van Inwagen's consequence argument establishes that inability to do otherwise, when grounded in laws and the remote past, transfers responsibility-undermining unfreedom regardless of whether the constraint explains the action.

?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
Grounded in laws and the remote past(as the source of inability): Determined by the unchangeable laws of nature (like physics) combined with events that happened long ago before anyone involved was born.
Inability to do otherwise(as a key feature of unfreedom): The situation where someone cannot choose or act differently than they actually did, even if they wanted to; it's about being locked into one outcome.
Transfers responsibility-undermining unfreedom(as the consequence of the argument): Passes along a kind of powerlessness that removes a person's moral responsibility for their actions—if you couldn't have done otherwise, can you really be blamed?

Based on where you are in your exploration