Where does the necessity that seems to accompany causal inferences come from? “Why [do] we conclude that … particular causes must necessarily have such particular effects?” In 1.3.6 of the Treatise, Hume entertains the possibility that this necessity is a function of reason. However, he eventually dismisses this possibility, where this dismissal consists of Hume’s “negative” argument concerning induction. This argument has received, and continues to receive, a tremendous amount of attention. How could causal inferences be justified if they (...) are not justified by reason? If we believe that p causes q, isn’t it reason that allows us to conclude q when we see p with some assurance, i.e. with some necessity? (shrink)

The essay deals with problems that emerge in new interpretations of Hume’s famous argument concerning induction. In modern Hume scholarship there is a growing tendency to view Hume’s argument not as reasoning concerning the evidential value of our inductions but rather as a kind of explanation of the cognitive process of making causal inferences. The essay describes the main tenets of two currently dominant interpretations . In addition to discussing both interpretations, the article engages in a discussion about (...) the meaning of Hume’s argument by confronting the old skeptical reading of Hume with new interpretations. My contribution to the discussion consists of two arguments against the explanatory tradition of viewing Hume’s argument. (shrink)

Hume’s argument concerning induction is the foundation stone of his philosophical system, and one of the most celebrated and influential arguments in the entire literature of western philosophy. It is therefore rather surprising that the enormous attention which has been devoted to it over the years has not resulted in any general consensus as to how it should be interpreted, or, in consequence, how Hume himself should be seen. At one extreme is the traditional view, which takes the (...) argument to be thoroughly sceptical, leading to the sweeping conclusion that all “probable reasoning” or “reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence” is utterly worthless, so that Hume is portrayed as a negative Pyrrhonian intent on undermining the credentials of all our would-be knowledge of the world. But at the other extreme a number of very prominent commentators, particularly in recent years, have put forward a strikingly contrasting view, that Hume’s intentions here are entirely non-sceptical, and that so far from advancing a negative thesis himself, he is merely intent on showing the implausible consequences of the “rationalist” position taken by some of his philosophical opponents. (shrink)

Williamson has forcefully argued that Fitch's argument shows that the domain of the unknowable is non-empty. And he exhorts us to make more inroads into the land of the unknowable. Concluding his discussion of Fitch's argument, he writes: " Once we acknowledge that [the domain of the unknowable] is non-empty, we can explore more effectively its extent. … We are only beginning to understand the deeper limits of our knowledge. " I shall formulate and evaluate a new argument concerning (...) the domain of the unknowable. It is an argument about knowability. More specifically, it is an argument about what we can know about the natural numbers. Since the domain of discourse will be the natural numbers structure, the notion of knowability can for the purposes of the argument be identified with a priori knowability or – which amounts to the same thing – absolute provability .Suppose, for a reductio, that there exists a property θ of natural numbers such that it is provable that for some natural number n, θ is true but unprovable. …. (shrink)

In a detailed examination of Quine's Two Dogmas of Empiricism, I argue that Quine fails to make the case that there are no analytical truths in ordinary language. Drawing on admissions he makes with regard to definitions and languages' relationship to pragmatic considerations, and an examination of his arguments concerning the interdefinability of the terms `synonymous', and `analytic', I argue that analytic truths exist as deducible consequences of the various uses to which language or sub-languages are put.

The burgeoning field of biomedical research involving the mixture of human and animal materials has attracted significant ethical controversy. Due to the many dimensions of potential ethical conflict involved in this type of research, and the wide variety of research projects under discussion, it is difficult to obtain an overview of the ethical debate. This paper attempts to remedy this by providing a systematic review of ethical reasons in academic publications on human-animal chimera research. We conducted a systematic review of (...) the ethical literature concerning human-animal chimeras based on the research question: “What ethical reasons have been given for or against conducting human-animal chimera research, and how have these reasons been treated in the ongoing debate?” Our search extends until the end of the year 2017, including MEDLINE, Embase, PhilPapers and EthxWeb databases, restricted to peer-reviewed journal publications in English. Papers containing ethical reasons were analyzed, and the reasons were coded according to whether they were endorsed, mentioned or rejected. Four hundred and thirty-one articles were retrieved by our search, and 88 were ultimately included and analyzed. Within these articles, we found 464 passages containing reasons for and against conducting human-animal chimera research. We classified these reasons into five categories and, within these, identified 12 broad and 31 narrow reason types.15% of the retrieved passages contained reasons in favor of conducting chimera research, while 85% of the passages contained reasons against it. The reasons against conducting chimera research fell into four further categories: reasons concerning the creation of a chimera, its treatment, reasons referring to metaphysical or social issues resulting from its existence and to potential downstream effects of chimera research. A significant proportion of identified passages fell under Category C. We hope that our results, in revealing the conceptual and argumentative structure of the debate and highlighting some its most notable tendencies and prominent positions, will facilitate continued discussion and provide a basis for the development of relevant policy and legislation. (shrink)

