Graduate studies at Western
In Robert H. Kane (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Free Will. Oxford University Press (2002)
|Abstract||The past 25 years have witnessed a vigorous discussion of an argument directed against the compatibilist approach to free will and responsibility. This reasoning, variously called the “consequence argument,” the “incompatibility argument,” and the “unavoidability argument,” may be expressed informally as follows: If determinism is true then whatever happens is a consequence of past events and laws over which we have no control and which we are unable to prevent. But whatever is a consequence of what’s beyond our control is not itself under our control. Therefore, if determinism is true then nothing that happens is under our control, including our own actions and thoughts. Instead, everything we do and think, everything that happens to us and within us, is akin to the vibration of a piano string upon being struck, with the past as pianist, and could not be otherwise than it is. While a number of philosophers take this reasoning to crush the prospects of compatibilism, others challenge its assumption that unavoidability “transfers” from sufficient condition to necessary condition or from cause to effect. The ensuing debate has occasionally been vitriolic— Hume once remarked that the free will issue is “the most contentious question of metaphysics, the most contentious science”—yet undeniably fruitful in generating more detailed examinations of ability and practical freedom. Whether we incline towards compatibilism or 2 incompatibilism, this latter development is likely to be of lasting value. As a compatibilist, I believe that the consequence argument fails to prove incompatibilism, and here I will develop criticisms of it that, for the most part, are already in the existing literature. Although a short essay cannot provide the theoretical account of practical freedom needed to underpin and justify this compatibilist critique, it will clarify the tasks that lie ahead|
|Keywords||Free Will Incompatibilism|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
James Cain (2004). Free Will and the Problem of Evil. Religious Studies 40 (4):437-456.
Ariel Yadin (2004). Assuming Determinism, Free Will Can Only Be an Illusion: An Argument for Incompatibilism. Iyyun 53 (July):275-286.
Manuel Vargas (2010). The Revisionist Turn: A Brief History of Recent Work on Free Will. In Jesus Aguilar, Andrei Buckareff & Keith Frankish (eds.), New Waves in Philosophy of Action. Palgrave.
Tomis Kapitan (1996). Modal Principles in the Metaphysics of Free Will. Philosophical Perspectives 10:419-45.
Andrew M. Bailey (2012). Incompatibilism and the Past. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 85 (2):351-376.
Stephen Hetherington (2006). So-Far Incompatibilism and the so-Far Consequence Argument. Grazer Philosophische Studien 73 (1):163-178.
Tomis Kapitan (1991). Ability and Cognition: A Defense of Compatibilism. Philosophical Studies 63 (August):231-43.
Laura W. Ekstrom (1998). Freedom, Causation, and the Consequence Argument. Synthese 115 (3):333-54.
Tomis Kapitan (2000). Autonomy and Manipulated Freedom. Philosopical Perspectives 14 (s14):81-104.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads61 ( #18,783 of 739,304 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #20,475 of 739,304 )
How can I increase my downloads?