E. J. Coffman a a The University of Tennessee, To link to this article:
|
|
- Dylan Ferguson
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 This article was downloaded by: [University of Tennessee, Knoxville] On: 17 May 2012, At: 20:11 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: Registered office: Mortimer House, Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Australasian Journal of Philosophy Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: Does Luck Exclude Control? E. J. Coffman a a The University of Tennessee, Available online: 01 Jul 2009 To cite this article: E. J. Coffman (2009): Does Luck Exclude Control?, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 87:3, To link to this article: PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sublicensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
2 Australasian Journal of Philosophy Vol. 87, No. 3, pp ; September 2009 DISCUSSION NOTE DOES LUCK EXCLUDE CONTROL? E. J. Coffman Many think that luck excludes control roughly, that an event is lucky for you only if the event is beyond your control. Jennifer Lackey [2008] argues against such a requirement on luck. I show that Lackey s argument fails. I also consider a novel argument against such requirements that differs from but ultimately fares no better than Lackey s argument. Some events are instances of good or bad luck for you; others are not. What makes the difference? Many philosophers endorse this partial answer: Lack of Control Requirement (LCR): An event is lucky for you only if the event is beyond your control. 1 Jennifer Lackey [2008] argues against such a requirement on luck. In this paper, I clarify LCR and defend it from two arguments: Lackey s, and a new argument that differs importantly from hers. A word about what event means here. Like other contributors to the literature on luck, Lackey treats event as synonymous with fact or truth. Ordinary usage allows this e.g., in ordinary discourse, In the event that P can often be replaced with If it s the case that P or If it s true that P. Acquiescing to ordinary usage of event as I will in what follows doesn t commit one to any particular approach to the metaphysics of events: one could instead just talk in terms of facts or truths. 2 Lackey attacks this statement of LCR: I Vague LCR: An event is lucky for a given agent, S, only if the occurrence of such an event is beyond or at least significantly beyond S s control. 3 1 Proponents of versions of LCR include Statman [1991], Zimmerman [1993], Greco [1995], Coffman [2007], and Riggs [2007]. 2 Thanks to an anonymous referee for comments that led me to add this paragraph. 3 Vague LCR derives from the following thesis in Lackey s paper [2008: 256]: LCAL: An event is lucky for a given agent, S, if and only [if] the occurrence of such an event is beyond or at least significantly beyond S s control. Australasian Journal of Philosophy ISSN print/issn online Ó 2009 Australasian Association of Philosophy DOI: /
3 500 E. J. Coffman Vague LCR is both imprecise and prima facie implausible. Some wellmotivated modifications will yield a better target for Lackey s attack. First, on Vague LCR, E is lucky for S only if every event of some relevant type E belongs to is significantly beyond S s control (... the occurrence of such an event... ). So understood, LCR is too strong. I m lucky that Nathan visited my office this morning (I needed a face-to-face meeting with him then, a time he s usually off campus). But being visited by some or other friend this morning lay well within my control: many other friends (Clerk, Heather, Lee,...) would have visited had I simply asked. Moral: E may be lucky for you even if you have control over other events of some relevant type E belongs to. We shall honour this point by restricting LCR s consequent to the event specified in its antecedent. Second, we need to clarify is significantly beyond S s control. I shall do so in a way that yields a version of LCR that is (a) clearer than Vague LCR, yet (b) still engaged by Lackey s argument. Say that E is significantly beyond S s control iff S isn t both free to do something that would (non-redundantly) help produce E and free to do something that would (non-redundantly) help prevent E. 4 Now, as many theorists have noted, there is a partially epistemic reading of S isn t free to A that is weaker than the thesis that S isn t able (doesn t have it within his power) to A. 5 On this reading, if S is able to A but doesn t know how to A, then S isn t free to A. This is the reading required for a viable version of LCR. 6 Suppose a whimsical billionaire, Bill, decides (unbeknownst to you) to give you a billion dollars if either (a) you raise your right hand within the next five seconds or (b) his next coin flip lands heads. You don t raise your hand, but the flip lands heads; Bill s billion is instantly wired to your bank account. Your getting Bill s billion was a stroke of good luck. Assuming your brain and limbs were working properly, though, you were able to secure Bill s billion (all you had to do was raise your hand). So this case refutes versions of LCR that precisify E is significantly beyond S s control so that it entails that S isn t able to do anything that would be causally relevant to E. But since you had no idea about Bill s decision, the case confirms versions of LCR that precisify E is significantly beyond S s control so that it entails only the partially epistemic reading of S isn t free to A. Invoking the indicated sense of S isn t free to A, then, I can now provide a version of LCR that is clearer than Vague LCR: Clear LCR: E is lucky for S only if S isn t both free to do something that would help produce E and free to do something that would help prevent E. 7 4 Why employ the notion of non-redundant (as opposed to generic) causal relevance here? For this reason: on any plausible reading of is significantly beyond S s control, E may be significantly beyond S s control even if S is free to do something redundantly causally relevant to E. Suppose E will happen no matter what S does, though S is free to contribute redundantly to E s occurrence. (Perhaps E is an avalanche, and S is free to throw a snowball into it.) Then E is significantly beyond S s control notwithstanding the fact that S is free to contribute (redundantly) to E s occurrence. Upshot: if we precisify is significantly beyond S s control in terms of generic causal relevance, our precising definition will be too strong. (I owe these points to an anonymous referee.) 5 See, e.g., O Connor [1993: 208] and Carlson [2000: 280 1]. 6 Thanks to an anonymous referee for suggesting this point and the following example. 7 Note that Clear LCR expresses a requirement on E s being either an instance of good luck or an instance of bad luck for you (in this context, is lucky for means is an instance of good or bad luck for ). To get a