The 18th-century American philosopher Jonathan Edwards argues that nothing endures through time. I analyze his argument, paying particular attention to a central principle it relies on, namely that “nothing can exert itself, or operate, when and where it is not existing”. I also consider what I supposed to follow from the conclusion that nothing endures. Edwards is sometimes read as the first four-dimensionalist. I argue that this is wrong. Edwards does not conclude that things persist by having different temporal parts; (...) he concludes that nothing persists. (shrink)

This chapter examines and criticizes the main arguments offered for scientific realism, here identified as the following view: Science aims to give us, in its theories, a literally true story of what the world is like; and acceptance of a scientific theory involves the belief that it is true. In contrast, constructive empiricism, which also opts for a literal understanding of scientific language, is the following view: Science aims to give us theories which are empirically adequate; and acceptance of (...) a theory involves as belief only that it is empirically adequate. Topics examined include the ’theory/observation dichotomy’, observable versus unobservable entities, epistemology and the epistemic community, inference to the best explanation, principle of the common cause, and fictionalism. The views of Smart, Sellars, Reichenbach, Putnam, and Dummett are considered. It is argued that the arguments offered for scientific realism, though telling against logical positivism, do not support it over and against constructive empiricism. (shrink)

The thesis that social practice is the only criterion by which to judge truth has now become common sense in Marxist philosophy. However, the formulation of the thesis came as a result of the long period of exploration and struggle over the issue of the criterion of truth in the history of human knowledge. In Europe, the criterion has varied from the scholasticism of the Middle Ages, through the capitalist philosophy of modern times, to Marxist philosophy, according to the different (...) philosophical lines and different viewpoints on truth. In a nutshell, in the Middle Ages, the criterion was the religious inquisition based on dogmas in the "Bible." In opposing the ecclesiastic theology of the Middle Ages, capitalist philosophers in modern times presented "judgment by rationality." On the issue of the criterion of truth, some of them stressed rationality, while others emphasized experience. Only when Marxist philosophy proposed judgment on the basis of social practice was the issue truly resolved scientifically. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Hume's Argument Concerning the Idea of Existence John Bricke In"Hume on the IdeaofExistence"1Phillip Cumminsoffers anintricate and intriguing analysis of Hume's brief argument, at Treatise 1.2.6, concerning the idea ofexistence, an analysis that is, one wants to say, surely right on many of the essentials. He says relatively little, however, about a number of more preliminary matters, matters pertinent to the first of the several components he distinguishes (...) in Hume's argument. I propose to focus on these preliminaries. Doing so will suggest a more direct route to Hume's conclusions than the one Cummins traces. My representation of Hume's argument, just as Cummins', makes the notion of separability central. But my representation ofwhat I call Hume's Basic Premise eliminates the need for the problematic premise m on which Cummins has Hume's argument turn, and so it eliminates any need for the argument components—6A and 6B—that Cummins has Hume offer in m's support.2 Hume argues from some claim or other about perceptions and existence—his Basic Premise—to the rejection of one philosophical theory (Cummins calls it the Distinctness Alternative, or DA) and the endorsement ofanother. The Basic Premise concerns both impressions and ideas. It concerns all impressions and ideas, or at least all those "of which we have any consciousness or memory."3 The universally quantified Basic Premise is also, I suggest, a biconditional, one suited to be used in the proof of the biconditional that is the constructive conclusion to Hume'sargument("Anyidea we please toform is the idea ofa being; and theidea ofabeingis anyidea we please toform" [T 67]). On the reasonable assumption that Hume views his constructive conclusion as a necessarytruththereisalsoreason toassume the Basic Premise is offered as a necessary truth. We may take it, too, that the BasicPremiseis onethatHume andhisopponentareassumedtoshare: the controversy concerns not the Basic Premise but its philosophical elucidation. Given this characterization ofits structure and status, what is the Basic Premise's content? Of course it has to do with impressions and ideas, and with existence, butjust how do they enter in? One source of difficultyhere is thefactthatHume mentions avarietyofpsychological attitudes towards the existence of something or other, and it is not Volume XVII Number 2 161 JOHN BRICKE immediately clear what role, if any, each of the several attitudes is designed to play in his argument. (He writes of something's being "conceiv"d as existent," of "attributing existence," of "assurance of being" [T 66], ofwhat "we believe tobe existent" [T 67].) Another source is the fact that he writes not only ofattitudes towards the existence of something or another but also of the actual existence of those things, whatever they be: "every object, that is presented, must necessarily be existent" (T 67). (In writing this he raises, perhaps, the troublesome spectre ofnecessary existence.) A third source ofdifficulty concerns the impressions and ideas themselves. How are they to be understood? Is it their existence that is in question? How are they implicated in the various attitudes Hume mentions? Decisions on these matters of content must affect the interpretation not only ofthe Basic Premise but also ofthe Derivation Principle4 and the Separability Principle5 that, together with the Basic Premise, constitute the heart of Hume's argument. It will encourage clarity ifwe take Hume's terms "impression" and "idea" narrowly. Ideas, as here understood, are neither concepts nor exercises of concepts; they are impression-like entities of a sort essential, ifHume is right, to the exercise ofconcepts. They,just as the impressions they resemble, may be said to be red or blue, round or square—more abstractly, to be F. To avoid assuming that these reified perceptions play an essential role in Hume's argument, however, let us introduce a more neutral notion, that of having an experience (including having an ideational experience6) with an experiential content. On this usage, one can have an experience as ofan F, or as of an object that is F, the "as of locution being used to introduce the experience's experiential content. Having such an experience does not entail the existence of an object that is F. Nor does having such an experience (whether or... (shrink)

