On Carlos Moya's Reply to the Argument from Luck Resumen: Esta nota crítica se centra en el argumento de Carlos Moya a favor de la conclusión de que el Argumento de la Suerte representa en realidad un problema mayor para los compatibilistas que para los libertaristas. La Sección 1 introduce brevemente el Argumento de la Suerte. La Sección 2 discute la distinción de Moya entre dos concepciones de deliberación práctica, y propone una manera alternativa a la de Moya de entender (...) la crítica al libertarismo que se basa en la condición de que cualquier decisión libre debe tener una explicación contrastiva. Finalmente, la Sección 3 resume la respuesta libertarista de Moya al Argumento de la Suerte, y sugiere un modelo alternativo de determinismo que Moya podría considerar para completar su argumento. Palabras clave: libre albedrío, Argumento de la Suerte, libertarismo, compatibilismo, explicación contrastiva, determinismo.: This review focuses on Carlos Moya’s argument for the conclusion that the Argument from Luck actually represents a greater problem for compatibilism than for libertarianism. Section 1 briefly introduces the Argument from Luck. Section 2 discusses Moya’s distinction between two conceptions of practical deliberation, and suggests a justification that Moya does not consider for the condition that any free decision must have a contrastive explanation. Finally, Section 3 summarizes Moya’s libertarian response to the Argument from Luck, and suggests an alternative model of determinism that Moya might consider to complete his argument. Keywords: free will, Argument from Luck, libertarianism compatibilism, contrastive explanation, determinism. (shrink)

Something is a matter of luck if it is beyond our control. In this paper, I argue for the primary thesis that luck can undermine varieties of obligation, such as moral and prudential obligation, as well as judgments that are best from an agent’s own point of view. Among the considerations invoked to defend this thesis is a prevalent form of libertarianism, event-causal libertarianism. Arguments for the primary thesis that call on event-causal libertarianism raise concerns with this variety of libertarianism.

This paper updates, modifies, and extends an account of psychopaths’ responsibility and blameworthiness that depends on behavioral control rather than moral knowledge. Philosophers mainly focus on whether psychopaths can be said to grasp moral rules as such, whereas it seems to be important to their blameworthiness that typical psychopaths are hampered by impulsivity and other barriers to exercising self-control. I begin by discussing an atypical case, for contrast, of a young man who was diagnosed as a psychopath at one point (...) but who lacks the element of impulsivity. He exhibits the usual deficits of empathy and related moral emotions, but by now he has developed effective alternative means of conforming to moral rules, essentially on the basis of self-interest. I think it does seem reasonable to hold him morally responsible if he should violate a rule, despite his refusal to acknowledge any specifically moral reasons. I then turn to more typical cases, arguing that blameworthiness is mitigated by the difficulty of learning alternative means of self-control. In a departure from my earlier work, I do not take responsibility to have degrees. But since both blameworthiness and freedom to do otherwise have degrees that depend on the same factors, I go on to explain how it can be reasonable to blame a typical psychopath for an act he may not have been free to avoid. More generally, my suggestion is that notions commonly conflated in philosophers’ treatments of responsibility should be prized apart. (shrink)

Quaderns de filosofia V, 1 Número complet / Número completo / Full Issue.

Central to Robert Kane’s libertarian free will is the distinction between two kinds of action: undetermined self-forming actions by means of which we shape our characters, and actions that are determined by our freely formed characters. Daniel Dennett challenges the coherence of this distinction, but I argue that his arguments rely on highly controversial assumptions. In an effort to improve on Dennett’s criticism, I argue that some considerations about non-self-forming actions, when coupled with Kane’s naturalistic framework, imply that all choices (...) are undetermined, which undercuts the distinction between his two categories of action. I then show that this conclusion threatens to undermine the very idea of self-formation Kane seeks to develop. (shrink)