Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T20:42:51.109Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hard incompatibilism and the participant attitude

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

D. Justin Coates
D. Justin Coates*
Affiliation:
Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of Houston, Houston, TX, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Following P. F. Strawson, a number of philosophers have argued that if hard incompatibilism is true, then its truth would undermine the justification or value of our relationships with other persons. In this paper, I offer a novel defense of this claim. In particular, I argue that if hard incompatibilism is true, we cannot make sense of: the possibility of promissory obligation, the significance of consent, or the pro tanto wrongness of paternalistic intervention. Because these practices and normative commitments are central to our relationships as we currently conceive of them, it follows that hard incompatibilism has radically revisionary conclusions.

Keywords

Moral responsibilityhard incompatibilismDerk Pereboom
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 49 , Issue 2 , March 2019 , pp. 208 - 229
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Journal of Philosophy 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anglin, W. S., 1990. Free Will and the Christian Faith. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Coates, D. J., 2013. “In Defense of Love Internalism.” Journal of Ethics, 17: 233–255. doi:10.1007/s10892-013-9144-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coates, D. J., 2017. “The Basic Argument and Modest Moral Responsibility.” Analytic Philosophy, 58 (2): 419–444. doi:10.1111/phib.12095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ebels-Duggan, K., 2008. “Against Beneficence: A Normative Account of Love.” Ethics, 119 (1): 142–170. doi:10.1086/592310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ekstrom, L., 2000. Free Will: A Philosophical Study. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, J. M., 1994. The Metaphysics of Free Will. Oxford: Blackwells.Google Scholar
Frankfurt, H., 1971. “Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person.” Journal of Philosophy, 68 (1): 5–20. doi:10.2307/2024717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helm, B., 2017. Communities of Respect. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kane, R., 1996. The Significance of Free Will. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mason, E., 2005. “We Make No Promises.” Philosophical Studies, 123 (1–2): 33–46. doi:10.1007/s11098-004-5219-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milam, P.-E., 2016. “Reactive Attitudes and Personal Relationships.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 46 (1): 102–122. doi:10.1080/00455091.2016.1146032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelkin, D. K., 2015. “Friendship, Freedom, and Special Obligations.” In Agency, Freedom, and Moral Responsibility, edited by Buckareff, A., Moya, C., and Rosell, S., 226–250, London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Pereboom, D., 1995. “Determinism Al Dente.” Nous, 29 (1): 21–45. doi:10.2307/2215725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pereboom, D., 2001. Living Without Free Will. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pereboom, D., 2013. “Free Will Skepticism, Blame, and Obligation.” In Blame Its Nature and Norms, edited by Justin Coates, D. and Tognazzini, N. A., 189–206. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pereboom, D., 2014. Free Will, Agency, and Meaning in Life. Oxford Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pereboom, D., 2017. “Responsibility, Regret, and Protest.” In Oxford Studies in Agency and Responsibility, edited by Shoemaker, D., 121–140. Vol. 4. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pisciotta, T., 2009. “Meaningfulness, Hard Determinism, and Objectivity.” In Essays on Free Will and Moral Responsibility, edited by Trakakis, N. and Cohen, D., 73–89, Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Press.Google Scholar
Scanlon, T. M., 2008. Moral Dimensions: Permissibility, Meaning, Blame. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shabo, S., 2012. “Where Love and Resentment Meet: Strawson’s Interpersonal Defense of Compatibilism.” The Philosophical Review, 121 (1): 95–124. doi:10.1215/00318108-1426373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sher, G., 2006. In Praise of Blame. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smart, J., 2003. “Free Will, Praise and Blame.” In Free Will 2nd Edition, edited by, 58–71. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smuts, A., 2016. ‘Love and Free Will, ’ unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Sommers, T., 2007. “The Objective Attitude.” Philosophical Quarterly, 57 (28): 321–342. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9213.2007.487.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sommers, T., 2012. Relative Justice: Cultural Diversity, Free Will, and Moral Responsibility. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Strawson, P. F., 2003. “Freedom and Resentment.” In Free Will 2nd Ed, edited by Watson, G., 72–93, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Watson, G., 1975. “Free Agency.” Journal of Philosophy, 72 (8): 205–220. doi:10.2307/2024703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, G., 2014. “Peter Strawson on Responsibility and Sociality.” In Oxford Studies in Agency and Responsibility, edited by Shoemaker, D. and Tognazzini, N., 15–32. Vol. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wisdom, J., 1934. Problems of Minds and Matter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wolf, S., 1981. “The Importance of Free Will.” Mind, 90 (359): 386–405. doi:10.1093/mind/XC.359.386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar