Philosophical Studies

, Volume 175, Issue 6, pp 1545–1556 | Cite as

Replies to critics

  • Carolina SartorioEmail author


I respond to the critical comments by Randolph Clarke, Alfred Mele, and Derk Pereboom on my book Causation and Free Will. I discuss some features of the view that our freedom is exclusively based on actual causes, including the role played in it by absences of reasons, absence causation, modal facts, and finally some additional thoughts on how a compatibilist can respond to the manipulation argument for incompatibilism.


Free will Causation Compatibilism Reasons-sensitivity Absence causation Manipulation 



Thanks to Randy Clarke, Juan Comesaña, Michael McKenna, Al Mele, and Derk Pereboom for comments on a draft of these replies. I am very grateful to my critics for taking their time to think about the ideas in the book and for their insightful comments.


  1. Beebee, H. (2004). Causing and Nothingness. In H. Collins & L. Paul (Eds.), Causation and counterfactuals (pp. 291–308). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Björnsson, G., & Pereboom, D. (2016). Traditional and experimental approaches to free will and moral responsibility. In J. Sytsma & W. Buckwalter (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to experimental philosophy (pp. 142–157). Hoboken: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
  3. Dowe, P. (2000). Physical causation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Lewis, D. (1986). Causal explanation. In D. Lewis (Ed.), Philosophical papers II (pp. 214–240). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Lewis, D. (2004). Void and object. In H. Collins & L. Paul (Eds.), Causation and counterfactuals (pp. 277–290). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Sartorio, C. (Forthcoming). Replies to critics. Symposium on Causation and Free Will, Teorema. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations