Advertisement

The Journal of Ethics

, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp 277–290 | Cite as

Further Reflections on The Free Will Debate and Basic Desert: A Reply to Nelkin and Pereboom

  • Michael McKennaEmail author
Article
  • 49 Downloads

Abstract

In my “The Free Will Debate and Basic Desert,” I argued that against a familiar claim in the free will debate: that the freedom in dispute between compatibilists and incompatibilists is limited to the type required for an agent to deserve blame for moral wrongdoing, and to deserve it in a sense that is basic. In that earlier paper, I sought a rationale for this claim, offered an explanation of basic desert, and then argued that the free will debate can persist even when divorced from basic desert. Dana Nelkin and Derk Pereboom then argued against my thesis. In this paper, I reply to their thoughtful criticisms.

Keywords

Free will Moral responsibility Blame Desert Dana Nelkin Derk Pereboom 

Notes

Acknowledgements

For helpful comments, I would like to thank Dana Nelkin, Derk Pereboom, Carolina Sartorio, and Manuel Vargas.

References

  1. Brink, David O. and Dana Kay Nelkin (in preparation). The Nature and Significance of Blame. In Oxford Handbook of Moral Psychology, ed. John Doris and Manuel Vargas. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Carlsson, Andreas Brekke. 2017. Blameworthiness as Deserved Guilt. Journal of Ethics 21: 89–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dennett, Daniel. 1984. Elbow Room: Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Feinberg, Joel. 1970. Doing and Deserving. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Heironymi, Pamela. Manuscript. Minds that Matter.Google Scholar
  6. Kane, Robert. 1996. The Significance of Free Will. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Lenman, James. 2006. Compatibilism and Contractualism: The Possibility of Moral Responsibility. Ethics 117: 7–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. McKenna, Michael. 2012. Conversation and Responsibility. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Nelkin, Dana. Manuscript. Desert, Free Will, and Our Moral Responsibility Practices.Google Scholar
  10. Pereboom, Derk. Manuscript. What Makes the Free Will Debate Substantive?.Google Scholar
  11. Pereboom, Derk. 2014. Free Will, Agency, and Meaning in Life. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Pereboom, Derk. 2013. Free Will Skepticism, Blame, and Obligation. Tognazzini and Coates. Eds. 2013: 189–206.Google Scholar
  13. Pereboom, Derk. 2001. Living Without Free Will. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rawls, John. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Scanlon, T.M. 2008. Moral Dimensions: Permissibility, Meaning, Blame. Cambridge: Belknap Harvard Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Scanlon, T.M. 1998. What We Owe to Each Other. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Strawson, P.F. 1962. Freedom and Resentment. Proceedings of the British Academy 48: 187–211.Google Scholar
  18. Wallace, R.Jay. 1994. Responsibility and the Moral Sentiments. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Wolf, Susan. 1981. The Importance of Free Will. Mind 90: 386–405. (Reprinted in Fischer and Ravizza, eds. 1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations