Derk Pereboom's hard incompatibilism shows free will questions can be settled on purely logical grounds—incompatibilism is true and determinism is likely—bracketing normative significance entirely.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Derk Pereboom(as a key philosopher defending this position): A contemporary philosopher who defends hard incompatibilism and argues that people cannot be truly morally responsible for their actions.
Normative significance(as what Pereboom sets aside when analyzing free will logically): Having practical importance for how we should act, live, or treat others morally; whether something matters for our ethical responsibilities and values.
bracketing(Used in the context of self-doubting higher-order evidence; distinct from simply discounting evidence in light of other evidence.): The epistemic act of setting aside or ceasing to use first-order evidence when drawing conclusions, typically in response to higher-order defeating evidence.
determinism(Discussion of classical mechanics, quantum mechanics, and general relativity): A property of physical theories concerning whether the laws governing a system fully fix future (and past) states given present conditions; admits of degrees ('fall only a bit short')

Based on where you are in your exploration