Theoria 47 (3):113-21 (1981)
|Abstract||I insist that I was able to raise my hand, and I acknowledge that a law would have been broken had I done so, but I deny that I am therefore able to break a law. To uphold my instance of soft determinism, I need not claim any incredible powers. To uphold the compatibilism that I actually believe, I need not claim that such powers are even possible. My incompatibilist opponent is a creature of fiction, but he has his prototypes in real life. He is modeled partly after Peter van Inwagen and partly on myself when I first worried about van Inwagen's argument against compatibilism.|
|Keywords||Determinism Law Social Philosophy Lewis, D|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Peter van Inwagen (1990). Logic and the Free Will Problem. Social Theory and Practice 16 (3):277-90.
Lynne Rudder Baker (2008). The Irrelevance of the Consequence Argument. Analysis 68 (297):13–22.
John Perry (2004). Compatibilist Options. In David Shier, Michael O'Rourke & Joseph Keim Campbell (eds.), Freedom and Determinism. MIT Press/Bradford Book.
Thomas W. Settle (1993). How Determinism Refutes Compatibilism. Religious Studies 29 (3):353-62.
Peter van Inwagen (1975). The Incompatibility of Free Will and Determinism. Philosophical Studies 27 (March):185-99.
Peter van Inwagen (1983). An Essay on Free Will. Oxford University Press.
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.
Kadri Vihvelin, Arguments for Incompatibilism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Helen Beebee & Alfred R. Mele (2002). Humean Compatibilism. Mind 111 (442):201-223.
S. Oakley (2006). Defending Lewis's Local Miracle Compatibilism. Philosophical Studies 130 (2):337-349.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads429 ( #219 of 722,837 )
Recent downloads (6 months)27 ( #4,647 of 722,837 )
How can I increase my downloads?