Erkenntnis

, Volume 60, Issue 1, pp 1–26 | Cite as

How Not to Argue for Incompatibilism

  • Michael Kremer

Abstract

Ted A. Warfield has recently employed modal logic to argue that compatibilism in the free-will/determinism debate entails the rejection of intuitively valid inferences. I show that Warfield's argument fails. A parallel argument leads to the false conclusion that the mere possibility of determinism, together with the necessary existence of any contingent propositions, entails the rejection of intuitively valid inferences. The error in both arguments involves a crucial equivocation, which can be revealed by replacing modal operators with explicit quantifiers over possible worlds. I conclude that the modal-logical apparatus used by Warfield obscures rather than clarifies, and distracts from the real philosophical issues involved in the metaphysical debate. These issues cannot be settled by logic alone.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Frankfurt, Harry: 1969, ‘Alternative Possibilities and Moral Responsibility’, Journal of Philosophy 66, 829–839.Google Scholar
  2. Frankfurt, Harry: 1971, ‘Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person’, Journal of Philosophy 68, 5–20; reprinted in R. Kane (ed.): 2002, Free Will, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.Google Scholar
  3. Kane, Robert (ed.): 2002, Free Will, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.Google Scholar
  4. McKay, Thomas J. and David Johnson: 1996, ‘A Reconsideration of an Argument against Compatibilism’, Philosophical Topics 24, 113–122.Google Scholar
  5. Nelkin, Dana K. and Samuel C. Rickless: 2002, ‘Warfield's New Argument for Incompatibilism’, Analysis 62, 104–107.Google Scholar
  6. Plantinga, Alvin: 1974, The Nature of Necessity, Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  7. Stephanou, Yannis: 2001, ‘Indexed Actuality’, Journal of Philosophical Logic 30, 355–393.Google Scholar
  8. Van Inwagen, Peter: 1983, An Essay on Free Will, Clarendon Press, Oxford. Excerpted in Kane (ed.): 2002, Free Will, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.Google Scholar
  9. Warfield, Ted A.: 2000, ‘Causal Determinism and Human Freedom are Incompatible: A New Argument for Incompatibilism’, Philosophical Perspectives 14: Action and Freedom, pp. 167-180.Google Scholar
  10. Wolf, Susan: 1987, ‘Sanity and the Metaphysics of Responsibility’, in F. Schoeman (ed.), Responsibility, Character and Emotions, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Reprinted in Kane (ed.): 2002, Free Will, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.Google Scholar
  11. Wolf, Susan: 1990, Freedom within Reason, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Kremer
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations