Philosophical Studies

, Volume 162, Issue 2, pp 291–307 | Cite as

Free will and mystery: looking past the Mind Argument

Article

Abstract

Among challenges to libertarians, the Mind Argument has loomed large. Believing that this challenge cannot be met, Peter van Inwagen, a libertarian, concludes that free will is a mystery. Recently, the Mind Argument has drawn a number of criticisms. Here I seek to add to its woes. Quite apart from its other problems, I argue, the Mind Argument does a poor job of isolating the important concern for libertarians that it raises. Once this concern has been clarified, however, another argument serves to renew the challenge. The Assimilation Argument challenges libertarians to explain how ostensible exercises of free will are relevantly different from other causally undetermined outcomes, outcomes that nobody would count as exercises of free will. In particular, libertarians must explain how agents can have the power to settle which of two causally possible futures becomes the actual future. This will require them to distinguish cases where this power is supposedly present from similar cases where it’s clearly absent.

Keywords

Libertarianism Free will van Inwagen Mind Argument Rollback Argument Assimilation Argument 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I presented a draft of Sects. 2–4 at the University of Tennessee Knoxville and the University of Delaware. I would like to thank audiences at both places for thoughtful and engaging discussion. Special thanks to E.J. Coffman for valuable conversation and correspondence on some of the key issues raised here. Thanks also to John Nolt for a very helpful discussion of the role of probability in these arguments. I would also like to thank John Martin Fischer and an anonymous referee for Philosophical Studies.

References

  1. Clarke, R. (2003). Libertarian accounts of free will. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Coffman, E. J., & Smith, D. (2010). The fall of the Mind Argument and some lessons about free will. In J. Campbell, M. O’Rourke, & D. Shiers (Eds.), Action, ethics, and responsibility: Topics in contemporary philosophy series (pp. 127–148). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Ekstrom, L. W. (2000). Free will. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  4. Ekstrom, L. W. (2003). Free will chance, and mystery. Philosophical Studies, 113, 153–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Finch, A., & Warfield, T. (1998). The Mind Argument and libertarianism. Mind, 107, 515–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fischer, J. M. (2011). Indeterminism and control: An approach to the problem of luck. In M. Freeman (Ed.), Law and neuroscience: Current legal issues, Vol. 13. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (To be reprinted in Fischer, Deep control: Essays on free will and human value. Oxford: Oxford University Press.)Google Scholar
  7. Franklin, C. E. (forthcoming). Farewell to the Luck (and Mind) Argument. Philosophical Studies. Google Scholar
  8. Graham, P. A. (2010). Against the Mind Argument. Philosophical Studies, 148, 273–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Haji, I. (2001). Control conundrums: Modest libertarianism responsibility, and explanation. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 82, 178–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hobart, R. E. (1934). Free will as involving determinism and inconceivable without it. Mind, 58, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kane, R. (1996). The significance of free will. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Kane, R. (1999). Responsibility luck, and chance. Journal of Philosophy, 96, 217–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kane, R. (2007). Libertarianism. In J. M. Fischer, R. Kane, D. Pereboom, & M. Vargas (Eds.), Four views on free will (pp. 5–43). D. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  14. McKay, T., & Johnson, D. (1996). A reconsideration of an argument against compatibilism. Philosophical Topics, 24, 113–122.Google Scholar
  15. Mele, A. (2003). Agents’ abilities. Noûs, 37, 447–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mele, A. (2006). Free will and luck. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Nelkin, D. (2001). The Consequence Argument and the Mind Argument. Analysis, 61, 107–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Shabo, S. (2011a). Why free will remains a mystery. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 92, 105–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Shabo, S. (2011b). What must a proof of incompatibilism prove? Philosophical Studies, 154, 361–371.Google Scholar
  20. Steward, H. (2009). The truth in compatibilism and the truth of libertarianism. Philosophical Explorations, 12, 167–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. van Inwagen, P. (1983). An essay on free will. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  22. van Inwagen, P. (2000). Free will remains a mystery. Philosophical Perspectives, 14, 1–19. (Reprinted in and cited from R. Kane (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of free will (pp. 158–177). New York: Oxford University Press.)Google Scholar
  23. van Inwagen, P. (2002). The mystery of metaphysical freedom. In R. Kane (Ed.), Free will (pp. 189–195). Oxford: Blackwell Readings in Philosophy.Google Scholar
  24. van Inwagen, P. (2008). How to think about the problem of free will. Journal of Ethics, 12, 327–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Warfield, T. (2000). Causal determinism and human freedom are incompatible: A new argument for incompatibilism. Philosophical Perspectives, 14, 167–180.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of DelawareNewarkUSA

Personalised recommendations