4 Does Luck Exclude Control? 501 Lackey s argument engages Clear LCR. But before exposing Clear LCR to Lackey s attack, we should note that her objection stands to disable an important argument in the recent free will literature. According to a main brand of libertarianism, an act is free only if it wasn t entailed by the immediate past and physical laws. Something in LCR s neighbourhood underwrites this challenging argument (developed by Alfred Mele [2006], among others) against the indicated kind of libertarianism: If an act A s non-occurrence was compatible with the immediate past and laws, then it is a matter of luck that A occurred. And if it is a matter of luck that A occurred, then A s agent lacked control over A. But then A wasn t a free act after all. Given the role that (something like) LCR plays here, Lackey s argument against such requirements would make waves in the free will debate, were it to succeed. 8 II But Lackey has not refuted Clear LCR. She presents two counterexamples that have the same general structure. I shall focus on DEMOLITION WORKER (DW): 9 Ramona is... about to press a button that will blow up an old abandoned warehouse... Unbeknownst to her,... a mouse had chewed through the relevant wires in the construction office an hour earlier, severing the connection between the button and the explosives. But as Ramona is about to press the button, her co-worker hangs his jacket on a nail in the precise location of the severed wires... As it happens, the hanger... is made of metal, and it enables the electrical current to pass through the damaged wires just as Ramona presses the button and demolishes the warehouse. [2008: 258, emphases added] Straightaway, there is a problem. Compare the italicized bits: this description of DW doesn t make clear precisely when the button-explosives connection was restored. That is problematic because only one of the two ways to tighten DW yields a promising objection to Clear LCR. If the button-explosives connection was restored right when Ramona pressed the button, we shouldn t think Ramona was ever free to do something that would definitely have caused the explosion. But if the connection was restored before Ramona requirement on E s being good luck, strengthen Clear LCR s consequent so that it denies to S freedom to do anything that would definitely contribute to E s production (sustenance). To get a requirement on E s being bad luck, strengthen the consequent so that it denies to S freedom to do anything that would definitely contribute to E s prevention (cessation). As it happens, the counterexamples to Clear LCR discussed below involve only good luck. 8 Notably, while Lackey briefly discusses the above argument (the so called Luck Argument) [265 6], she doesn t connect it with her anti-lcr argument. Indeed, she suggests that her arguments are neutral with respect to the Luck Argument [266]. 9 Interested readers may easily extend my treatment of DW to Lackey s other counterexample involving Derek the professional basketball player (see xi of Lackey [2008]).
5 502 E. J. Coffman pressed the button, then we should think Ramona was (at some time) free to do something that would have caused the explosion. Fortunately, Lackey resolves this ambiguity. Consider the following commentary on DW: First, that Ramona succeeded in blowing up the warehouse in question is an event that is clearly riddled with luck. [...] Second, because Ramona s pressing of the button... is what is directly responsible for the explosion, the explosion is an event that is sufficiently within her control. [2008: 258 9, emphasis added] We are to read DW so that Ramona s pressing the button is what s directly responsible for the explosion. Now, if the button-explosives connection was restored right when the button was depressed, then the reconnection and depression seem jointly directly responsible for the explosion. But then it s wrong to say that the depression is what is directly responsible for the explosion. The only version of DW on which the depression is what s directly responsible for the explosion is the one on which the reconnection happens before the depression. Fortunately for Lackey, that version of DW also elicits the sense that Ramona was (at some point) free to do something that would have caused the explosion. Henceforth, then, we shall understand DW so that the reconnection precedes the depression. Lackey s objection to Clear LCR will be this: Ramona was lucky relative to the explosion itself, notwithstanding her freedom to do something that would definitely have caused the explosion. So Clear LCR is false: you may be lucky relative to E even if you were free to do something that would definitely have caused E. This objection fails. To see why, consider the following error theory for Lackey s judgment that the explosion itself was good luck for Ramona. Just before Ramona pressed the button, she became free to do something that would definitely cause the explosion. That was a stroke of good luck. But Ramona s becoming free to cause the explosion differs from the explosion itself. Whoever finds it obvious that Ramona was lucky to explode the building would seem to be confusing the explosion itself with Ramona s becoming free to cause the explosion. So, Lackey s judgment that DW is a counterexample to Clear LCR seems to arise from a failure to distinguish between two different (though related) events. At a minimum, presenting this error theory suffices to raise a legitimate worry that Lackey s judgment about Ramona and the explosion is ill founded, thereby undercutting that judgment and defending Clear LCR from DW. Lackey s description of DW s general structure holds a rejoinder to my reply: [F]irst choose an event over which an agent clearly has sufficient control... Second, construct a case in which such control was almost interrupted by factors unknown to all of the parties involved. Third, ensure that the control is not in fact interrupted through a combination of purely coincidental and unlikely features, so that the fact that the agent has the control in question is riddled with luck, which, in turn, extends to the resulting event. [2008: 259, emphases added]
