Abstract
In this paper I offer from a source compatibilist's perspective a critical discussion of Four Views on Free Will by John Martin Fischer, Robert Kane, Derk Pereboom, and Manuel Vargas. Sharing Fischer's semi-compatibilist view, I propose modifications to his arguments while resisting his coauthors' objections. I argue against Kane that he should give up the requirement that a free and morally responsible agent be able to do otherwise (in relevant cases). I argue against Pereboom that his famed manipulation argument be resisted by contending that the agents in it are free and responsible. And I also argue against Vargas by challenging the sense in which his revisionist thesis differs from a position like Fischer's and mine. I close by reflecting on the nature of desert. All seem to assume it is central to the debate, but what is it?
Original language | English (US) |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 3-13 |
Number of pages | 11 |
Journal | Philosophical Studies |
Volume | 144 |
Issue number | 1 |
DOIs | |
State | Published - May 2009 |
Externally published | Yes |
Keywords
- Compatibilism
- Determinism
- Fischer
- Free will
- Kane
- Manipulation
- Moral responsibility
- PAP
- Pereboom
- Revisionism
- Source compatibilism desert
- Vargas
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Philosophy