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 philosophical consensus that incompatibilists commit ... — Carmelics
    Home/Free Will & Foreknowledge
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The philosophical consensus that incompatibilists commit a simple mistake comparable to fatalism is no longer tenable

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Van Inwagen's Consequence Argument employs inference rules (Beta, Beta-2) that resist valid formal derivation without question-begging assumptions about ability transfer.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.McKay and Johnson (1991) demonstrated Beta is invalid by constructing counterexamples where unavoidability fails to transfer across conjunction, undermining incompatibilism's logical foundation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A parallel logical gap between determinism and the absence of alternatives mirrors the fatalist fallacy of inferring powerlessness from truth, not from causal structure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Dennett's critique in 'Elbow Room' establishes that incompatibilists systematically conflate the inability to alter the laws of nature with the absence of meaningful agentive control.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Fischer's semi-compatibilism shows robust moral responsibility requires only reasons-responsiveness, a capacity fully preserved under determinism, making incompatibilist intuitions diagnostically misleading rather than philosophically decisive.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • The Consequence argument provides a substantive case for incompatibilism that cannot be dismissed as a simple confusion
      ?

      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

    Related

    A parallel logical gap between determinism and the absence of alternatives mirro...Dennett's critique in 'Elbow Room' establishes that incompatibilists systematica...Fischer's semi-compatibilism shows robust moral responsibility requires only rea...McKay and Johnson (1991) demonstrated Beta is invalid by constructing counterexa...
    +2 moreShow less
    The Consequence argument provides a substantive case for incompatibilism that ca...Van Inwagen's Consequence Argument employs inference rules (Beta, Beta-2) that r...

    Similar

    The Consequence argument has undermined the earlier consensus that inc...90%There is a growing philosophical consensus that the incompatibilist is...85%Responses based on a confused interpretation of determinism do not ref...79%The Consequence argument provides a substantive case for incompatibili...76%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: incompatibilism-arguments
    View source passageHide passage
    Frankfurt’s aim was to make it easier to defend the claim that moral responsibility is compatible with determinism and there is a case to be made that he was successful or, at least, successful against the “Source” incompatibilists who were convinced by his argument (Fischer 2003, Sartorio 2016). But there has been a cost. Our interest in free will is not limited to our interest in moral responsibility. Compatibilism has historically been charged with being “a wretched subterfuge” and a “quagmir
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

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