Stumping For Widerker

Faith and Philosophy 16 (1):83-89 (1999)
Abstract David Widerker has forcefully argued that a libertarian is on firm ground in believing that the principle of alternative possibilities (PAP) is true. Eleonore Stump has argued that not all libertarians need accept PAP, and that its acceptance is not required for a rejection of compatibilism.This paper is a defense of Widerker against Stump. I argue that it is not at all clear that Stump’s view of freedom is libertarian in nature, and that she has not provided a good reason for thinking that a libertarian can abandon PAP
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
 
Download 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

    Similar books and articles
    Eleonore Stump (1996). Libertarian Freedom and the Principle of Alternative Possibilities. In Jeff Jordan & Daniel Howard-Snyder (eds.), Faith, Freedom, and Rationality: Philosophy of Religion Today. Lanham: Rowman &Amp; Littlefield.
    Justin A. Capes (2010). The W-Defense. Philosophical Studies 150:61-77.

    Analytics

    Monthly downloads

    Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.

    Added to index

    2011-12-02

    Total downloads

    1 ( #274,507 of 548,969 )

    Recent downloads (6 months)

    1 ( #63,511 of 548,969 )

    How can I increase my downloads?


    My notes
    Sign in to use this feature


    Discussion
    Start a new thread
    Order:
    There  are no threads in this forum
    Nothing in this forum yet.

    Other forums