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
    The claim that the agent can act otherwise is simply asse... — Carmelics
    Home/Free Will & Foreknowledge
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→The dependence point alone does not show that the hard past isn't fixed.

    The claim that the agent can act otherwise is simply asserted rather than argued by proponents of the dependence point.

    Free Will & Foreknowledge
    ?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.

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

    Topics

    Free Will & Foreknowledge

    Related

    Showing that the hard past isn't fixed would require that the agent upon whose a...The dependence point alone does not show that the hard past isn't fixed.Whether the agent can act otherwise is the very point at issue, so simply assumi...

    Similar

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Free Will & Foreknowledge
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Whether the agent can act otherwise is the very point at issue, so sim...78%Compatibilists require only that there be some possibility of the agen...77%The intuitive force of Manipulation arguments depends only on the fact...77%An agent's responsibility for an action cannot depend on whether, subs...75%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: free-will-foreknowledge
    View source passageHide passage
    Fischer and Tognazzini (2014), in a response to Merricks (2009, 2011), McCall (2011), and Westphal (2011), ask how the dependence point alone shows that the hard past isn’t fixed. That would require that the agent upon whose action the past depends really can act otherwise, and this is just asserted rather than argued. After all, this is the very point at issue, so simply assuming it is to beg the question. Cyr and Law (forthcoming) defend the dialectical appropriateness of the assumption that doing and refraining are both open to the agent.

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective