How (Not) to Think About the Sense of 'able' Relevant to Free Will

Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
This essay is an investigation into the sense of ‘able’ relevant to free will, where free will is understood as requiring the ability to do otherwise. I argue that van Inwagen’s recent functional specification of the relevant sense of ‘able’ is flawed, and that explicating the powers involved in free will shall likely require paying detailed attention to the semantics and pragmatics of ‘can’ and ‘able’. Further, I argue that van Inwagen’s promise-level ability requirement on free will is too strong. I also argue that Mele’s conjecture that the strength of the ability to perform the ‘alternative’ action (i.e. to refrain, to decide otherwise) be no higher than the strength of the ability exercised in performing an action is mistaken. I suggest there is an asymmetry in the strengths of the abilities which make up the n-way power that comprises free will, and that this looks to have some interesting consequences for the connection between the abilities required for free will and, e.g., the ‘up to us’ locution.
Keywords
PhilPapers/Archive ID
KITHNT-2
Upload history
Archival date: 2021-04-28
View other versions
Added to PP index
2020-07-08

Total views
21 ( #58,051 of 2,427,843 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
21 ( #33,888 of 2,427,843 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.