Van Inwagen's Consequence Argument demonstrates that if determinism is true, our acts are consequences of laws and remote past events beyond our control, so no agent could have done otherwise.

?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.

Consequence argument(Contemporary incompatibilist philosophy of free will): The most influential contemporary argument for incompatibilism, grounded in beliefs that humans cannot change the laws of nature or causally affect the past
Could have done otherwise(as a key requirement for free will): The idea that in a given situation, you had the real ability to choose a different action than the one you actually chose.
Remote past events(as part of the chain of causes determining your actions): Events that happened long ago, before you were even born, that according to determinism shape what you do today.
agent(Economics terminology applied to medical ethics): The party in a principal-agent relationship who is instructed to produce the good or service on the principal's behalf — in the medical context, the doctor

Based on where you are in your exploration