This paper is principally devoted to comparing and contrasting poverty of stimulus arguments for innate cognitive apparatus in relation to language and in relation to folk psychology. These days one is no longer allowed to use the term ‘innate’ without saying what one means by it. So I will begin by saying what I mean by ‘innate’. Sections 2 and 3 will discuss language and theory of mind, respectively. Along the way, I will also briefly discuss other arguments (...) for innate cognitive apparatus in these areas. (shrink)

Pico’s view on emanationism is ambiguous. Moreover, his position viz. emanation seems to change at times. He made his emanationism more elaborate and complex by incorporating in it Neoplatonic ideas and the Kabbalistic hierarchy. He attempted a reconciliation of emanatio and creatio ex nihilo, as certain Christian Neoplatonists like Augustine did before, but Pico’s main intention was not the defense of the Christian dogma. To illustrate this point, I note that he did not hesitate to interpret even the book of (...) Genesis through Neoplatonism and Kabbalah, despite the resistance of the Roman Church. Philosophical accuracy and integrity was not always Pico’s main concern since he intended to prove the concordia of all the major previous philosophies and theologies. Furthermore, he disagreed with Aquinas’ solution for the problem of emanatio and creatio ex nihilo. He went on defending emanationism by relying on scholastics like Albertus Magnus. The aim of this paper is to explore Pico’s dependence on Proclus concerning the relation of emanatio and creatio ex nihilo. (shrink)

In Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Hume (1779/1993) appeals to his account of causation (among other things) to undermine certain arguments for the existence of God. If 'anything can cause anything', as Hume claims, then the Principle of Causal Adequacy is false; and if the Principle of Causal Adequacy is false, then any argument for God's existence that relies on that principle fails. Of course, Hume's critique has been influential. But Hume's account of causation undermines the argument from evil (...) at least as much as it undermines arguments for theism, or so I argue. I then suggest that Hume's account of causation can be used to formulate an alternative argument against classical theism. (shrink)

This paper discusses Fara's so-called 'Paradox of Higher-Order Vagueness' concerning supervaluationism. In the paper I argue that supervaluationism is not committed to global validity, as it is largely assumed in the literature, but to a weaker notion of logical consequence I call 'regional validity'. Then I show that the supervaluationist might solve Fara's paradox making use of this weaker notion of logical consequence. The paper is discussed by Delia Fara in the same volume.

Tiivistelmä: Poliittisen filosofian paluu : teoreettisen politiikantutkimuksen mahdollisuutta koskevan keskustelun historia.

