Philosophical Studies 156 (2):199-230 (2011)
|Abstract||In this paper I seek to defend libertarianism about free will and moral responsibility against two well-known arguments: the luck argument and the Mind argument. Both of these arguments purport to show that indeterminism is incompatible with the degree of control necessary for free will and moral responsibility. I begin the discussion by elaborating these arguments, clarifying important features of my preferred version of libertarianism—features that will be central to an adequate response to the arguments—and showing why a strategy of reconciliation (often referred to as “deliberative libertarianism”) will not work. I then consider four formulations of the luck argument and find them all wanting. This discussion will place us in a favorable position to understand why the Mind argument also fails|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Ishtiyaque H. Haji (2007). Modest Libertarianism, Luck, and Control. Polish Journal of Philosophy 1 (2):77-89.
E. J. Coffman (2009). Does Luck Exclude Control? Australasian Journal of Philosophy 87 (3):499-504.
Derk Pereboom (2007). On Alfred Mele's Free Will and Luck. Philosophical Explorations 10 (2):163 – 172.
Alicia Finch & Ted A. Warfield (1998). The Mind Argument and Libertarianism. Mind 107 (427):515-28.
Manuel Vargas (2004). Libertarianism and Skepticism About Free Will: Some Arguments Against Both. Philosophical Topics 32 (1&2):403-26.
Free Will & Luck (2007). Good Luck to Libertarians. Philosophical Explorations 10 (2):173 – 184.
E. J. Coffman (2011). How (Not) to Attack the Luck Argument. Philosophical Explorations 13 (2):157-166.
Added to index2010-07-19
Total downloads72 ( #14,317 of 722,874 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #17,023 of 722,874 )
How can I increase my downloads?