Philosophical Studies

, Volume 124, Issue 3, pp 261–269 | Cite as

Does Free Will Remain a Mystery? A Response to Van Inwagen

  • Meghan Elizabeth Griffith


In this paper, I argue against Peter van Inwagen’s claim (in “Free Will Remains a Mystery”), that agent-causal views of free will could do nothing to solve the problem of free will (specifically, the problem of chanciness). After explaining van Inwagen’s argument, I argue that he does not consider all possible manifestations of the agent-causal position. More importantly, I claim that, in any case, van Inwagen appears to have mischaracterized the problem in some crucial ways. Once we are clear on the true nature of the problem of chanciness, agent-causal views do much to eradicate it.


True Nature 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Clarke, R. 1995‘Toward a Credible Agent-Causal Account of Free Will’O’Connor, T. eds. Agents, Causes, and Events: Essays on Indeterminism and Free Will.Oxford University PressNew York201215First published in (1993): Nous 27Google Scholar
  2. Clarke, R. (Forthcoming): ‘Chapter 10: Substance and Cause’.Google Scholar
  3. Kane, R. 1995‘Two Kinds of Incompatibilism’O’Connor, T. eds. Agents, Causes, and Events.Oxford University PressNew York115150First published in (1989): Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 50Google Scholar
  4. O’Connor, T. 2000Persons and Causes: The Metaphysics of Free WillOxford University PressNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Rowe, W. 1995‘Two Concepts of Freedom’O’Connor, T. eds. Agents, Causes, and Events.Oxford University PressNew York151171First published in (1987): The Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 61Google Scholar
  6. Van Inwagen, P. 2000‘Free Will Rmains a Mystery’Toberlin, J.E. eds. Philosophical Perspectives.Blackwell PublishersBoston119vol. 14Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyWashington and Lee UniversityLexingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations