What is the consequence argument an argument for?

Analysis 77 (2):278-287 (2017)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The consequence argument is widely regarded as the most important argument for incompatibilism. In this paper, I argue that, although the consequence argument may be sound in its standard formulations, it does not support any thesis that could reasonably be called ‘incompatibilism’.

Categories

Keywords

Reprint years

DOI

10.1093/analys/anx052

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,709

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

My notes

Similar books and articles

So-far incompatibilism and the so-far consequence argument.Stephen Hetherington - 2006 - Grazer Philosophische Studien 73 (1):163-178.
The Irrelevance of Indeterministic Counterexamples to Principle Beta.Thomas M. Crisp & Ted A. Warfield - 2000 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 61 (1):173-184.
Against libertarianism.Alicia Finch - 2013 - Philosophical Studies 166 (3):475-493.
Lehrer and the consequence argument.Danilo Šuster - 2012 - Philosophical Studies 161 (1):77-86.
The supervenience argument.Jason Turner - 2004 - Florida Philosophical Review 4 (1):12-24.
Incompatibilism and the Past.Andrew M. Bailey - 2012 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 85 (2):351-376.
Das Konsequenzargument.Christoph Jäger - 2013 - In Rolf W. Puster (ed.), Klassische Argumentationen der Philosophie. pp. 275-296.
The Incompatibility of Free Will and Naturalism.Jason Turner - 2009 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 87 (4):565-587.
Does the Consequence Argument Beg the Question?John Martin Fischer & Garrett Pendergraft - 2013 - Philosophical Studies 166 (3):575-595.
On behalf of the consequence argument: time, modality, and the nature of free action.Alicia Finch - 2013 - Philosophical Studies 163 (1):151-170.
Incompatibilism's Allure: Principle Arguments for Incompatibilism.Ishtiyaque Haji - 2008 - Peterborough, CA: Broadview Press.
Van Inwagen’s Consequence Argument.Michael Huemer - 2000 - Philosophical Review 109 (4):525-544.
A flawed conception of determinism in the Consequence Argument.S. Sehon - 2011 - Analysis 71 (1):30-38.
Molinists (still) cannot endorse the consequence argument.Yishai Cohen - 2015 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 77 (3):231-246.
The core of the consequence argument.Alex Blum - 2003 - Dialectica 57 (4):423-429.

Analytics

Added to PP
2017-09-12

Downloads
172 (#112,497)

6 months
21 (#125,410)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Brian Cutter
University of Notre Dame

Citations of this work

Arguments for incompatibilism.Kadri Vihvelin - 2003/2017 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Incompatibilism and the garden of forking paths.Andrew Law - 2023 - Philosophical Issues 33 (1):110-123.
What the Consequence Argument Is an Argument For.Justin A. Capes - 2019 - Thought: A Journal of Philosophy 8 (1):50-56.

View all 8 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

An Essay on Free Will.Peter Van Inwagen - 1983 - New York: Oxford University Press.
God, freedom, and evil.Alvin Plantinga - 1978 - Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Are we free to break the laws?David Lewis - 1981 - Theoria 47 (3):113-21.
Against Counterfactual Miracles.Cian Dorr - 2016 - Philosophical Review 125 (2):241-286.
Are We Free to Break the Laws?David Lewis - 1981 - In Gary Watson (ed.), Free Will. Oxford University Press.

View all 32 references / Add more references