This paper focuses on the ethical dilemmas created by advanced technology that would allow patients with motor neurone disease to be sustained by artificial ventilation. The author attempts to support the patient's right to informed choice, arguing from the perspective of autonomy as a first order principle. The counter arguments of caregiver burden and financial restraints are analysed. In the UK, where active euthanasia is not legalized, the dilemma of commencing ventilation is seen to be outweighed by the problems (...) of withdrawing this treatment. The lack of accurate data and protocols that would clarify the current situation is emphasized and the conclusion takes the form of a recommendation for further research. (shrink)

An analysis of effectiveness of some of hume's arguments in a framework developed by the author. The author states his position that arguments attacking positions attempt to show that, Given the assumptions of a position, Certain consequences are incompatible with it--A valid species of "argumentum ad hominem". Although this species does not work for constructive philosophical "proofs," it will work inversely in arguments (defending such proofs) which cite possible objections. These charge "petitio": the objection assumes what the (...) position denies or "vice versa". Eight arguments are judged as "ad hominem" or as charging "petitio" and as effective or ineffective in either case. The analyses elaborate the author's position, And the mode of analysis is suggested as an adjunct to considering a philosopher's conclusions. (shrink)

An argument is examined and defended for extending basic moral rights to animals which assumes that humans, including infants and the severely mentally enfeebled, have such rights. It is claimed that this argument proceeds on two fronts, one critical, where proposed criteria of right-possession are rejected, the other constructive, where proposed criteria are examined with a view to determining the most reasonable one. This form of argument is defended against the charge that it is self-defeating, various candidates for the title, (...) 'most reasonable criterion of right-possession', are critically examined, and it is argued that this criterion is to be found in the notion of inherent value: What underlies the ascription of rights to any given x is that x has value logically independently of anyone's valuing x; thus, to treat x as if x had value only if or as it served one's interests, etc., is to violate x 's rights. It is argued that many animals, owing to their being subjects of a life that is more or less valuable for them logically independently of the interests of others, can satisfy this criterion and therefore have certain basic moral rights, if humans, including the severely mentally enfeebled, do. Finally, the question, What basic moral rights do animals have? is explored. (shrink)

Tissue typing (TT) is a recent and controversial scientific advance. Whilst its current applications can easily be described as protherapeutic and within the realms of preventative medicine,1 its specificity and potential are often characterized as the tip of the eugenic iceberg: undermining the very basis of individual autonomy and identity in an inevitable march towards the perfect society:2 In addition to arguments concerning societal harms flowing from TT, significant concerns have also been raised concerning harms to the (...) future child born as a result. In the context of current legislation and policy, this article examines two aspects of arguments concerning harm to the future child: those relating to psychological harms, and those arguing that TT is contrary to the future child’s best interests.3The article examines the moral basis for arguments concerning harm to the future child. It proposes that arguments concerning psychological harm may overlook or minimise the potential benefits flowing from the broader social, familial context into which the child is born. These arguments may be countered, or at least balanced, by considering the future child in this context. In relation to arguments that TT is contrary to the future child’s best interests, the paper examines a non-standard consideration of best interests. It argues that this standard should be used in considering whether or not TT for bone marrow transplant is harmful to the future child, thereby extending moral consideration of interests to intra-familial interests and outcomes. On this basis, it can be argued that TT is not contrary to the interests of the future child. The paper concludes by noting a potential tension between the first guiding principle of the Infertility Treatment Act 1995 (Vic) and the current Victorian policy on TT. (shrink)

This article develops contractarian business ethics by applying social contract arguments to a specific question: What are the pre-legal (or moral) rights and responsibilities of corporations? The argument uses a hypothetical social contract to show the existence of for-profit corporations in democratic capitalist societies is consistent with Rawls’s fundamental principles of justice. Corporations ought to have recognised their rights to be autonomous, to pursue private purposes, and to engage in economic activities. Corporations have a responsibility to respect the freedom (...) and human rights of all people, and not to interfere with government programs that ensure people have the education and training they need to find and keep corporate employment and that provide a safety-net that prevents destitution. If corporations have any other rights and responsibilities, those rights and responsibilities need to be established by actual social contracts, probably in the form of legitimate democratic processes. (shrink)

