Advertisement

Review of John Lemos’ A Pragmatic Approach to Libertarian Free Will

  • Richard DoubleEmail author
Book Review
  • 7 Downloads

Libertarians in the free will problem assert that persons act freely and are morally responsible when they exercise undetermined free choices, choices that could have been different than they were under the identical conditions that actually obtained. Libertarian free will is called “contra-causal” because it is uncaused by anything other than the libertarian’s free choice. Libertarians have long faced the complaints that such free will is conceptually suspect and, because of its weak scientific credentials, belongs in the shadowy regions of one’s philosophical worldview amongst other dim denizens such as nonphysical minds and gods. Robert Kane, with The Significance of Free Will (1996) and his many other works in the last 30 years, has done a lot to bolster the conceptual reputation of libertarian free will and to suggest how libertarian free will might exist in a fully naturalistic physical world. Unfortunately, Kane’s impressive work does little to provide positive reasons to think...

Notes

References

  1. Caruso, Gregg (2018). “Justice without Retribution: An Epistemic Argument Against Retributive Criminal Justice”. Neuroethics.Google Scholar
  2. Corrado, Michael (2018) “Criminal Quarantine and the Burden of Proof” Philosophia.Google Scholar
  3. Double, Richard. (2002). “The Moral Hardness of Libertarianism.” Philo 5: 226–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Double, Richard. (2005). Metaethical Subjectivism. (New York: Routledge).Google Scholar
  5. Double, Richard. (2017). “The Hard-heartedness of Some Libertarians: A Reply to John Lemos.” Journal of Philosophical Research 42: 313–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kane, Robert. (1996). The Significance of Free Will. (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
  7. Lemos, John. (2013). “Hard-heartedness and Libertarianism.” Philo 16: 180–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lemos, John. (2016). “Moral Concerns About Responsibility Denial and the Quarantine of Violent Criminals.” Law and Philosophy 35: 461–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lemos, John. (2017). “Hard-heartedness and Libertarianism Again: A Rejoinder to Double.” Journal of Philosophical Research 42: 319–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lemos, John. (2018). A Pragmatic Approach to Libertarian Free Will. (New York: Routledge).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lemos, John. (2019). “A Moral Pragmatic Defense of Just Deserts-Responsibility”. Law and Philosophy.Google Scholar
  12. Pereboom, Derk. (2001). Living Without Free Will. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Smilansky, Saul. (1990). “Utilitarianism and the 'punishment' of the innocent: The general problem.” Analysis 50: 256–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Sommers, Tamler. (2012) Justice: Cultural Diversity, Free Will, and Moral Responsibility. (Princeton: Princeton University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Van Inwagen, Peter. (1983). An Essay on Free Will. (Oxford: Clarendon Press).Google Scholar
  16. Van Inwagen, Peter. (2002). “Free Will Remains a Mystery.” In The Oxford Handbook of Free Will, ed. R. Kane, 158–177. (New York: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
  17. Vargas, Manuel. (2007). “Revisionism.” In Four Views on Free Will, ed. J. M. Fischer, R. Kane, D. Pereboom and M. Vargas, 126–165. (Malden, MA: Blackwell).Google Scholar
  18. Waller, Bruce. (1990). Freedom Without Moral Responsibility. (Philadelphia: Temple University Press).Google Scholar
  19. Waller, Bruce. (2011). Against Moral Responsibility. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Edinboro University of PennsylvaniaEdinboroUSA

Personalised recommendations