6 Does Luck Exclude Control? 503 Lackey s key idea here can be put like this: Luck Infection Thesis (LIT): If you were lucky to be free to A and you A-ed, then you re lucky that you A-ed. Ramona was lucky to be free to cause the explosion. Since Ramona then exploded the building, LIT entails that Ramona was also lucky relative to the explosion. Invoking LIT reinstates DW as a threat to Clear LCR. But this attempted defence of DW s counterexample status does not succeed. Not only do we lack good reason to believe LIT; there is also good reason to reject it. Lackey [2008: 256] thinks LIT enjoys support from ordinary reactions to DW-like scenarios: [LIT] is evidenced by the reaction that Ramona would quite likely have upon hearing all of the details of the situation... [S]urely she herself would regard the resulting explosion as an event whose occurrence is extraordinarily lucky. But Ramona s likely reaction doesn t support LIT unless we can expect ordinary attributers of luck to have in mind the subtle difference between being positioned to A and performing A. Since (in all probability) ordinary attributers won t have this difference before their minds, the claim that Ramona would regard the explosion itself as lucky doesn t support LIT. Worse, there are clear counterexamples to LIT. Suppose our department meeting ends early for once. As a result, I m early to pick up Evan from school. Upon arriving, I spot him playing in the street. A car whose inattentive driver is on a cell phone speeds towards Evan. I m free to push him out of harm s way; I exercise this freedom. I was lucky to be free to save Evan. So, LIT entails that I m lucky I saved Evan. But I disagree: neither of us is lucky that, once positioned to do so, I saved my son. (It s not as though I was unsure about whether to save him, and let the outcome be determined by coin flip!) So, LIT is false: it may be that S s A-ing wasn t itself lucky even though S was lucky to be free to A. 10 The envisaged attempt to reinstate DW as a counterexample to Clear CLR fails. I conclude that DW does not pose a serious threat to Clear LCR. III Recall Lackey s recipe for counterexamples to LCR: start with an agent who has sufficient control over an event, then add details to make the event lucky. Let s briefly try the reverse of Lackey s recipe: start with a lucky event, then add details to give the agent sufficient control over it. Suppose Smith has just won the lottery. Unbeknownst to other participants, those running the lottery had offered to rig it in Smith s favour. Smith has been free to do something that would have resulted in his winning. But Smith refrained from exercising this freedom. It seems that 10 As Fred Dretske [1970a: 18] notes in a different context: Sometimes the stage is set for a non-accident in a purely accidental way.
7 504 E. J. Coffman Smith is lucky to have won even though he was free to do something that would have resulted in his winning. If so, Clear LCR is too strong. Granted: Smith s winning the lottery fairly was a stroke of good luck. But that s a different event (fact, truth) from Smith s winning the lottery (full stop). While Smith was free to do something that would have resulted in his winning, he wasn t free to do anything that would have resulted in a legitimate win. So, when we focus on the sole event that was clearly lucky for Smith (his legitimate win), we see that he lacked freedom to do something that would definitely have brought it about. The case simply confirms Clear LCR. A natural reply invokes the claim that luck is closed under entailment if you re lucky relative to P and P entails Q, then you re lucky relative to Q. If so, then given that Smith is lucky vis-a` -vis his legitimate win, he s also lucky he won (full stop). But luck isn t closed under entailment. 11 Any lottery winner is lucky to have won. That she won entails that someone won. But no one is lucky there s a winner, not even the winner herself (there had to be a winner...). 12 The University of Tennessee Received: May 2008 Revised: July 2008 References Carlson, Erik Incompatibilism and the Transfer of Power Necessity, Nouˆs 34/2: Coffman, E. J Thinking about Luck, Synthese 158/3: Dretske, Fred 1970a. Conclusive Reasons, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 49/1: Dretske, Fred 1970b. Epistemic Operators, Journal of Philosophy 67/24: Greco, John A Second Paradox Concerning Responsibility and Luck, Metaphilosophy 26/1 2: Lackey, Jennifer What Luck is Not, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 86/2: Mele, Alfred Free Will and Luck, Oxford: Oxford University Press. O Connor, Timothy On the Transfer of Necessity, Nouˆs 27/2: Riggs, Wayne Why Epistemologists are So Down on Their Luck, Synthese 158/3: Statman, Daniel Moral and Epistemic Luck, Ratio 4/2: Zimmerman, Michael Luck and Moral Responsibility, in Moral Luck, ed. Daniel Statman, Albany: State University of New York Press. 11 Cf. Dretske [1970b: ]. 12 This paper was presented at the University of Tennessee; the 2008 meetings of the Central States Philosophical Association and the Southwestern Philosophical Society; and the 2009 meeting of the Pacific Division of the American Philosophical Association. Thanks to those audiences for stimulating discussion and helpful feedback. Special thanks to Richard Aquila, Nathan Ballantyne, Michael Ball-Blakely, John Hardwig, Heidi Hildeman, Tomis Kapitan, Peter Kung, Jonathan Kvanvig, Evan Leutwiler, James McBain, John McClellan, David Reidy, Wayne Riggs, Thomas Senor, Clerk Shaw, Lee Shepski, and two anonymous referees.
