Consequence Arguments

Authors

  • David Botting Postdoctoral Research Fellow IFL, FCSH, Universidade Nova de Lisboa LISBON, PORTUGAL

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.4454/philinq.v2i1.41

Keywords:

free will, libertarianism, the consequence argument

Abstract

The Consequence Argument, in various forms, has been popular in recent discussions of libertarianism. I want to ask: what is the nature of the ‘necessity’ involved in the claim that necessarilyone cannot change the past or the laws of nature? I will answer that this necessity is not peculiar to the thesis of determinism and does not depend directly on the unchangeability of facts about the remote past; parallel consequence arguments can be constructed to show that libertarian free will is equally incompatible with indeterminism, fatalism, and naturalism.

Author Biography

David Botting, Postdoctoral Research Fellow IFL, FCSH, Universidade Nova de Lisboa LISBON, PORTUGAL

Postdoctoral Research Fellow, IFL, FCSH, Universidade Nova de Lisboa

Downloads

Published

2014-01-18

Issue

Vol. 2 No. 1 (2014)

Section

Essays

License

Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication, with the work five (5) years after publication licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

After five years from first publication, Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.