First Online: 18 November 2012 DOI:
Cite this article as: Finch, A. Philos Stud (2013) 166: 475. doi:10.1007/s11098-012-0042-1 Abstract
Mind argument aims at the conclusion that agents act freely only if determinism is true. The soundness of this argument entails the falsity of libertarianism, the two-part thesis that agents act freely, and free action and determinism are incompatible. In this paper, I offer a new formulation of the Mind argument. I argue that it is true by definition that if an agent acts freely, either (i) nothing nomologically grounds an agent’s acting freely, or (ii) the consequence argument for incompatibilism is unsound. I define the notion of nomological grounding, and argue that unless an agent’s acting freely is nomologically grounded, unacceptable consequences follow. I then argue that if agents act freely and the consequence argument is sound, a vicious regress ensues. I conclude by considering the libertarian’s dialectical options. Keywords Free will Libertarianism Incompatibilism Mind argument Consequence argument Grounding References
Armstrong, D. (1997).
A world of states of affairs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Audi, P. (2012). A clarification and defense of the notion of grounding. In F. Correia & B. Schneider (Eds.),
Metaphysical grounding: Understanding the structure of reality (pp. 101–121). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Correia, F., & Schneider, B. (Eds).
Grounding and explanation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (forthcoming).
Ekstrom, L. (2001). Indeterminist free action. In L. Ekstrom (Ed.),
Agency and responsibility (pp. 138–157). Boulder: Westview.
Ekstrom, L. (2003). Free will, chance, and mystery.
Finch, A., & Rea, M. (2008). Presentism and Ockham’s way out. In J. Kvanvig (Ed.),
Oxford studies in philosophy of religion (pp. 1–17). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Finch, A., & Warfield, T. (1998). The
argument and libertarianism.
Franklin, C. (2011). Farewell to the luck (and
Mind) argument. Philosophical Studies, 156, 199–230.
Hobart, R. (1934). Free will as involving determination and inconceivable without it.
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. (2002).
The Cambridge grammar of the English language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kane, R. (1996).
The significance of free will. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kane, R. (1999). Responsibility, luck, and chance: Reflections on free will and indeterminism.
Journal of Philosophy,
Kane, R. (2011). Rethinking free will: New perspectives on an old problem. In R. Kane (Ed.),
The Oxford handbook of free will
(pp. 381–404). New York: Oxford University Press.
Loewer, B. (2001). From physics to physicalism. In C. Gillett & B. Loewer (Eds.),
Physicalism and its discontents (pp. 37–56). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Loss, R. (2009). Free will and the necessity of the present.
McKay, T., & Johnson, D. (1996). A reconsideration of an argument against compatibilism.
Nowell-Smith, P. (1948). Free will and moral responsibility.
Plantinga, A. (1976). Actualism and possible worlds.
Rosen, G. (2010). Metaphysical dependence: Grounding and reduction. In R. Hale & A. Hoffman (Eds.),
Modality: Metaphysics, logic, and epistemology (pp. 109–136). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schaffer, J. (2009). On what grounds what. In D. Chalmers, et al. (Eds.),
Metametaphysiscs: New essays on the foundations of ontology (pp. 347–383). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Smart, J. (1961). Free-will, praise and blame.
Van Inwagen, P. (1983).
An essay on free will. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Copyright information
© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012