Lawrence Brian Lombard a a Wayne State University. To link to this article:
This article was downloaded by: [Wayne State University] On: 29 August 2011, At: 05:20 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer
More informationTo link to this article:
This article was downloaded by: [University of Chicago Library] On: 24 May 2013, At: 08:10 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:
More informationWhat Luck Is Not. Jennifer Lackey. robustness are neither necessary nor sufficient for an event s being lucky. Hence, I conclude that
What Luck Is Not Jennifer Lackey Abstract: In this paper, I critically examine the two dominant views of the concept of luck in the current literature: lack of control accounts and modal accounts. In particular,
More informationHow (not) to attack the luck argument
Philosophical Explorations Vol. 13, No. 2, June 2010, 157 166 How (not) to attack the luck argument E.J. Coffman Department of Philosophy, The University of Tennessee, 801 McClung Tower, Knoxville, 37996,
More informationContradicting Realities, déjà vu in Tehran
This article was downloaded by: [RMIT University] On: 23 August 2011, At: 21:09 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
More informationPLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
This article was downloaded by: [Psillos, Stathis] On: 18 August 2009 Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 913836605] Publisher Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered
More informationIn defence of the Simplicity Argument E. J. Lowe a a
This article was downloaded by: [University of Notre Dame] On: 11 July 2010 Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 917395010] Publisher Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales
More informationAlastair Norcross a a Department of Philosophy, University of Colorado at Boulder,
This article was downloaded by: [Bibliothek Der Zt-wirtschaft] On: 08 January 2013, At: 00:56 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:
More informationTo link to this article:
This article was downloaded by: [Dr Kenneth Shapiro] On: 08 June 2015, At: 07:45 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer
More informationAN ACTUAL-SEQUENCE THEORY OF PROMOTION
BY D. JUSTIN COATES JOURNAL OF ETHICS & SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY DISCUSSION NOTE JANUARY 2014 URL: WWW.JESP.ORG COPYRIGHT D. JUSTIN COATES 2014 An Actual-Sequence Theory of Promotion ACCORDING TO HUMEAN THEORIES,
More informationON PROMOTING THE DEAD CERTAIN: A REPLY TO BEHRENDS, DIPAOLO AND SHARADIN
DISCUSSION NOTE ON PROMOTING THE DEAD CERTAIN: A REPLY TO BEHRENDS, DIPAOLO AND SHARADIN BY STEFAN FISCHER JOURNAL OF ETHICS & SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY DISCUSSION NOTE APRIL 2017 URL: WWW.JESP.ORG COPYRIGHT STEFAN
More informationSkepticism and Internalism
Skepticism and Internalism John Greco Abstract: This paper explores a familiar skeptical problematic and considers some strategies for responding to it. Section 1 reconstructs and disambiguates the skeptical
More informationCould i conceive being a brain in a vat? John D. Collier a a
This article was downloaded by: [University of KwaZulu-Natal][University Of KwaZulu Natal] On: 3 June 2010 Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 917272671] Publisher Routledge Informa Ltd
More informationPHL340 Handout 8: Evaluating Dogmatism
PHL340 Handout 8: Evaluating Dogmatism 1 Dogmatism Last class we looked at Jim Pryor s paper on dogmatism about perceptual justification (for background on the notion of justification, see the handout
More informationThe Zygote Argument remixed
Analysis Advance Access published January 27, 2011 The Zygote Argument remixed JOHN MARTIN FISCHER John and Mary have fully consensual sex, but they do not want to have a child, so they use contraception
More informationCausing People to Exist and Saving People s Lives Jeff McMahan
Causing People to Exist and Saving People s Lives Jeff McMahan 1 Possible People Suppose that whatever one does a new person will come into existence. But one can determine who this person will be by either
More informationDaan Evers a a University of Oxford. To link to this article:
This article was downloaded by: [Universite de Montreal] On: 01 August 2011, At: 09:01 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer
More informationThe Mind Argument and Libertarianism
The Mind Argument and Libertarianism ALICIA FINCH and TED A. WARFIELD Many critics of libertarian freedom have charged that freedom is incompatible with indeterminism. We show that the strongest argument
More informationOutsmarting the McKinsey-Brown argument? 1
Outsmarting the McKinsey-Brown argument? 1 Paul Noordhof Externalists about mental content are supposed to face the following dilemma. Either they must give up the claim that we have privileged access
More informationA Puzzle about Knowing Conditionals i. (final draft) Daniel Rothschild University College London. and. Levi Spectre The Open University of Israel
A Puzzle about Knowing Conditionals i (final draft) Daniel Rothschild University College London and Levi Spectre The Open University of Israel Abstract: We present a puzzle about knowledge, probability
More informationNote: This is the penultimate draft of an article the final and definitive version of which is
The Flicker of Freedom: A Reply to Stump Note: This is the penultimate draft of an article the final and definitive version of which is scheduled to appear in an upcoming issue The Journal of Ethics. That
More informationSCHAFFER S DEMON NATHAN BALLANTYNE AND IAN EVANS
SCHAFFER S DEMON by NATHAN BALLANTYNE AND IAN EVANS Abstract: Jonathan Schaffer (2010) has summoned a new sort of demon which he calls the debasing demon that apparently threatens all of our purported
