If it reaches step (8) successfully, we have a case in which you cannot do otherwise than answer the phone tomorrow morning, but you are presumptively free in doing so, since you are acting on your own, and the circumstances that deprive you of alternatives do not in any way explain your action.
free will(Kant's practical resolution of the third antinomy)
An exemption from the laws of nature; the power of doing and forbearing
moral responsibility(The author argues for a pluralistic understanding rather than a Kantian-exclusive one)
A normative concept whose scope is contested; the passage implies it encompasses at least Kantian notions (centered on individual rational agency) and other notions (potentially sociological, collective, or non-individualist in character)
presumptively free(as used in discussions of moral responsibility)
Assumed or considered to be acting freely unless proven otherwise; treated as free unless evidence shows you weren't.
If this is correct, the following dilemma critique of theological fatalism becomes available (Hunt 2017a). Either the argument fails somewhere along the way to (8), or it succeeds up through (8). If it fails at one of these earlier steps, it fails full stop. That’s the obvious horn of the dilemma. But if it reaches step (8) successfully, and reaches it for those reasons, we have a case in which you cannot do otherwise than answer the phone tomorrow morning, but you are presumptively free in doing so, since you are acting on your own, and the circumstances that deprive you of alternatives do no...