reply completed our reply to incompatibilists who continue to object that determinism per se destroys the R-S program. It may be debated whether my autonomy variable account is a satisfactory way to spell out the Irrelevancy reply, but I think that this type of approach suggests the way to vindicating the R-S view from an important type of objection
|Keywords||Compatibilism Decision Free Will Metaphysics Reason|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Daniel C. Dennett (1978). Brainstorms. MIT Press.
Stephen P. Stich (1983). From Folk Psychology to Cognitive Science: The Case Against Belief. MIT Press.
Richard E. Nisbett & Lee Ross (1980). Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment. Prentice-Hall.
Harry G. Frankfurt (1971). Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person. Journal of Philosophy 68 (1):5-20.
Citations of this work BETA
Ishtiyaque Haji (1999). Indeterminism and Frankfurt-Type Examples. Philosophical Explorations 2 (1):42-58.
Ishtiyaque Haji & Stefaan E. Cuypers (2001). Libertarian Free Will and CNC Manipulation. Dialectica 55 (3):221-238.
Richard Double (1988). Libertarianism and Rationality. Southern Journal of Philosophy 26 (3):431-439.
Similar books and articles
Michael S. McKenna (1998). Does Strong Compatibilism Survive Frankfurt-Style Counterexamples? Philosophical Studies 91 (3):259-64.
Gregory Harding (1997). Free Will and Determinism: Why Compatibilism is False. [REVIEW] Erkenntnis 47 (3):311-349.
Bruce N. Waller (2003). A Metacompatibilist Account of Free Will: Making Compatibilists and Incompatibilist More Compatible. Philosophical Studies 112 (3):209-224.
Jim Stone (1998). Free Will as a Gift From God: A New Compatibilism. Philosophical Studies 92 (3):257-81.
D. B. Hausman (1975). Compatibilism Again. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 4 (March):509-514.
Timothy Schroeder (2007). Reflection, Reason, and Free Will. Philosophical Explorations 10 (1):77 – 84.
Helen Beebee & Alfred R. Mele (2002). Humean Compatibilism. Mind 111 (442):201-223.
Claudio F. Costa (2006). Free Will and the Soft Constraints of Reason. Ratio 19 (1):1-23.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads68 ( #66,207 of 1,934,933 )
Recent downloads (6 months)9 ( #58,932 of 1,934,933 )
How can I increase my downloads?