More informationRosetta E. Ross a a Spelman College, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. To link to this article:
This article was downloaded by: [Rosetta Ross] On: 23 June 2012, At: 15:49 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
More informationKNOWLEDGE ON AFFECTIVE TRUST. Arnon Keren
Abstracta SPECIAL ISSUE VI, pp. 33 46, 2012 KNOWLEDGE ON AFFECTIVE TRUST Arnon Keren Epistemologists of testimony widely agree on the fact that our reliance on other people's testimony is extensive. However,
More informationHOW TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR SOMETHING WITHOUT CAUSING IT* Carolina Sartorio University of Wisconsin-Madison
Philosophical Perspectives, 18, Ethics, 2004 HOW TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR SOMETHING WITHOUT CAUSING IT* Carolina Sartorio University of Wisconsin-Madison 1. Introduction What is the relationship between moral
More informationPLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
This article was downloaded by: [Fletcher, Guy] On: 6 June 2009 Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 912247411] Publisher Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered
More informationLuminosity, Reliability, and the Sorites
Philosophy and Phenomenological Research Vol. LXXXI No. 3, November 2010 2010 Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, LLC Luminosity, Reliability, and the Sorites STEWART COHEN University of Arizona
More informationCould have done otherwise, action sentences and anaphora
Could have done otherwise, action sentences and anaphora HELEN STEWARD What does it mean to say of a certain agent, S, that he or she could have done otherwise? Clearly, it means nothing at all, unless
More informationKantian Humility and Ontological Categories Sam Cowling University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Kantian Humility and Ontological Categories Sam Cowling University of Massachusetts, Amherst [Forthcoming in Analysis. Penultimate Draft. Cite published version.] Kantian Humility holds that agents like
More informationFree Acts and Chance: Why the Rollback Argument Fails Lara Buchak, UC Berkeley
1 Free Acts and Chance: Why the Rollback Argument Fails Lara Buchak, UC Berkeley ABSTRACT: The rollback argument, pioneered by Peter van Inwagen, purports to show that indeterminism in any form is incompatible
More informationPOWERS, NECESSITY, AND DETERMINISM
POWERS, NECESSITY, AND DETERMINISM Thought 3:3 (2014): 225-229 ~Penultimate Draft~ The final publication is available at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tht3.139/abstract Abstract: Stephen Mumford
More informationFREE ACTS AND CHANCE: WHY THE ROLLBACK ARGUMENT FAILS
The Philosophical Quarterly Vol. 63, No. 250 January 2013 ISSN 0031-8094 doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9213.2012.00094.x FREE ACTS AND CHANCE: WHY THE ROLLBACK ARGUMENT FAILS BY LARA BUCHAK The rollback argument,
More informationHume s Law Violated? Rik Peels. The Journal of Value Inquiry ISSN J Value Inquiry DOI /s
Rik Peels The Journal of Value Inquiry ISSN 0022-5363 J Value Inquiry DOI 10.1007/s10790-014-9439-8 1 23 Your article is protected by copyright and all rights are held exclusively by Springer Science +Business
More informationIs Truth the Primary Epistemic Goal? Joseph Barnes
Is Truth the Primary Epistemic Goal? Joseph Barnes I. Motivation: what hangs on this question? II. How Primary? III. Kvanvig's argument that truth isn't the primary epistemic goal IV. David's argument
More informationLost in Transmission: Testimonial Justification and Practical Reason
Lost in Transmission: Testimonial Justification and Practical Reason Andrew Peet and Eli Pitcovski Abstract Transmission views of testimony hold that the epistemic state of a speaker can, in some robust
More informationThe Externalist and the Structuralist Responses To Skepticism. David Chalmers
The Externalist and the Structuralist Responses To Skepticism David Chalmers Overview In Reason, Truth, and History, Hilary Putnam mounts an externalist response to skepticism. In The Matrix as Metaphysics
More informationIn this paper I will critically discuss a theory known as conventionalism
Aporia vol. 22 no. 2 2012 Combating Metric Conventionalism Matthew Macdonald In this paper I will critically discuss a theory known as conventionalism about the metric of time. Simply put, conventionalists
More informationPLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
This article was downloaded by: [CDL Journals Account] On: 11 December 2008 Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 794532497] Publisher Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales
More informationFree will and the necessity of the past
free will and the necessity of the past 105 Free will and the necessity of the past Joseph Keim Campbell 1. Introduction In An Essay on Free Will (1983), Peter van Inwagen offers three arguments for incompatibilism,
More informationREASONS-RESPONSIVENESS AND TIME TRAVEL
DISCUSSION NOTE BY YISHAI COHEN JOURNAL OF ETHICS & SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY DISCUSSION NOTE JANUARY 2015 URL: WWW.JESP.ORG COPYRIGHT YISHAI COHEN 2015 Reasons-Responsiveness and Time Travel J OHN MARTIN FISCHER
More informationMohammed Rustom a a Carleton University. Available online: 28 Feb 2012
This article was downloaded by: [University of Toronto Libraries] On: 28 February 2012, At: 08:43 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
More informationOn Some Alleged Consequences Of The Hartle-Hawking Cosmology. In [3], Quentin Smith claims that the Hartle-Hawking cosmology is inconsistent with
