Graduate studies at Western
Acta Analytica 27 (3):325-333 (2012)
|Abstract||Joseph Keim Campbell has attempted to say “farewell” to a particular version of source incompatibilism, viz. direct source incompatibilism, arguing that direct source incompatibilism is committed to two theses that are in tension, thereby threatening the coherence of the position. He states that direct source incompatibilism is committed to the following claims: SI-F: there are genuine Frankfurt-style counterexamples. SI-D: there is a sound version of the Direct Argument. Campbell argues that both of these theses cannot be simultaneously held since a sound version of the Direct Argument would undermine Frankfurt-style counterexamples, and vice versa. After laying out Campbell’s argument, I will first make some preliminary comments regarding actual direct source incompatibilists and their commitment to SI-F and SI-D. I then object to Campbell’s argument, arguing that one can accept both SI-F and SI-D, thereby vindicating direct source incompatibilism from the charge of incoherence.|
|Keywords||Incompatibilism Moral responsibility Direct argument|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Joseph Keim Campbell (2006). Farewell to Direct Source Incompatibilism. Acta Analytica 21 (4):36 - 49.
Charles Hermes & Joe Campbell (2012). More Trouble for Direct Source Incompatibilism: Reply to Yang. [REVIEW] Acta Analytica 27 (3):335-344.
Seth Shabo (2010). Uncompromising Source Incompatibilism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 80 (2):349-383.
Kevin Timpe (2007). Source Incompatibilism and its Alternatives. American Philosophical Quarterly 44 (2):284-299.
Seth Shabo (2010). The Fate of the Direct Argument and the Case for Incompatibilism. Philosophical Studies 150 (3):405-424.
Ishtiyaque Haji (2008). Reflections on the Incompatibilist's Direct Argument. Erkenntnis 68 (1):1 - 19.
Eleonore Stump (2000). The Direct Argument for Incompatibilism. [REVIEW] Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 61 (2):459-466.
Ira M. Schnall & David Widerker (2012). The Direct Argument and the Burden of Proof. Analysis 72 (1):25-36.
Seth Shabo (2010). Against Logical Versions of the Direct Argument: A New Counterexample. American Philosophical Quarterly 47 (3):239-252.
Ishtiyaque Haji (2009). Incompatibilism's Threat to Worldly Value: Source Incompatibilism, Desert, and Pleasure. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 78 (3):621-645.
Michael S. McKenna (2001). Source Incompatibilism, Ultimacy, and the Transfer of Non-Responsibility. American Philosophical Quarterly 38 (1):37-51.
Eleonore Stump (2000). Review: The Direct Argument for Incompatibilism. [REVIEW] Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 61 (2):459 - 466.
Seth Shabo (2011). What Must a Proof of Incompatibilism Prove? Philosophical Studies 154 (3):361-371.
Andrew M. Bailey (2012). Incompatibilism and the Past. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 85 (2):351-376.
Laura W. Ekstrom (1998). Freedom, Causation, and the Consequence Argument. Synthese 115 (3):333-54.
Added to index2011-12-03
Total downloads22 ( #62,693 of 722,946 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,087 of 722,946 )
How can I increase my downloads?