Surrounding Free Will: A Response to Baumeister, Crescioni, and Alquist
This contribution to a symposium on an article by Roy Baumeister, A. William Crescioni, and Jessica Alquist focuses on a tension between compatibilist and incompatibilist elements in that article. In their discussion of people’s beliefs about free will, Baumeister et al. sometimes sound like incompatibilists; but in their presentation of their work on psychological processes of free will, they sound more like compatibilists than like incompatibilists. It is suggested that Baumeister and coauthors are attempting to study free will in a metaphysically neutral way and that, because this is so, the incompatibilist elements of the article are out of place.
KeywordsCompatibilism Decision Determinism Free will Incompatibilism Self-control
- 1.Baumeister, R., A. W. Crescioni, and J. Alquist. 2009. Free will as advanced action control for human social life and culture. Neuroethics. doi: 10.1007/s12152-009-9047-7.
- 2.Kane, R. 1996. The significance of free will. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 3.Mele, A. 1987. Irrationality: An essay on akrasia, self-deception, and self-control. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 4.Mele, A. 1995. Autonomous agents: From self-control to autonomy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 7.Mele, A. 2008. Psychology and free will: A commentary. In Are we free? Psychology and free will, eds. J. Baer, J.C. Kaufman, and R. Baumeister, 325–46. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 9.Smith, M. 2003. Rational capacities, or: How to distinguish recklessness, weakness, and compulsion. In Weakness of will and practical irrationality, eds. S. Stroud and C. Tappolet. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar