Advertisement

Synthese

pp 1–21 | Cite as

Free actions as a natural kind

  • Oisín Deery
Article
  • 21 Downloads

Abstract

Do we have free will? Understanding free will as the ability to act freely, and free actions as exercises of this ability, I maintain that the default answer to this question is “yes.” I maintain that free actions are a natural kind, by relying on the influential idea that kinds are homeostatic property clusters. The resulting position builds on the view that agents are a natural kind and yields an attractive alternative to recent revisionist accounts of free action. My view also overcomes difficulties confronted by previous views according to which free actions might be a natural kind. On my view, free actions exist and we often act freely, as long as we possess various features that are related in the right sorts of ways to each other and to the world. In turn, we acquire and retain the concept as long as most of us possess enough of those features.

Keywords

Free will Action Natural kinds Moral responsibility Revisionism 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Versions of this paper were presented at the University of Arizona (January 2016), Florida State University (January 2017), Monash University (September 2017), the Central Division Meeting of the American Philosophical Association (February 2018), the University of Melbourne (May 2018), and the 3rd International Conference on Natural Cognition at the University of Macau (November 2018). Thanks to audiences at those venues for helpful comments. I also thank Terry Horgan, Shaun Nichols, Michael McKenna, Eddy Nahmias, Alfred Mele, Tim Bayne, Gregg Caruso and several anonymous referees for their valuable suggestions. Finally, I thank the students in my seminar on reference and free will at Monash University (2018) for useful discussion.

