Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T04:33:28.282Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A critique of Vihvelin’s Three-fold Classification

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Kristin Mickelson
Kristin Mickelson*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Minnesota, Morris, 600 E. 4th Street, Morris, MN56267, USA
*
*Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this essay, I argue for the rejection of Vihvelin’s ‘Three-fold Classification’ (3-FC), a nonstandard taxonomy of free-will compatibilism, incompatibilism, and impossibilism. Vihvelin is right that the standard taxonomy of these views is inadequate, and that a new taxonomy is needed to clarify the free-will debate. Significantly, Vihvelin notes that the standard formal definition of ‘incompatibilism’ does not capture the historically popular view that deterministic laws pose a threat to free will. Vihvelin’s proposed solution is to redefine ‘incompatibilism.’ However, Vihvelin’s formal definition of ‘incompatibilism’ is flawed according to her own arguments. In addition, Vihvelin’s characterization of ‘compatibilism’ is (at best) incomplete, and at least two important free-will views are missing from her proposed taxonomy. Given the problems with Vihvelin’s arguments for 3-FC, her novel view of the dialectic between the major free-will views lacks support.

Keywords

free willstandard taxonomyincompossibilismincompatibilismimpossibilismbasic argument
Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 45 , Issue 1 , February 2015 , pp. 85 - 99
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Journal of Philosophy 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bobzien, Susanne. 1998. “The Inadvertent Conception and Late Birth of the Free-Will Problem.”; Phronesis 43(2): 133–175. doi:10.1163/15685289860511069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broad, C. D. 1934. Determinism, Indeterminism, and Libertarianism. Cambridge: The University Press.Google Scholar
Cornman, J., and Lehrer, K.. 1968. Philosophical Problems and Arguments: An Introduction. New York: MacMillan Company.Google Scholar
Hermes, Charles. 2014. “Truthmakers and the Direct Argument.”; Philosophical Studies 167(2): 401–418. doi:10.1007/s11098-013-0101-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huby, Pamela. 1967. “The First Discovery of the Freewill Problem.”; Philosophy 42(162): 353–362. doi:10.1017/S0031819100001534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, Neil. 2011. Hard Luck: How luck Undermines Free Will and Moral Responsibility. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKenna, Michael. 2010. “Whose Argumentative Burden, Which Incompatibilist Arguments? – Getting the Dialectic Right.”; Australasian Journal of Philosophy 88(3): 429–443. doi:10.1080/00048400903233811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mele, Alfred. 2013. “Manipulation, Moral Responsibility, and Bullet Biting.”; Journal of Ethics 17(3): 167–184. doi:10.1007/s10892-013-9147-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mickelson, Kristin. 2015. “The Zygote Argument is Invalid–Now What?”; Philosophical Studies. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s11098-015-0449-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
OED Online. 2014. “Incompatible, adj. and n.”; Oxford University Press, September. http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/93705?redirectedFrom=incompatible.Google Scholar
Pereboom, Derk. 2001. Living Without Free Will. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strawson, Galen. 1986. Freedom and Belief. New York: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Strawson, Galen. 1994. “The Impossibility of Moral Responsibility.”; Philosophical Studies 75(1–2): 5–24. doi:10.1007/BF00989879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strawson, Galen. (1998) 2011. “Free Will.”; In Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Craig, E.. London: Routledge. http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/V014SECT3.Google Scholar
Strawson, Galen. 2002. “The Bounds of Freedom.”; In The Oxford Handbook of Free Will, edited by Kane, Robert, 441–460. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Strawson, P. F. 1962. “Freedom and Resentment.”; Proceedings of the British Academy 48: 1–25.Google Scholar
van Inwagen, Peter. 1983. An Essay on Free Will. New York: Oxford University Press/Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
van Inwagen, Peter. 2008. “How to Think About the Problem of Free Will.”; Journal of Ethics 12(3–4): 327–341. doi:10.1007/s10892-008-9038-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vihvelin, Kadri. 2008. “Compatibilism, Incompatibilism, and Impossibilism.”; In Contemporary Debates in Metaphysics, edited by Hawthorne, John, Sider, Theodore, and Zimmerman, Dean, 303–318. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Vihvelin, Kadri. 2011. “Arguments for Incompatibilism.”; In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Zalta, Edward N. (Spring 2011 Edition (first archived Winter 2003 Edition)). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/entries/incompatibilism-arguments/.Google Scholar
Vihvelin, Kadri. 2013. Causes, Laws, and Free Will: Why Determinism Doesn’t Matter. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar