The importance of Frankfurt-style argument

Philosophical Quarterly 57 (228):464–471 (2007)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

I reply to the challenges to Frankfurt-style compatibilism about causal determinism and moral responsibility presented in Daniel Speak's paper 'The Impertinence of Frankfurt-Style Argument'. I seek to show how Speak's critiques rest on an 'all-or-nothing' attitude in various ways, and I attempt to defend the importance of Frankfurt-style argumentation in defence of compatibilism

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,261

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
155 (#123,385)

6 months
1 (#1,478,781)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

John Fischer
University of California, Riverside

Citations of this work

A defense of Frankfurt-friendly libertarianism.David Widerker - 2009 - Philosophical Explorations 12 (2):87 – 108.
Blocking Blockage.Ken Levy - 2016 - Philosophia 44 (2):565-583.
Blocking Blockage.Ken Levy - 2016 - Philosophia 44 (2):565-582.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility.Harry G. Frankfurt - 1969 - Journal of Philosophy 66 (23):829-839.
Rescuing Frankfurt-style cases.Alfred R. Mele & David Robb - 1998 - Philosophical Review 107 (1):97-112.
The impertinence of Frankfurt-style argument.Daniel James Speak - 2007 - Philosophical Quarterly 57 (226):76-95.
Trumping Frankfurt.Kevin Timpe - 2003 - Philosophia Christi 5 (2):485-499.

Add more references