Free will eliminativism: reference, error, and phenomenology

Philosophical Studies 172 (10):2823-2833 (2015)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Shaun Nichols has recently argued that while the folk notion of free will is associated with error, a question still remains whether the concept of free will should be eliminated or preserved. He maintains that like other eliminativist arguments in philosophy, arguments that free will is an illusion seem to depend on substantive assumptions about reference. According to free will eliminativists, people have deeply mistaken beliefs about free will and this entails that free will does not exist. However, an alternative reaction is that free will does exist, we just have some deeply mistaken beliefs about it. According to Nichols, all such debates boil down to whether or not the erroneous folk term in question successfully refers or not. Since Nichols adopts the view that reference is systematically ambiguous, he maintains that in some contexts it’s appropriate to take a restrictivist view about whether a term embedded in a false theory refers, while in other contexts it’s appropriate to take a liberal view about whether a token of the very same term refers. This, according to Nichols, affords the possibility of saying that the sentence “free will exists” is false in some contexts and true in others. In this paper I argue that even if we grant Nichols his pluralistic approach to reference, there is still good reason to prefer eliminativism to preservationism with regard to free will. My argument focuses on one important difference between the concept of “free will” and other theoretical terms embedded in false theories—i.e., the role that the phenomenology of free agency plays in reference fixing

Similar books and articles

Free will remains a mystery.Peter Van Inwagen - 2000 - Philosophical Perspectives 14:1-20.
The phenomenology of free will.Eddy Nahmias, Stephen G. Morris, Thomas Nadelhoffer & Jason Turner - 2004 - Journal of Consciousness Studies 11 (7-8):162-179.
Libet and the case for free will scepticism.Tim Bayne - 2011 - In Richard Swinburne (ed.), Free Will and Modern Science. Oup/British Academy.
Hegel’s Free Mechanism: The Resurrection of the Concept.Gregory S. Moss - 2013 - International Philosophical Quarterly 53 (1):73-85.
Free acts and robot cats.Russell Daw & Torin Alter - 2001 - Philosophical Studies 102 (3):345-57.
Epiphenomenalism Explained.Norman Bacrac - 2010 - Philosophy Now 81:10-13.
Should or should not forensic psychiatrists think about free will?Gerben Meynen - 2009 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 12 (2):203-212.
The Illusion of Freedom Evolves.Tamler Sommers - 2007 - In Don Ross, David Spurrett, Harold Kincaid & G. Lynn Stephens (eds.), Distributed Cognition and the Will: Individual volition and social context. MIT Press. pp. 61.

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-01-29

Downloads
384 (#29,846)

6 months
69 (#16,294)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Gregg D. Caruso
Corning Community College

Citations of this work

Skepticism About Moral Responsibility.Gregg D. Caruso - 2018 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2018):1-81.
Free actions as a natural kind.Oisín Deery - 2021 - Synthese 198 (1):823-843.

Add more citations