On Some Alleged Consequences Of The Hartle-Hawking Cosmology In [3], Quentin Smith claims that the Hartle-Hawking cosmology is inconsistent with classical theism in a way which redounds to the discredit
More informationMoral Argument. Jonathan Bennett. from: Mind 69 (1960), pp
from: Mind 69 (1960), pp. 544 9. [Added in 2012: The central thesis of this rather modest piece of work is illustrated with overwhelming brilliance and accuracy by Mark Twain in a passage that is reported
More informationLucky to Know? the nature and extent of human knowledge and rational belief. We ordinarily take ourselves to
Lucky to Know? The Problem Epistemology is the field of philosophy interested in principled answers to questions regarding the nature and extent of human knowledge and rational belief. We ordinarily take
More informationAGENT CAUSATION AND RESPONSIBILITY: A REPLY TO FLINT
AGENT CAUSATION AND RESPONSIBILITY: A REPLY TO FLINT Michael Bergmann In an earlier paper I argued that if we help ourselves to Molinism, we can give a counterexample - one avoiding the usual difficulties
More informationDEFENDING KLEIN ON CLOSURE AND SKEPTICISM
E. J. COFFMAN DEFENDING KLEIN ON CLOSURE AND SKEPTICISM ABSTRACT. In this paper, I consider some issues involving a certain closure principle for Structural Justification, a relation between a cognitive
More informationSaul Kripke, Naming and Necessity
24.09x Minds and Machines Saul Kripke, Naming and Necessity Excerpt from Saul Kripke, Naming and Necessity (Harvard, 1980). Identity theorists have been concerned with several distinct types of identifications:
More informationResultant Luck and the Thirsty Traveler * There is moral luck to the extent that the moral assessment of agents notably, the
Resultant Luck and the Thirsty Traveler * 1. Introduction There is moral luck to the extent that the moral assessment of agents notably, the assessment concerning their moral responsibility can depend
More informationFaith and Philosophy, April (2006), DE SE KNOWLEDGE AND THE POSSIBILITY OF AN OMNISCIENT BEING Stephan Torre
1 Faith and Philosophy, April (2006), 191-200. Penultimate Draft DE SE KNOWLEDGE AND THE POSSIBILITY OF AN OMNISCIENT BEING Stephan Torre In this paper I examine an argument that has been made by Patrick
More informationPrécis of Democracy and Moral Conflict
Symposium: Robert B. Talisse s Democracy and Moral Conflict Précis of Democracy and Moral Conflict Robert B. Talisse Vanderbilt University Democracy and Moral Conflict is an attempt finally to get right
More informationTWO ACCOUNTS OF THE NORMATIVITY OF RATIONALITY
DISCUSSION NOTE BY JONATHAN WAY JOURNAL OF ETHICS & SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY DISCUSSION NOTE DECEMBER 2009 URL: WWW.JESP.ORG COPYRIGHT JONATHAN WAY 2009 Two Accounts of the Normativity of Rationality RATIONALITY
More informationAre There Reasons to Be Rational?
Are There Reasons to Be Rational? Olav Gjelsvik, University of Oslo The thesis. Among people writing about rationality, few people are more rational than Wlodek Rabinowicz. But are there reasons for being
More informationCausation and Responsibility
Philosophy Compass 2/5 (2007): 749 765, 10.1111/j.1747-9991.2007.00097.x Blackwell Oxford, PHCO Philosophy 1747-9991 097 10.1111/j.1747-9991.2007.00097.x August 0749??? 765??? Metaphysics Causation The
More informationEpistemic Contextualism as a Theory of Primary Speaker Meaning
Epistemic Contextualism as a Theory of Primary Speaker Meaning Gilbert Harman, Princeton University June 30, 2006 Jason Stanley s Knowledge and Practical Interests is a brilliant book, combining insights
More informationA New Argument Against Compatibilism
Norwegian University of Life Sciences School of Economics and Business A New Argument Against Compatibilism Stephen Mumford and Rani Lill Anjum Working Papers No. 2/ 2014 ISSN: 2464-1561 A New Argument
More informationWHY WE REALLY CANNOT BELIEVE THE ERROR THEORY
WHY WE REALLY CANNOT BELIEVE THE ERROR THEORY Bart Streumer b.streumer@rug.nl 29 June 2017 Forthcoming in Diego Machuca (ed.), Moral Skepticism: New Essays 1. Introduction According to the error theory,
More informationPhilosophy of Religion 21: (1987).,, 9 Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht - Printed in the Nethenanas
Philosophy of Religion 21:161-169 (1987).,, 9 Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht - Printed in the Nethenanas A defense of middle knowledge RICHARD OTTE Cowell College, University of Calfiornia, Santa Cruz,
More informationWell-Being, Disability, and the Mere-Difference Thesis. Jennifer Hawkins Duke University
This paper is in the very early stages of development. Large chunks are still simply detailed outlines. I can, of course, fill these in verbally during the session, but I apologize in advance for its current
More informationCan Rationality Be Naturalistically Explained? Jeffrey Dunn. Abstract: Dan Chiappe and John Vervaeke (1997) conclude their article, Fodor,
Can Rationality Be Naturalistically Explained? Jeffrey Dunn Abstract: Dan Chiappe and John Vervaeke (1997) conclude their article, Fodor, Cherniak and the Naturalization of Rationality, with an argument
More informationKeywords precise, imprecise, sharp, mushy, credence, subjective, probability, reflection, Bayesian, epistemology
Coin flips, credences, and the Reflection Principle * BRETT TOPEY Abstract One recent topic of debate in Bayesian epistemology has been the question of whether imprecise credences can be rational. I argue
More informationDO TROPES RESOLVE THE PROBLEM OF MENTAL CAUSATION?
DO TROPES RESOLVE THE PROBLEM OF MENTAL CAUSATION? 221 DO TROPES RESOLVE THE PROBLEM OF MENTAL CAUSATION? BY PAUL NOORDHOF One of the reasons why the problem of mental causation appears so intractable
More informationDoes luck have a place in epistemology?
