Philosophical Studies

, Volume 156, Issue 2, pp 249–266 | Cite as

The explanatory power of local miracle compatibilism

Article

Abstract

Local miracle compatibilists claim that we are sometimes able to do otherwise than we actually do, even if causal determinism obtains. When we can do otherwise, it will often be true that if we were to do otherwise, then an actual law of nature would not have been a law of nature. Nevertheless, it is a compatibilist principle that we cannot do anything that would be or cause an event that violates the laws of nature. Carl Ginet challenges this nomological principle, arguing that it is not always capable of explaining our inability to do otherwise. In response to this challenge, I point out that this principle is part of a defense against the charge that local miracle compatibilists are committed to outlandish claims. Thus it is not surprising that the principle, by itself, will often fail to explain our inability to do otherwise. I then suggest that in many situations in which we are unable to do otherwise, this can be explained by the compatibilist’s analysis of ability, or his criteria for the truth of ability claims. Thus, the failure of his nomological principle to explain the falsity of certain ability claims is no strike against local miracle compatibilism.

Keywords

Free will Determinism Compatibilism Local miracle compatibilism Ability 

References

  1. Audi, R. (1978). Avoidability and possible worlds. Philosophical Studies, 33, 413–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bennett, J. (1984). Counterfactuals and temporal direction. Philosophical Review, 93, 57–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Fischer, J. M. (1979). Lehrer’s new move: ‘Can’ in theory and practice. Theoria, 45, 49–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fischer, J. M. (1997). The metaphysics of free will. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  5. Fischer, J. M. (2007). Compatibilism. In Four views on free will (pp. 44–84). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  6. Ginet, C. (1990). On action. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Graham, P. A. (2008). A defense of local miracle compatibilism. Philosophical Studies, 140, 65–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Horgan, T. (1977). Lehrer on ‘could’-statements. Philosophical Studies, 32, 403–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Horgan, T. (1979). ‘Could’, possible worlds, and moral responsibility. Southern Journal of Philosophy, 17, 345–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lehrer, K. (1976). ‘Can’ in theory and practice: A possible worlds analysis. In Action theory: Proceedings of the winnipeg conference on human action (pp. 241–270). Dordrecht: Reidel. Reprinted in Fischer J. M. (Ed.), Free will: critical concepts in philosophy (Vol. IV, pp. 234–261). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Lewis, D. (1979). Counterfactual dependence and time’s arrow. Noûs, 13, 455–476. Reprinted in his 1986, 32–52.Google Scholar
  12. Lewis, D. (1981). Are we free to break the laws? Theoria, 47, 113–121. Reprinted in his 1986, 291–298.Google Scholar
  13. Lewis, D. (1986). Philosophical papers: Volume II. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. van Inwagen, P. (1983). An essay on free will. New York: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  15. Vihvelin, K. (2000). Libertarian compatibilism. Philosophical Perspectives, 14, 139–166.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of California, RiversideRiversideUSA

Personalised recommendations