Further Reflections on Lemos’s Indeterministic Weightings Model of Libertarian Free Action | ||
| پژوهشهای فلسفی -کلامی | ||
| دوره 25، شماره 3، مهر 1402، صفحه 119-130 اصل مقاله (1.52 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله علمی پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22091/jptr.2023.9722.2929 | ||
| نویسنده | ||
| Ishtiyaque Haji* | ||
| Professor of Philosophy, Department of Philosophy, University of Calgary, Canada | ||
| چکیده | ||
| John Lemos defends an indeterministic weightings model of libertarian free will that is a variant of event-causal libertarian views. Many argue that these views are susceptible to the luck problem: an agent’s directly free choices are too luck infected for the agent to be morally responsible for them. The weightings model supposedly escapes this problem largely because in this model an agent’s reasons for choices do not come with pre-established values. Rather, an agent performs intentional acts of weighting that contribute to the value she assigns to her reasons. Decisions that are consequences of weightings are, thus, under the agent’s control and not subject to luck. In a recent paper, I argued that despite its weighting component, Lemos’s model succumbs to the luck problem. Lemos rejoins that my criticisms are based on misunderstandings and confusions. I deflect the charge of misperception and explain why the weightings model remains susceptible to the luck problem. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| Indeterministic weightings؛ John Lemos؛ Libertarianism؛ Luck؛ Ultimate responsibility | ||
| موضوعات | ||
| فلسفه اخلاق | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Further Reflections on Lemos’s Indeterministic Weightings Model of Libertarian Free Action | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Ishtiyaque Haji | ||
| Professor of Philosophy, Department of Philosophy, University of Calgary, Canada | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| John Lemos defends an indeterministic weightings model of libertarian free will that is a variant of event-causal libertarian views. Many argue that these views are susceptible to the luck problem: an agent’s directly free choices are too luck infected for the agent to be morally responsible for them. The weightings model supposedly escapes this problem largely because in this model an agent’s reasons for choices do not come with pre-established values. Rather, an agent performs intentional acts of weighting that contribute to the value she assigns to her reasons. Decisions that are consequences of weightings are, thus, under the agent’s control and not subject to luck. In a recent paper, I argued that despite its weighting component, Lemos’s model succumbs to the luck problem. Lemos rejoins that my criticisms are based on misunderstandings and confusions. I deflect the charge of misperception and explain why the weightings model remains susceptible to the luck problem. | ||
| کلیدواژهها [English] | ||
| Indeterministic weightings, John Lemos, Libertarianism, Luck, Ultimate responsibility | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Clarke, R. (2000). Modest libertarianism. Philosophical Perspectives, 14, 21–45.
Clarke, R. (2003). Libertarian accounts of free will. Oxford University Press.
Dennett, D. (1978). On giving libertarians what they say they want. In D. Dennett (Ed.), Brainstorms. Bradford Books, 286–299.
Fischer, J. M. (2011). Indeterminism and control: an approach to the problem of luck. In M. Freeman (Ed.), Law and neuroscience. Oxford University Press, 41–60.
Fischer, J. M. (2014). Toward a solution to the luck problem. In D. Palmer (Ed.), Libertarian free will. Oxford University Press, 52–68.
Franklin, C. (2011). Farewell to the luck (and mind) argument. Philosophical Studies, 156, 199–230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-010-9583-3
Franklin, C. (2018). A Minimal libertarianism: free will and the promise of reduction. Oxford University Press.
Haji, I. (2016). Luck’s mischief: obligation and blameworthiness on a thread. Oxford University Press.
Haji, I. (2019). The obligation dilemma. Oxford University Press.
Haji, I. (2022). Libertarianism and luck. Journal of Philosophical Theological Research, 24(3), 115-134. https://doi.org/10.22091/JPTR.2022.8297.2723
Kane, R. (1996). The significance of free will. Oxford University Press.
Kane, R. (1999). Responsibility, luck, and chance: reflections on free will and indeterminism. Journal of Philosophy, 96, 217-240. https://doi.org/10.2307/2564666 Lemos, J. (2021). The indeterministic weightings model of libertarian free will. Journal of Philosophical Theological Research, 23, 137-156. https://doi.org/10.22091/JPTR.2021.7187.2582 Lemos, J. (2023). Haji and the Indeterministic Weightings Model of Libertarian Free Will. Journal of Philosophical Theological Research, (Special Issue on "Comparative Philosophy of Religion"), 25(3), 101-118. https://doi.org/10.22091/jptr.2023.9648.2920 Mele, A. (1995). Autonomous agents: from self-control to autonomy. Oxford University Press.
Mele, A. (1996). Soft libertarianism and Frankfurt-style scenarios. Philosophical Topics, 24, 123-141. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 5,647 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 342 |
||