DOI 10.1007/s11229-013-0334-9 Does luck have a place in epistemology? Nathan Ballantyne Received: 24 June 2013 / Accepted: 5 August 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013 Abstract Some epistemologists
More informationFollow this and additional works at: Part of the Philosophy Commons
Trinity University Digital Commons @ Trinity Philosophy Faculty Research Philosophy Department 2007 The Easy Argument Steven Luper Trinity University, sluper@trinity.edu Follow this and additional works
More informationBelief Ownership without Authorship: Agent Reliabilism s Unlucky Gambit against Reflective Luck Benjamin Bayer September 1 st, 2014
Belief Ownership without Authorship: Agent Reliabilism s Unlucky Gambit against Reflective Luck Benjamin Bayer September 1 st, 2014 Abstract: This paper examines a persuasive attempt to defend reliabilist
More informationBritish Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 62 (2011), doi: /bjps/axr026
British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 62 (2011), 899-907 doi:10.1093/bjps/axr026 URL: Please cite published version only. REVIEW
More informationDavid E. Alexander and Daniel Johnson, eds. Calvinism and the Problem of Evil.
David E. Alexander and Daniel Johnson, eds. Calvinism and the Problem of Evil. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2016. 318 pp. $62.00 (hbk); $37.00 (paper). Walters State Community College As David
More informationFree Will as an Open Scientific Problem
Free Will as an Open Scientific Problem Mark Balaguer A Bradford Book The MIT Press Cambridge, Massachusetts London, England 2010 Massachusetts Institute of Technology All rights reserved. No part of this
More informationTo link to this article:
This article was downloaded by: [the Bodleian Libraries of the University of Oxford] On: 20 April 2015, At: 06:14 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
More informationThe Fall of the Mind Argument and Some Lessons about Freedom
7 The Fall of the Mind Argument and Some Lessons about Freedom E. J. Coffman and Donald Smith Libertarians believe that freedom exists but is incompatible with determinism, and so are committed to the
More informationArticle: Steward, H (2013) Responses. Inquiry: an interdisciplinary journal of philosophy, 56 (6) ISSN X
This is a repository copy of Responses. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/84719/ Version: Accepted Version Article: Steward, H (2013) Responses. Inquiry: an
More informationThe Principle of Sufficient Reason and Free Will
Stance Volume 3 April 2010 The Principle of Sufficient Reason and Free Will ABSTRACT: I examine Leibniz s version of the Principle of Sufficient Reason with respect to free will, paying particular attention
More informationPhilosophical Issues, 23, Epistemic Agency, 2013 CAN VIRTUE EPISTEMOLOGY CAPITALIZE ON JTB S APPEAL? E.J. Coffman The University of Tennessee
Philosophical Issues, 23, Epistemic Agency, 2013 CAN VIRTUE EPISTEMOLOGY CAPITALIZE ON JTB S APPEAL? E.J. Coffman The University of Tennessee Even Gettier (1963) can agree that the traditional Justified
More informationFreedom, Responsibility, and Frankfurt-style Cases
Freedom, Responsibility, and Frankfurt-style Cases Bruce Macdonald University College London MPhilStud Masters in Philosophical Studies 1 Declaration I, Bruce Macdonald, confirm that the work presented
More informationOnline publication date: 17 December 2010 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
This article was downloaded by: [Chao, Shun-liang] On: 18 December 2010 Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 931348764] Publisher Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered
More informationDoes the Skeptic Win? A Defense of Moore. I. Moorean Methodology. In A Proof of the External World, Moore argues as follows:
Does the Skeptic Win? A Defense of Moore I argue that Moore s famous response to the skeptic should be accepted even by the skeptic. My paper has three main stages. First, I will briefly outline G. E.
More informationDIVIDED WE FALL Fission and the Failure of Self-Interest 1. Jacob Ross University of Southern California
Philosophical Perspectives, 28, Ethics, 2014 DIVIDED WE FALL Fission and the Failure of Self-Interest 1 Jacob Ross University of Southern California Fission cases, in which one person appears to divide
More informationUTILITARIANISM AND INFINITE UTILITY. Peter Vallentyne. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 71 (1993): I. Introduction
UTILITARIANISM AND INFINITE UTILITY Peter Vallentyne Australasian Journal of Philosophy 71 (1993): 212-7. I. Introduction Traditional act utilitarianism judges an action permissible just in case it produces
More informationIntersubstitutivity Principles and the Generalization Function of Truth. Anil Gupta University of Pittsburgh. Shawn Standefer University of Melbourne
Intersubstitutivity Principles and the Generalization Function of Truth Anil Gupta University of Pittsburgh Shawn Standefer University of Melbourne Abstract We offer a defense of one aspect of Paul Horwich
More informationCausing People to Exist and Saving People s Lives
Causing People to Exist and Saving People s Lives Jeff McMahan 1 The Two Possible Choice Suppose that whatever one does a new person will come into existence. But one can determine who this person will
More informationIn Defense of Culpable Ignorance
It is common in everyday situations and interactions to hold people responsible for things they didn t know but which they ought to have known. For example, if a friend were to jump off the roof of a house
More informationEmpty Names and Two-Valued Positive Free Logic
Empty Names and Two-Valued Positive Free Logic 1 Introduction Zahra Ahmadianhosseini In order to tackle the problem of handling empty names in logic, Andrew Bacon (2013) takes on an approach based on positive
More informationChapter Six Compatibilism: Mele, Alfred E. (2006). Free Will and Luck. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Chapter Six Compatibilism: Objections and Replies Mele, Alfred E. (2006). Free Will and Luck. Oxford University Press: Oxford. Overview Refuting Arguments Against Compatibilism Consequence Argument van
More informationFischer-Style Compatibilism
Fischer-Style Compatibilism John Martin Fischer s new collection of essays, Deep Control: Essays on freewill and value (Oxford University Press, 2012), constitutes a trenchant defence of his well-known
More informationComments on Lasersohn
Comments on Lasersohn John MacFarlane September 29, 2006 I ll begin by saying a bit about Lasersohn s framework for relativist semantics and how it compares to the one I ve been recommending. I ll focus
More informationMORAL RESPONSIBILITY, DETERMINISM, AND THE ABILITY TO DO OTHERWISE
PETER VAN INWAGEN MORAL RESPONSIBILITY, DETERMINISM, AND THE ABILITY TO DO OTHERWISE (Received 7 December 1998; accepted 28 April 1999) ABSTRACT. In his classic paper, The Principle of Alternate Possibilities,
More informationwhat makes reasons sufficient?
