Philosophia 43 (1):205-215 (2015)
AbstractThe so-called Direct Argument for the incompatibility of moral responsibility and causal determinism depends on a rule of inference called Rule A, a rule that says no one is even partly morally responsible for a necessary truth. While most philosophers think that Rule A is valid, Stephen Kearns has recently offered several alleged counterexamples to the rule. In the paper, I show that Kearns’ counterexamples are unsuccessful
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Similar books and articles
Reflections on the Incompatibilist’s Direct Argument.Ishtiyaque Haji - 2008 - Erkenntnis 68 (1):1 - 19.
Truth and Moral Responsibility.P. Roger Turner - forthcoming - In Fabio Bacchini Massimo Dell'Utri & Stefano Caputo (eds.), New Advances in Causation, Agency, and Moral Responsibility. Cambridge Scholars Press.
Defending (a Modified Version of) the Zygote Argument.Patrick Todd - 2013 - Philosophical Studies 164 (1):189-203.
A Contractualist Defense of Rule Consequentialism.Sanford Levy - 2013 - Journal of Philosophical Research 38:189-201.
Do the Right Thing! Rule Finitism, Rule Scepticism and Rule Following.Wes Sharrock & Graham Button - 1999 - Human Studies 22 (2-4):193-210.
The Logic of Choice. An Investigation of the Concepts of Rule and Rationality. By Gidon Gottlieb. New York: Macmillan, 1967. Pp. 188. $5.95. [REVIEW]T. R. Kearns - 1968 - American Journal of Jurisprudence 13 (1):174-178.
A Copper Rule Versus the Golden Rule: A Daoist-Confucian Proposal for Global Ethics.Yong Huang - 2005 - Philosophy East and West 55 (3):394-425.
References found in this work
Responsibility and Control: A Theory of Moral Responsibility.John Martin Fischer & Mark Ravizza - 1998 - Cambridge University Press.
Responsibility and Control: A Theory of Moral Responsibility.John Martin Fischer & Mark Ravizza - 1999 - Philosophical Quarterly 49 (197):543-545.