For the materials of my discussion, I fall back upon Descartes. This philosopher demonstrates the existence of God in his Third Meditation. The ontological argument, however, is given not in the Third but in the Fifth Meditation. It is there expressed in a curious manner. It would seem, to go by literary expression, that he at this point unexpectedly thought of the argument, stumbled upon it, as it were. "Of the essence of material things, et derechef, de Dieu, qu'il existe"--and (...) again, of God, that He exists. The title is in itself provocative. We are told of the essence of material things. The consideration of quantity, of extension, leads to the recognition that size, shape, position and motion can be distinguished with respect to the body to which we attribute extension. Thus he is led to, or at any rate introduces, a doctrine of essence. There is an infinity of ideas that are forms, essences, or determinate natures, immutable and eternal. Most significantly of all, these determinate natures have not been invented by me, says Descartes, and do not in any way depend upon my mind. After one more paragraph there follows the ontological argument. (shrink)

Against its prominent compatiblist and libertarian opponents, I defend Galen Strawson's Basic Argument for the impossibility of moral responsibility. Against John Martin Fischer, I argue that the Basic Argument does not rely on the premise that an agent can be responsible for an action only if he is responsible for every factor contributing to that action. Against Alfred Mele and Randolph Clarke, I argue that it is absurd to believe that an agent can be responsible for an action when no (...) factor contributing to that action is up to that agent. Against Derk Pereboom and Clarke, I argue that the versions of agent-causal libertarianism they claim can immunize the agent to the Basic Argument actually fail to do so. Against Robert Kane, I argue that the Basic Argument does not rely on the premise that simply the presence of indeterministic factors in the process of bringing an action about is itself what rules out the agent's chance for being responsible for that action. (shrink)

Abstract Universality, rather than partiality, is the characteristic of Confucian jen. This article puts forward three arguments to clarify confusion of interpretation: (1) that jen, rather than shu, is the main thread running through the whole system of Confucianism, and that by its two procedures of chung and shu, it presents itself as an integration of one's self with others; (2) that jen, as love, does not signify a natural preference, but an ethical refinement of an ordinary feeling of (...) fondness, that it derives from such a feeling but goes beyond it, and that it functions as a universal commitment which begins with family affection but is not limited to it; (3) that jen, as universal love, is deontological in motive, not only in contrast to a mutuality of love but also in opposition to a utilitarianism of love. (shrink)

Bayesian analyses are prominent among recent and allegedly novel interpretations of Hume’s argument against the justified belief in miracles. However, since there is no consensus on just what Hume’s argument is any Bayesian analysis will beg crucial issues of interpretation. Apart from independent philosophical arguments—arguments that would undermine the relevance of a Bayesian analysis to the question of the credibility of reports of the miraculous—no such analysis can, in principle, prove that no testimony can (or cannot) establish the (...) credibility of a miracle. Bayesian analyses of Hume’s argument are not analyses of Hume’s argument at all—but superfluous representations of it. (shrink)

My principal purpose in writing this article is to explore some key elements in the thought of Bradley and Schopenhauer, and to do so by using their respective views on death, and more specifically the relation of those views to Epicureanism, as a focal point. The article divides into three main sections. First I outline the Epicurean position, and discuss how it manifests within the work of Schopenhauer and Bradley. Secondly, I attempt to show how these two philosophers’ thoughts on (...) death cohere with their overall metaphysics. And, thirdly, I draw attention to the hedonic component in the Epicurean argument, and discuss an objection to the argument that has been proposed by Thomas Nagel on anti-hedonic grounds. In my concluding remarks I highlight the most significant ways in which Bradley and Schopenhauer divert from the central Epicurean claim, and from one another. (shrink)

Projects of radical life extension have been discussed amongst scientists for years. Some bioethicists express reservations about this endeavor. A common objection appeals to demography: if the human lifespan is dramatically expanded, humanity would face an overpopulation problem. In this essay, the authors reply to this objection. They posit that radical life extension is unlikely to lead to overpopulation because overpopulation is determined more by fertility rates than by longevity, and as a result of the advanced phases of industrialization, fertility (...) rates are likely to be reduced, and therefore, population size would become stable. However, they argue that although overpopulation is not a concern for the foreseeable future, it is still important to acknowledge its potential harms. Finally, they argue that even if overpopulation becomes a problem caused by radical life extension, there are plausible ways to solve it. (shrink)

Like every other venerable speculation, philosophy has its myths and its great myth-makers. One of the greatest—maker of myths for all contemporary thought—was Kant. Should some future Lévi-Strauss classify this tradition, he will find that philosophical myths, like tribal lore of primitive peoples, suffer thematic variation and evolution, for myths relate our true business in this world, and therefore are essential for all thought about ourselves.