References

  1. Andrews, K. (2012). Do apes read minds? Toward a new folk psychology. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Arpaly, N. (2003). Unprincipled virtue: An inquiry into moral agency. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Balaguer, M. (2010). Free will as an open scientific problem. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bassili, J. (1976). Temporal and spatial contingencies in the perception of social events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33(6), 680–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boyd, R. (1988). How to be a moral realist. In G. Sayre-McCord (Ed.), Essays on moral realism (pp. 181–228). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Boyd, R. (1999). Homeostasis, species, and higher taxa. In R. A. Wilson (Ed.), Species: New interdisciplinary essays (pp. 141–185). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Brigandt, I. (2011). Natural kinds and concepts: A pragmatist and methodologically naturalistic account. In J. Knowles & H. Rydenfelt (Eds.), Pragmatism, science and naturalism (pp. 171–196). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Publishing.Google Scholar
  8. Bugnyar, T., Reber, S. A., & Buckner, C. (2016). Ravens attribute visual access to unseen competitors. Nature Communications, 7, 10506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Butterfill, S. A., & Apperly, I. A. (2013). How to construct a minimal theory of mind. Mind and Language, 28, 606–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Caruso, G. (2012). Free will and consciousness: A determinist account of the illusion of free will. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  11. Caruso, G. (2015). Free will eliminativism: Reference, error, and phenomenology. Philosophical Studies, 172(10), 2823–2833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clarke, R. (2003). Libertarian accounts of free will. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Daw, R., & Alter, T. (2001). Free acts and robot cats. Philosophical Studies, 102, 345–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Deery, O. (2015a). The fall from Eden: Why libertarianism isn’t justified by experience. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 93(2), 319–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Deery, O. (2015b). Why people believe in indeterminist free will. Philosophical Studies, 172(8), 2033–2054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Deery, O., Davis, T., & Carey, J. (2015). The Free-Will Intuitions Scale and the question of natural compatibilism. Philosophical Psychology, 28(6), 776–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Deery, O., & Nahmias, E. (2017). Defeating manipulation arguments: Interventionist causation and compatibilist sourcehood. Philosophical Studies, 174(5), 1255–1276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dupré, J. (1981). Natural kinds and biological taxa. The Philosophical Review, 90(1), 66–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ereshefsky, M., & Reydon, T. A. C. (2015). Scientific kinds. Philosophical Studies, 172(4), 969–986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fischer, J., & Ravizza, M. (1998). Responsibility and control: A theory of moral responsibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Frankfurt, H. (1969). Alternate possibilities and moral responsibility. The Journal of Philosophy, 66(23), 829–839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Frankfurt, H. (1971). Freedom of the will and the concept of a person. Journal of Philosophy, 68(1), 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fulda, F. C. (2017). Natural agency: The case of bacterial cognition. Journal of the American Philosophical Association, 3(1), 69–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Heider, F., & Simmel, M. (1944). An experimental study of apparent behavior. American Journal of Psychology, 57(2), 243–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Heller, M. (1996). The mad scientist meets the robot cats: Compatibilism, kinds, and counterexamples. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 56(2), 333–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hurley, S. (2000). Is responsibility essentially impossible? Philosophical Studies, 99(2), 229–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hutto, D., & Myin, E. (2017). Radicalizing enactivism: Basic minds without content. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ismael, J. (2013). Causation, free will, and naturalism. In H. Kincaid, J. Ladyman, & D. Ross (Eds.), Scientific metaphysics (pp. 208–235). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jackson, F. (1998). From metaphysics to ethics: A defence of conceptual analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Jackson, F. (2001a). Précis of from metaphysics to ethics. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 62(3), 617–624.Google Scholar
  31. Jackson, F. (2001b). Responses. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 62(3), 653–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Kane, R. (1996). The significance of free will. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Khalidi, M. A. (2018). Natural kinds as nodes in causal networks. Synthese, 195(4), 1379–1396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kripke, S. (1980). Naming and necessity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Kumar, V. (2014). ‘Knowledge’ as a natural kind term. Synthese, 191, 439–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kumar, V. (2015). Moral judgment as a natural kind. Philosophical Studies, 172(11), 2887–2910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Laurence, S., & Margolis, E. (2003). Concepts and conceptual analysis. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 67(2), 253–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Levy, N. (2011). Hard luck: How luck undermines free will and moral responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Levy, N. (2016). Implicit bias and moral responsibility: Probing the data. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 94(1), 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lewis, D. (1972). Psychophysical and theoretical identifications. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 50(3), 249–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lombrozo, T. (2010). Causal-explanatory pluralism: How intentions, functions, and mechanisms influence causal ascriptions. Cognitive Psychology, 61(4), 303–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Maher, C. (2017). Plant minds: A philosophical defense. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mallon, R., Machery, E., Nichols, S., & Stich, S. (2009). Against arguments from reference. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 79(2), 332–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. May, J. (2014). On the very concept of free will. Synthese, 191(12), 2849–2866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. McCormick, K. A. (2016). Revisionism. In K. Timpe, M. Griffith, & N. Levy (Eds.), Routledge companion to free will (pp. 109–120). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  47. McCormick, K. A. (forthcoming). Meeting the eliminativist burden. Social Philosophy & Policy, 36(1).Google Scholar
  48. McGeer, V. (2007). The regulative dimension of folk psychology. In D. Hutto & M. Ratcliffe (Eds.), Folk psychology reassessed (pp. 137–156). Dordrecht: Kluwer/Springer Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. McKenna, M. (2008). A hard-line reply to Pereboom’s four-case manipulation argument. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 77(1), 142–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. McKenna, M. (2012). Moral responsibility, manipulation arguments, and history: Assessing the resilience of nonhistorical compatibilism. Journal of Ethics, 16, 145–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. McKenna, M. (2014). Resisting the manipulation argument: A hard-liner takes it on the chin. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 89(2), 467–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mele, A. (1995). Autonomous agents: From self-control to autonomy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Mele, A. (2006). Free will and luck. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mele, A. (2013). Manipulation, moral responsibility, and bullet biting. Journal of Ethics, 17(3), 167–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Millikan, R. G. (2010). On knowing the meaning; with a coda on Swampman. Mind, 119(473), 43–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Nahmias, E. (2018). Free will as a psychological accomplishment. In D. Schmidtz & C. E. Pavel (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of freedom (pp. 492–507). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Nichols, S. (2015). Free will and error. In S. Nichols (Ed.), Bound: Essays on free will and responsibility (pp. 54–74). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Nichols, S. (Forthcoming). Free will and reference. In J. Campbell (Ed.), A companion to free will. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  59. Pereboom, D. (2014). Free will, agency, and meaning in life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Pober, J. M. (2013). Addiction is not a natural kind. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 4, 123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Putnam, H. (1975). The meaning of “Meaning”. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 7, 131–193.Google Scholar
  62. Reydon, T. A. C. (2009). How to fix kind membership: A problem for HPC theory and a solution. Philosophy of Science, 76(5), 724–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rutherford, M. D., & Kuhlmeier, V. A. (Eds.). (2013). Social perception: Detection and interpretation of animacy, agency, and intention. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  64. Salmon, N. (1982). Reference and Essence. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  65. Schechtman, M. (2014). Staying alive: Personal identity, practical concerns, and the unity of a life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Seligman, M., Railton, P., Baumeister, R., & Sripada, C. (2013). Navigating into the future or driven by the past: Prospection as an organizing principle of mind. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(2), 119–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Shoemaker, D. (2015). Responsibility from the margins. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sims, A. (2018). The essence of agency is discovered, not defined: A minimal mindreading argument. Philosophical Studies.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-018-1108-5.Google Scholar
  69. Singer, I. (2002). Freedom and revision. Southwest Philosophy Review, 18(2), 25–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Smith, A. (2008). Control, responsibility, and moral assessment. Philosophical Studies, 138(3), 367–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sommers, T. (2012). Relative justice: Cultural diversity, free will, and moral responsibility. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Spaulding, S. (2018). How we understand others: Philosophy and social cognition. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Sterelny, K. (2001). The evolution of agency and other essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  74. Sterelny, K. (2003). Thought in a hostile world: The evolution of human cognition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  75. Sterelny, K., & Griffiths, P. (1999). Sex and death. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  76. Strawson, G. (1986). Freedom and belief. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  77. Van Inwagen, P. (1983). An essay on free will. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  78. Vargas, M. (2006). On the importance of history for responsible agency. Philosophical Studies, 127, 351–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Vargas, M. (2011). Revisionist accounts of free will: Origins, varieties, and challenges. In R. Kane (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of free will (2nd ed., pp. 457–484). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  80. Vargas, M. (2013). Building better beings: A theory of moral responsibility. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Vargas, M. (2017). Implicit bias, responsibility, and moral ecology. In D. Shoemaker (Ed.), Oxford studies in agency and responsibility (Vol. 4, pp. 219–247). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  82. Vargas, M. (forthcoming). Revisionism. In J. Campbell (Ed.), A companion to free will. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  83. Vihvelin, K. (2004). Free will demystified: A dispositional account. Philosophical Topics, 32(1–2), 427–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Wilson, R. A., Barker, M. J., & Brigandt, I. (2007). When traditional essentialism fails: Biological natural kinds. Philosophical Topics, 35, 189–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Wolf, S. (1987). Sanity and the metaphysics of responsibility. In F. Schoeman (Ed.), Responsibility, character, and the emotions: New essays in moral psychology (pp. 46–62). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  86. Zawidzki, T. W. (2013). Mindshaping: A new framework for understanding human social cognition. Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyMonash UniversityClaytonAustralia

Personalised recommendations