David Lewis and many others hold that the "antecedent-worlds" relevant for the evaluations of most counterfactuals contain violations of the laws of the actual world, or "miracles". But this isn’t necessary. We may think of the counterfactual present "as if" it were the result of an unlawful divergence from actual history, while still extrapolating to a lawful counterfactual past. Not only does this account render miracles unnecessary, it serves as a unified way to evaluate forward and backward counterfactuals.

It is proposed that an act is morally wrong just in case it is a violation of a duty not to perform that particular act. This is equivalent to the claim that acts have their moral status essentially. This theory preserves some main deontological intuitions without making problematic claims about kinds of acts.

It is proposed that an act is morally wrong just in case it is a violation of a duty not to perform that particular act. This is equivalent to the claim that acts have their moral status essentially. This theory preserves some main deontological intuitions without making problematic claims about kinds of acts.

“Generic qualities” are qualities typical of a kind because of the nature of that kind. It is commonly thought that generic qualities are morally irrelevant. For instance, the fact that human beings have a natural tendency to be thus‐and‐such is not relevant to moral acts involving a particular human being; what matters, rather, are the qualities of that individual. I argue that generic qualities are relevant in certain instances. First, we need to believe that this is so in order to (...) be morally competent. Second, there is no other way to account for the rationality of the universal response to Oedipus the King. (shrink)

Peter van Inwagen attempts to demonstrate the apparent incompatibility of free will and indeterminism through an imaginative thought experiment. He imagines God repeatedly rolling the world back to its state one minute prior to the performance of an undetermined, putatively free action and then letting it go forward again. Van Inwagen argues that the outcome most friendly to the supposition that the agent acted freely, in which she does otherwise about half the time, is one which apparently shows that her (...) original act was a matter of chance, and thus not free. I argue that neither this outcome nor any other implies that her action was not free. (shrink)