Philosophical Studies

, Volume 162, Issue 2, pp 237–255 | Cite as

Moral responsibility and the continuation problem

  • Alfred R. Mele


Typical incompatibilists about moral responsibility and determinism contend that being basically morally responsible for a decision one makes requires that, if that decision has proximal causes, it is not deterministically caused by them. This article develops a problem for this contention that resembles what is sometimes called the problem of present (or cross-world) luck. However, the problem makes no reference to luck nor to contrastive explanation. This article also develops a solution.


Incompatibilism Indeterminism Free will Luck Moral responsibility 



This paper was made possible through the support of a grant from the John Templeton Foundation. The opinions expressed in this publication are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the John Templeton Foundation. I am grateful to Randy Clarke and Stephen Kearns for comments on a draft.


  1. Blumenfeld, D. (n.d.). Lucky agents, big and little: Should size really matter? Philosophical Studies. doi: 10.1007/s11098-010-9595-z.
  2. Clarke, R. (1997). On the possibility of rational free action. Philosophical Studies, 88, 37–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Clarke, R. (2003). Libertarian accounts of free will. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Coffman, E. J. (2010). How (not) to attack the luck argument. Philosophical Explorations, 13, 157–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Coffman, E. J., & Warfield, T. (2007). Alfred Mele’s metaphysical freedom? Philosophical Explorations, 10, 185–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Mele, A. (1995). Autonomous agents. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Mele, A. (2006). Free will and luck. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Mele, A. (2007). Free will and luck: Reply to critics. Philosophical Explorations, 10, 195–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Mele, A. (2008). Manipulation, compatibilism, and moral responsibility. Journal of Ethics, 12, 263–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Mele, A. (2009a). Moral responsibility and agents’ histories. Philosophical Studies, 142, 161–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mele, A. (2009b). Moral responsibility and history revisited. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 12, 463–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mele, A. (2010). Moral responsibility for actions: Epistemic and freedom conditions. Philosophical Explorations, 13, 101–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. O’Connor, T. (2000). Persons and causes. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Pereboom, D. (2001). Living without free will. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Strawson, G. (2002). The bounds of freedom. In R. Kane (Ed.), The oxford handbook of free will. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Watson, G. (1987). Free action and free will. Mind, 96, 145–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Florida State UniversityTallahasseeUSA

Personalised recommendations