Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:02:31.215Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Incompatibilism proved

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Alexander R. Pruss
Alexander R. Pruss*
Affiliation:
Philosophy, Baylor University, Waco, Texas76798, USA
*
*Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The consequence argument attempts to show that incompatibilism is true by showing that if there is determinism, then we never had, have or will have any choice about anything. Much of the debate on the consequence argument has focused on the “beta” transfer principle, and its improvements. We shall show that on an appropriate definition of “never have had, have or will have any choice”, a version of the beta principle is a theorem given one plausible axiom for counterfactuals (weakening). Instead of being about transfer principles, the debate should be over whether the distant past and laws are up to us.

Keywords

free willdeterminismindeterminismtransfer principlefreedomcompatibilismincompatibilismcounterfactuals
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 43 , Issue 4 , August 2013 , pp. 430 - 437
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2013

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

Beebee, H. 22. “Reply to Huemer on the Consequence Argument.” Philosophical Review 111: 235–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finch, A., and Warfield, T. A.. 1998. “The MIND Argument and Libertarianism.” Mind 127: 515–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huemer, M. 20. “Van Inwagen's Consequence Argument.” Philosophical Review 109: 525–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. 1981. “Are we free to break the laws?” Theoria 47: 113–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKay, T., and Johnson, D.. 1996. “A Reconsideration of an Argument Against Compatibilism.” Philosophical Topics 24: 113–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pruss, A. R. 27. “Conjunctions, Disjunctions and Lewisian Semantics for Counterfactuals.” Synthese 156: 33–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pruss, A. R. 2011. Actuality, Possibility and Worlds. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
van Inwagen, P. 1983. An Essay on Free Will. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
van Inwagen, P. 20. “Free Will Remains a Mystery.” Philosophical Perspectives, 14, Action and Freedom: 1–19.Google Scholar
Widerker, David. 1987. “On an Argument for Incompatibilism.” Analysis 47: 37–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar