Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Disputes about free will ineluctably involve disputes abo... — Carmelics
    Home/Free Will & Foreknowledge
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Disputes about free will ineluctably involve disputes about metaphysics and ethics.

    Free Will & Foreknowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.In ferreting out the kind of control at stake in free will, we are forced to consider questions about causation, laws of nature, time, substance, ontological reduction vs emergence, the relationship of causal and reasons-based explanations, the nature of motivation and more generally of human persons.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.In assessing the significance of free will, we are forced to consider questions about rightness and wrongness, good and evil, virtue and vice, blame and praise, reward and punishment, and desert.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Free will debates can be resolved purely at the level of conceptual analysis of 'could have done otherwise' without invoking substantive metaphysics.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.G.E. Moore's compatibilist analysis reduces 'could have done otherwise' to counterfactual conditionals about behavior, requiring no deep metaphysical commitments.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If free will is a folk concept amenable to ordinary language analysis, its resolution belongs to philosophy of language, not metaphysics or ethics.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.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.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The ethical implications of free will's absence are a downstream consequence, not a constitutive part of the free will dispute itself, making ethics separable from the core debate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Free Will & Foreknowledge

    Notable Defenders

    Agnieszka JaworskacontemporaryJaworska 2007
    Alfred MelecontemporaryMele 1992
    Alfred MelecontemporaryMele 1995, 2006, 2017
    Alfred MelecontemporaryMele 2006, ch. 7 — Zygote Argument
    Benjamin Mitchell-YellincontemporaryMitchell-Yellin 2015
    C. A. CampbellcontemporaryCampbell 1951
    C. D. BroadcontemporaryBroad 1952
    Carl Ginetcontemporary1966, 1990
    Carl GinetcontemporaryGinet 1990, ch. 5
    Carl GinetcontemporaryGinet 1996
    Carolina SartoriocontemporarySartorio 2016, 94–95, 132–37
    Carolina SartoriocontemporarySartorio 2016, ch. 5
    Carolina SartoriocontemporarySartorio 2016
    Chandra SripadacontemporarySripada 2012
    Chandra SripadacontemporarySripada 2016
    Christopher Evan FranklincontemporaryFranklin 2015
    Christopher Evan FranklincontemporaryFranklin 2018, 25–26
    Dana NelkincontemporaryNelkin 2011
    Daniel SpeakcontemporarySpeak 2007
    David Lewiscontemporary
    David Lewiscontemporary
    David LewiscontemporaryLewis 1979
    David LewiscontemporaryLewis 1981
    David ShoemakercontemporaryShoemaker 2003, 2015
    David WiderkercontemporaryWiderker 1995
    Derk PereboomcontemporaryPereboom 2001, 2014
    Derk PereboomcontemporaryPereboom 2001, ch. 4; 2014, ch. 4 — Four-case Argument
    Donald DavidsoncontemporaryDavidson 1963
    Eleonore StumpcontemporaryStump 1999
    Eleonore StumpcontemporaryStump 1988
    Eleonore StumpcontemporaryStump 1988
    G.E.M. AnscombecontemporaryAnscombe 1971
    G.F. SchuelercontemporarySchueler 1995, 2003
    Galen StrawsoncontemporaryStrawson 1986, ch. 2; 1994, 2002
    Gary WatsoncontemporaryWatson 1986
    Gary WatsoncontemporaryWatson 1975
    Harry FrankfurtcontemporaryFrankfurt 1971
    Harry FrankfurtcontemporaryFrankfurt 1971, 1993, 1994
    Helen StewardcontemporarySteward 2012, ch. 8
    Ishtiyaque HajicontemporaryHaji 1998
    J. David VellemancontemporaryVelleman 1992, 2009
    Jeff SpeakcontemporarySpeak 2011
    John Martin FischercontemporaryFischer 1982, 1987, 1994, 2006
    John Martin Fischercontemporary1994
    John Martin FischercontemporaryFischer 1994, ch. 4
    John Martin FischercontemporaryFischer 2006, p. 40
    John Martin FischercontemporaryFischer and Ravizza 1998; Fischer 2011
    John Martin FischercontemporaryFischer 1994, 2006, 2010, 2012; Fischer and Ravizza 1998
    Kadri VihvelincontemporaryVihvelin 2004; 2013
    Kasper Lippert-RasmussencontemporaryLippert-Rasmussen 2003
    Keith LehrercontemporaryLehrer 1980
    Keith LehrercontemporaryLehrer 1968
    Laura Waddell EkstromcontemporaryEkstrom 1993
    Linda ZagzebskicontemporaryZagzebski 2000
    Manuel VargascontemporaryVargas 2013
    Mark BalaguercontemporaryBalaguer 2010; Balaguer 2014
    Mark RavizzacontemporaryFischer and Ravizza 1998
    Mark RavizzacontemporaryFischer and Ravizza 1998
    Michael BratmancontemporaryBratman 2000
    Michael FaracontemporaryFara 2008
    Michael McKennacontemporaryMcKenna 2008; McKenna 2014
    Michael McKennacontemporaryMcKenna 2013
    Michael SlotecontemporarySlote 1982
    Michael SmithcontemporarySmith 2003
    Neil LevycontemporaryLevy 2011
    Patrick ToddcontemporaryTodd 2010, 2012 — developments of Mele's argument
    Paul RussellcontemporaryRussell 2017, chs. 10–12
    Peter van Inwagencontemporary1975, 1983
    Peter van Inwagencontemporaryvan Inwagen 1983, 3
    R. Jay WallacecontemporaryWallace 1994
    Randolph ClarkecontemporaryClarke 2009
    Randolph ClarkecontemporaryClarke 2003
    Randolph ClarkecontemporaryClarke 2003
    Richard TaylorcontemporaryTaylor 1974
    Robert KanecontemporaryKane 1996, 142–43
    Roderick ChisholmcontemporaryChisholm 1966, 1976
    Roderick ChisholmcontemporaryChisholm 1966
    Scott SehoncontemporarySehon 2005
    Simon KittlecontemporaryKittle 2019
    Stephen KearnscontemporaryKearns 2012
    Susan WolfcontemporaryWolf 1990
    Taylor CyrcontemporaryCyr 2017
    Timothy O'ConnorcontemporaryO'Connor 2000
    Timothy O'ConnorcontemporaryO'Connor 2000, 2011
    Timothy O'ConnorcontemporaryO'Connor 2009b
    Al-GhazalimedievalAl-Ghazali IP
    John Duns ScotusmedievalScotus QAM
    Thomas AquinasmedievalAquinas BW
    David HumemodernHume 1740 [1978], 1748 [1975]
    Friedrich NietzschemodernNietzsche 1886 [1966]
    Jonathan EdwardsmodernEdwards 1754 [1957]
    Thomas HobbesmodernHobbes 1654 [1999], 1656 [1999]

