David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophical Studies 154 (3):361-371 (2011)
Peter van Inwagen has developed two highly influential strategies for establishing incompatibilism about causal determinism and moral responsibility. These have come to be known as ‘the Direct Argument’ and ‘the Indirect Argument,’ respectively. In recent years, the two arguments have attracted closely related criticisms. In each case, it is claimed, the argument does not provide a fully general defense of the incompatibilist’s conclusion. While the critics are right to notice these arguments’ limitations, they have not made it clear what the problem with the arguments is supposed to be. I suggest three possibilities, arguing that none proves to be well founded. I conclude that the scope of these arguments is fully adequate for their defenders’ purposes.
|Keywords||Incompatibilism Direct Argument Indirect Argument Campbell Fischer|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Anthony Brueckner (2008). Retooling the Consequence Argument. Analysis 68 (297):10–13.
Joseph Keim Campbell (2007). Free Will and the Necessity of the Past. Analysis 67 (294):105-111.
Joseph Keim Campbell (2008). Reply to Brueckner. Analysis 68 (299):264–269.
John Martin Fischer (2004). 9 The Transfer of Nonresponsibility. In Joseph K. Campbell (ed.), Freedom and Determinism. Cambridge Ma: Bradford Book/Mit Press.
Harry G. Frankfurt (1969). Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility. Journal of Philosophy 66 (3):829-39.
Citations of this work BETA
Seth Shabo (2011). Why Free Will Remains a Mystery. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 92 (1):105-125.
Seth Shabo (2013). Free Will and Mystery: Looking Past the Mind Argument. Philosophical Studies 162 (2):291-307.
Similar books and articles
William Hasker (2011). Theological Incompatibilism and the Necessity of the Present. Faith and Philosophy 28 (2):224-229.
Ira M. Schnall & David Widerker (2012). The Direct Argument and the Burden of Proof. Analysis 72 (1):25-36.
Ishtiyaque Haji (2008). Reflections on the Incompatibilist's Direct Argument. Erkenntnis 68 (1):1 - 19.
Sven Bernecker (1996). Davidson on First-Person Authority and Externalism. Inquiry 39 (1):121-39.
Andrew M. Bailey (2012). Incompatibilism and the Past. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 85 (2):351-376.
Kevin Timpe (2007). Source Incompatibilism and its Alternatives. American Philosophical Quarterly 44 (2):284-299.
Seth Shabo (2010). Against Logical Versions of the Direct Argument: A New Counterexample. American Philosophical Quarterly 47 (3):239-252.
Eric Yang (2012). Defending Direct Source Incompatibilism. Acta Analytica 27 (3):325-333.
Edmund Henden (2010). Deliberation Incompatibilism. Dialectica 64 (3):313-333.
Seth Shabo (2010). The Fate of the Direct Argument and the Case for Incompatibilism. Philosophical Studies 150 (3):405-424.
Added to index2010-05-06
Total downloads75 ( #20,263 of 1,101,947 )
Recent downloads (6 months)10 ( #24,823 of 1,101,947 )
How can I increase my downloads?