Graduate studies at Western
Analysis 68 (299):254–257 (2008)
|Abstract||I have argued recently that compatibilism cannot resist in a principled way the temptation to prepunish people, and that it thus emerges as a much more radical view than is typically presented and perceived; and is at odds with fundamental moral intuitions (Smilansky 2007a). Stephen Kearns (2008) has replied, arguing that ‘Smilansky has not shown that compatibilism cannot resist prepunishment. Prepunishment is so bizarre that it can be resisted by just about anybody’. I would like to examine his challenging arguments.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Lloyd Strickland (2011). God and Prepunishment. Philosophical Papers 40 (1):105-127.
John Martin Fischer (2008). My Way and Life's Highway: Replies to Steward, Smilansky, and Perry. [REVIEW] Journal of Ethics 12 (2):167 - 189.
Roy Sorensen (2006). Future Law: Prepunishment and the Causal Theory of Verdicts. Noûs 40 (1):166–183.
Saul Smilansky (1991). The Contrariety of Compatibilist Positions. Journal of Philosophical Research 16:293-309.
Saul Smilansky (2003). Compatibilism: The Argument From Shallowness. Philosophical Studies 115 (3):257-82.
Saul Smilansky (2008). More Prepunishment for Compatibilists: A Reply to Beebee. Analysis 68 (299):260–263.
Stephen Kearns (2008). Compatibilism Can Resist Prepunishment: A Reply to Smilansky. Analysis 68 (299):250–253.
Matthew Talbert (2009). Compatibilism, Common Sense, and Prepunishment. Public Affairs Quarterly 23 (4):325-335.
Saul Smilansky (2007). Determinism and Prepunishment: The Radical Nature of Compatibilism. Analysis 67 (296):347–349.
Michael Robinson (2010). A Compatibilist-Friendly Rejection of Prepunishment. Philosophia 38 (3):589-594.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads20 ( #68,365 of 741,433 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,802 of 741,433 )
How can I increase my downloads?