Princeton University Press (1998)
Can we reconcile the idea that we are free and responsible agents with the idea that what we do is determined according to natural laws? For centuries, philosophers have tried in different ways to show that we can. Hilary Bok takes a fresh approach here, as she seeks to show that the two ideas are compatible by drawing on the distinction between practical and theoretical reasoning.Bok argues that when we engage in practical reasoning--the kind that involves asking "what should I do?" and sifting through alternatives to find the most justifiable course of action--we have reason to hold ourselves responsible for what we do. But when we engage in theoretical reasoning--searching for causal explanations of events--we have no reason to apply concepts like freedom and responsibility. Bok contends that libertarians' arguments against "compatibilist" justifications of moral responsibility fail because they describe human actions only from the standpoint of theoretical reasoning. To establish this claim, she examines which conceptions of freedom of the will and moral responsibility are relevant to practical reasoning and shows that these conceptions are not vulnerable to many objections that libertarians have directed against compatibilists. Bok concludes that the truth or falsity of the claim that we are free and responsible agents in the sense those conceptions spell out is ultimately independent of deterministic accounts of the causes of human actions.Clearly written and powerfully argued, Freedom and Responsibility is a major addition to current debate about some of philosophy's oldest and deepest questions.
|Keywords||Freedom Guilt Reason Responsibility Social Philosophy|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Buy the book||$49.95 used (10% off) $97.94 new Amazon page|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Does the Consequence Argument Beg the Question?John Martin Fischer & Garrett Pendergraft - 2013 - Philosophical Studies 166 (3):575-595.
Deliberation and Metaphysical Freedom.E. J. Coffman & Ted A. Warfield - 2005 - Midwest Studies in Philosophy 29 (1):25-44.
The Metaphysical Importance of the Compatibility Question: Comments on Mark Balaguer's Free Will as an Open Scientific Problem.Michael McKenna - 2012 - Philosophical Studies (1):1-12.
A Compatibilist Account of the Epistemic Conditions on Rational Deliberation.Derk Pereboom - 2008 - Journal of Ethics 12 (3/4):287 - 306.
The Metaphysical Irrelevance of the Compatibilism Debate (and, More Generally, of Conceptual Analysis).Mark Balaguer - 2009 - Southern Journal of Philosophy 47 (1):1-24.
Similar books and articles
Recent Work on Free Will and Moral Responsibility.Neil Levy & Michael McKenna - 2009 - Philosophy Compass 4 (1):96-133.
Restrictivism is a Covert Compatibilism.Neil Levy - forthcoming - In N. Trakakis (ed.), Essays on Free Will and Moral Responsibility. Cambridge Scholars Press.
Free Will and Moral Responsibility.John Martin Fischer - 2004 - In D. Copps (ed.), Handbook on Ethical Theory. Oxford University Press.
Is There a Freedom Requirement for Moral Responsibility?Phillip D. Gosselin - 1979 - Dialogue 18 (3):289-306.
Hilary Bok, Freedom and Responsibility: Bok, Hilary . Freedom and Responsibility. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1998. Pp. 220. $45.00 (Cloth). [REVIEW]Michael McKenna - 2002 - Ethics 113 (1):144-145.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads154 ( #29,227 of 2,152,538 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #119,679 of 2,152,538 )
How can I increase my downloads?