Mark Schroeder University of Southern California August 2, 2010 what makes reasons sufficient? This paper addresses the question: what makes reasons sufficient? and offers the answer, being at least as
More informationTHE CONCEPT OF OWNERSHIP by Lars Bergström
From: Who Owns Our Genes?, Proceedings of an international conference, October 1999, Tallin, Estonia, The Nordic Committee on Bioethics, 2000. THE CONCEPT OF OWNERSHIP by Lars Bergström I shall be mainly
More informationInquiry and the Transmission of Knowledge
Inquiry and the Transmission of Knowledge Christoph Kelp 1. Many think that competent deduction is a way of extending one s knowledge. In particular, they think that the following captures this thought
More informationSCHROEDER ON THE WRONG KIND OF
SCHROEDER ON THE WRONG KIND OF REASONS PROBLEM FOR ATTITUDES BY NATHANIEL SHARADIN JOURNAL OF ETHICS & SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY VOL. 7, NO. 3 AUGUST 2013 URL: WWW.JESP.ORG COPYRIGHT NATHANIEL SHARADIN 2013 Schroeder
More informationRight-Making, Reference, and Reduction
Right-Making, Reference, and Reduction Kent State University BIBLID [0873-626X (2014) 39; pp. 139-145] Abstract The causal theory of reference (CTR) provides a well-articulated and widely-accepted account
More informationFree Will Theodicies for Theological Determinists
SOPHIA (2017) 56:289 310 DOI 10.1007/s11841-016-0563-8 Free Will Theodicies for Theological Determinists T. Ryan Byerly 1 Published online: 18 January 2017 # The Author(s) 2017. This article is published
More informationSosa on Epistemic Value
1 Sosa on Epistemic Value Duncan Pritchard University of Stirling 0. In this characteristically rich and insightful paper, Ernest Sosa offers us a compelling account of epistemic normativity and, in the
More informationMolinism and divine prophecy of free actions
Molinism and divine prophecy of free actions GRAHAM OPPY School of Philosophical, Historical and International Studies, Monash University, Clayton Campus, Wellington Road, Clayton VIC 3800 AUSTRALIA Graham.Oppy@monash.edu
More informationUtilitas / Volume 25 / Issue 03 / September 2013, pp DOI: /S , Published online: 08 July 2013
Utilitas http://journals.cambridge.org/uti Additional services for Utilitas: Email alerts: Click here Subscriptions: Click here Commercial reprints: Click here Terms of use : Click here A Millian Objection
More informationDivine omniscience, timelessness, and the power to do otherwise
Religious Studies 42, 123 139 f 2006 Cambridge University Press doi:10.1017/s0034412506008250 Printed in the United Kingdom Divine omniscience, timelessness, and the power to do otherwise HUGH RICE Christ
More informationSider, Hawley, Sider and the Vagueness Argument
This is a draft. The final version will appear in Philosophical Studies. Sider, Hawley, Sider and the Vagueness Argument ABSTRACT: The Vagueness Argument for universalism only works if you think there
More informationMcDowell and the New Evil Genius
1 McDowell and the New Evil Genius Ram Neta and Duncan Pritchard 0. Many epistemologists both internalists and externalists regard the New Evil Genius Problem (Lehrer & Cohen 1983) as constituting an important
More informationFree Agents as Cause
Free Agents as Cause Daniel von Wachter January 28, 2009 This is a preprint version of: Wachter, Daniel von, 2003, Free Agents as Cause, On Human Persons, ed. K. Petrus. Frankfurt: Ontos Verlag, 183-194.
More informationWHY PLANTINGA FAILS TO RECONCILE DIVINE FOREKNOWLEDGE
WHY PLANTINGA FAILS TO RECONCILE DIVINE FOREKNOWLEDGE AND LIBERTARIAN FREE WILL Andrew Rogers KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY Abstract In this paper I argue that Plantinga fails to reconcile libertarian free will
More informationGoldman on Knowledge as True Belief. Alvin Goldman (2002a, 183) distinguishes the following four putative uses or senses of
Goldman on Knowledge as True Belief Alvin Goldman (2002a, 183) distinguishes the following four putative uses or senses of knowledge : (1) Knowledge = belief (2) Knowledge = institutionalized belief (3)
More information