The present essay is devoted to analyzing Reinhold’s contribution to one of the most relevant questions in German idealism, namely, the possibility of an absolute principle of all philosophy, as a task left open by Kant’s critical enterprise. The main aim is to assess the extent to which Reinhold is the first to propose this philosophical problem as a question of language, and in doing so the possibility of an absolutely apodictic philosophical language, as it would be later resumed and (...) developed by Fichte and other authors. Keywords: Reinhold, language, philosophy, principle, consciousness. (shrink)

What were seen widely in Hume's time as "the obvious dictates of reason" are rarely if ever seen as such today. One reads now that the table does not seem to diminish as one removes oneself from it; instead it appears roughly the same in size all the while. And, what if it did seem to diminish? This would not prove that the existent of which one is visually aware is diminishing, and is therefore but the image of the table (...) rather than the table itself. The appearance of an object is not another object; it is just the original object appearing. Quite simply, things may seem otherwise than they are. (shrink)

New medical technologies provide us with new possibilities in health care and health care research. Depending on their degree of novelty, they may as well present us with a whole range of unforeseen normative challenges. Partly, this is due to a lack of appropriate norms to perceive and handle new technologies. This article investigates our ways of establishing such norms. We argue that in this respect analogies have at least two normative functions: they inform both our understanding and our conduct. (...) Furthermore, as these functions are intertwined and can blur moral debates, a functional investigation of analogies can be a fruitful part of ethical analysis. We argue that although analogies can be conservative; because they bring old concepts to bear upon new ones, there are at least three ways in which they can be creative. First, understandings of new technologies are quite different from the analogies that established them, and come to be analogies themselves. That is, the concepts may turn out to be quite different from the analogies that established them. Second, analogies transpose similarities from one area into another, where they previously had no bearing. Third, analogies tend to have a figurative function, bringing in something new and different from the content of the analogies. We use research-biobanking as a practical example in our investigations. (shrink)

Proponents of the public goods argument ('PGA') seek to ground the authority of the state on its putative indispensability as a means of providing public goods. But many of the things we take to be public goods – including many of the goods commonly invoked in support of the PGA – are actually what we might term publicized goods. A publicized good is any whose ‘public’ character results only from a policy decision to make some good freely and universally available. (...) This fact poses complications for the PGA, insofar as the set of possible publicized goods is quite extensive indeed. (shrink)

Persuasion is an important and yet complex aspect of human intelligence. When undertaken through dialogue, the deployment of good arguments, and therefore counterarguments, clearly has a significant effect on the ability to be successful in persuasion. Two key dimensions for determining whether an argument is “good” in a particular dialogue are the degree to which the intended audience believes the argument and counterarguments, and the impact that the argument has on the concerns of the intended audience. In this paper, (...) we present a framework for modelling persuadees in terms of their beliefs and concerns, and for harnessing these models in optimizing the choice of move in persuasion dialogues. Our approach is based on the Monte Carlo Tree Search which allows optimization in real-time. We provide empirical results of a study with human participants that compares an automated persuasion system based on this technology with a baseline system that does not take the beliefs and concerns into account in its strategy. (shrink)

People have concerns, and ethicists often respond to them with philosophical arguments. But can conceptual constructions properly address fears and anxieties? It is argued in this paper that while it is possible to voice, clarify, create and—to a certain extent—tackle concerns by arguments, more concrete practices, choices, and actions are normally needed to produce proper responses to people’s worries. While logical inconsistencies and empirical errors can legitimately be exposed by arguments, the situation is considerably less clear when (...) it comes to moral, cultural, and emotional norms, values, and expectations. (shrink)

Against its prominent compatiblist and libertarian opponents, I defend Galen Strawson’s Basic Argument for the impossibility of moral responsibility. Against John Martin Fischer, I argue that the Basic Argument does not rely on the premise that an agent can be responsible for an action only if he is responsible for every factor contributing to that action. Against Alfred Mele and Randolph Clarke, I argue that it is absurd to believe that an agent can be responsible for an action when no (...) factor contributing to that action is up to that agent. Against Derk Pereboom and Clarke, I argue that the versions of agent-causal libertarianism they claim can immunize the agent to the Basic Argument actually fail to do so. Against Robert Kane, I argue that the Basic Argument does not rely on the premise that simply the presence of indeterministic factors in the process of bringing an action about is itself what rules out the agent’s chance for being responsible for that action. (shrink)