The importance of Frankfurt-style argument
Philosophical Quarterly 57 (228):464–471 (2007)
| Abstract | I reply to the challenges to Frankfurt-style compatibilism about causal determinism and moral responsibility presented in Daniel Speak's paper 'The Impertinence of Frankfurt-Style Argument'. I seek to show how Speak's critiques rest on an 'all-or-nothing' attitude in various ways, and I attempt to defend the importance of Frankfurt-style argumentation in defence of compatibilism | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,631 |
| External links |
|
| Through your library | Configure |
Maria Alvarez (2009). Actions, Thought-Experiments and the 'Principle of Alternate Possibilities'. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 87 (1):61 – 81.
Alfred R. Mele & David Robb (1998). Rescuing Frankfurt-Style Cases. Philosophical Review 107 (1):97-112.
Derk Pereboom (2009). Further Thoughts About a Frankfurt-Style Argument. Philosophical Explorations 12 (2):109 – 118.
Stewart C. Goetz (2005). Frankfurt-Style Counterexamples and Begging the Question. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 29 (1):83-105.
Katarzyna Paprzycka (2002). Flickers of Freedom and Frankfurt-Style Cases in the Light of the New Incompatibilism of the Stit Theory. Journal of Philosophical Research 27:553-565.
Daniel James Speak (2007). The Impertinence of Frankfurt-Style Argument. Philosophical Quarterly 57 (226):76-95.
Justin A. Capes (2010). The W-Defense. Philosophical Studies 150:61-77.
John Martin Fischer (2002). Frankfurt-Style Compatibilism. In Sarah Buss & Lee Overton (eds.), Contours of Agency: Essays on Themes From Harry Frankfurt. MIT Press, Bradford Books.
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads55 ( #18,223 of 548,969 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,511 of 548,969 )How can I increase my downloads? |

