Thanks to anonymous referees, Justin Capes, Sean Choi, John Fischer, James Gibson, Bill Hasker, Roberto Loss, Jonah Nagashima, Al Plantinga, Mike Rea, Brad Rettler, Patrick Todd, Peter van Inwagen, and audiences at Biola, IUPUI, Northern Illinois, Notre Dame, UC Riverside, UI Urbana-Champagne, and Western Michigan for helpful conversation and comments on ancestors of this paper. Special thanks to Joe Campbell and the van Plantingwagena reading platoon for lively discussion and encouragement.
Incompatibilism and the Past*
Version of Record online: 22 MAR 2012
© 2012 Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, LLC
Philosophy and Phenomenological Research
Volume 85, Issue 2, pages 351–376, September 2012
How to Cite
BAILEY, A. M. (2012), Incompatibilism and the Past. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 85: 351–376. doi: 10.1111/j.1933-1592.2011.00542.x
- Issue online: 13 SEP 2012
- Version of Record online: 22 MAR 2012
There is a new objection to the Consequence Argument for incompatibilism. I argue that the objection is more wide-ranging than originally thought. In particular: if it tells against the Consequence Argument, it tells against other arguments for incompatibilism too. I survey a few ways of dealing with this objection and show the costs of each. I then present an argument for incompatibilism that is immune to the objection and that enjoys other advantages.