    Related

    Derk Pereboom's hard incompatibilism shows free will questions can be settled on...Free will debates can be resolved purely at the level of conceptual analysis of ...G.E. Moore's compatibilist analysis reduces 'could have done otherwise' to count...If free will is a folk concept amenable to ordinary language analysis, its resol...
    +3 moreShow less
    In assessing the significance of free will, we are forced to consider questions ...In ferreting out the kind of control at stake in free will, we are forced to con...

    Source

    AI-extracted2/3 agreementValid
    SEP: freewill
    View source passageHide passage
    The term “free will” has emerged over the past two millennia as the canonical designator for a significant kind of control over one’s actions. Questions concerning the nature and existence of this kind of control (e.g., does it require and do we have the freedom to do otherwise or the power of self-determination?), and what its true significance is (is it necessary for moral responsibility or human dignity?) have been taken up in every period of Western philosophy and by many of the most important philosophical figures, such as Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Descartes, and Kant. (We can...
    Extraction notes

    Validity: The premises directly support the conclusion by showing that free will disputes necessarily engage metaphysical questions (premise 1) and ethical questions (premise 2), and this argument is explicitly present in the source passage.

    The ethical implications of free will's absence are a downstream consequence, no...

    Similar

    On the issue of free will, philosophical speculation and religious pra...83%Establishing harmony between philosophy and religion on the issue of f...83%Determinateness and determinism are distinct considerations in the fre...81%In assessing the significance of free will, we are forced to consider ...80%

    Confidence: High confidence. The text explicitly presents these considerations as reasons why free will disputes involve metaphysics and ethics.

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit