If the wedding had taken place an hour later, it would have been rained out. When we make counterfactual claims like this, we indicate that events are not terribly fragile things. That is, we typically think of events as particulars which can survive small changes in nearby possible worlds, such that one and the same event could have occurred under slightly different circumstances. I argue, however, that any account of “non-fragile” event individuation is subject to what is known as the (...) recycling problem. This was a problem initially raised against origin essentialism, or the view that individuals are individuated by their origins, and is roughly the difficulty that arises in cases where the criteria of individuation for a particular individual are duplicated. I then examine a potential solution, which takes its cue from predecessor essentialism, the leading response to the recycling problem in the origins literature. I argue that the predecessor essentialist’s solution yields unacceptably counter-intuitive results when applied to the recycling problem for event individuation, and conclude that, if events have qualitative individuating essences, then they must be—contrary to intuition—modally fragile entities. I then suggest three alternatives to qualitative essentialism which could accommodate our intuitions about the modal non-fragility of events. (shrink)

This article addresses a classic issue in the Metaphysics of Events concerning the conditions under which a specific event remains unchanged amid possible counterfactual changes. Multiplicators, who admit little or no variation in property categories for event individuation, contrast with unifiers, who are more tolerant of such variations. Two fundamental arguments are critically analyzed. Firstly, arguments based on common linguistic practices suggesting that we speak about the same events varying over time are discussed. Counterexamples demonstrate the unreliability of these practices (...) from the standpoint of the metaphysics of event individuation. Secondly, the argument that the non-fragilist position conflicts with the principle of alternative possibilities and the intuition that cases with very close action alternatives do not involve moral responsibility is addressed. The analysis indicates that such cases may involve numerically distinct actions, suggesting the need for a modification in the principle of alternative possibilities. It is concluded that there are no plausible reasons to reject the fragilist stance, and it is possible to decide abductively in its favor. (shrink)