A Counterexample to A

Philosophia 42 (2):387-389 (2014)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The Direct Argument is an important argument for demonstrating that moral responsibility is incompatible with determinism because it makes no presuppositions about the nature of free will. One of the inference rules employed in the Direct Argument is rule A: If a proposition is broadly logically necessary, then it is true and no one is, nor ever has been, even partially morally responsible for the fact that the proposition is true. While inference rule A is assumed by all parties to the debate, I demonstrate that the rule is invalid

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 101,369

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-11-24

Downloads
84 (#250,752)

6 months
13 (#267,677)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Charles Hermes
University of Texas at Arlington

Citations of this work

Hyperintensionality and Normativity.Federico L. G. Faroldi - 2019 - Cham, Switzerland: Springer Verlag.
Rule A.P. Roger Turner & Justin Capes - 2018 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 99 (4):580-595.
Incompatibilism and the transfer of non-responsibility.Justin A. Capes - 2016 - Philosophical Studies 173 (6):1477-1495.

View all 10 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

An Essay on Free Will.Peter van Inwagen - 1983 - New York: Oxford University Press.
Truthmakers, entailment and necessity.Greg Restall - 1996 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 74 (2):331 – 340.
Responsibility for necessities.Stephen Kearns - 2011 - Philosophical Studies 155 (2):307-324.
Truthmakers and the Direct Argument.Charles Hermes - 2013 - Philosophical Studies (2):401-418.

View all 7 references / Add more references