"Political Ideas in the Twentieth Century", Historical Inevitability", "Two Concepts of Liberty", "John Stuart Mill and the Ends of Life". These four essays deal with the various aspects of individual liberty, including the distinction between positive and negative liberty and the necessity of rejecting determinism if we wish to keep hold of the notions of human responsibility and freedom.

It is my view that one essential difference between persons and other creatures is to be found in the structure of a person's will. Besides wanting and choosing and being moved to do this or that, men may also want to have certain desires and motives. They are capable of wanting to be different, in their preferences and purposes, from what they are. Many animals appear to have the capacity for what I shall call "first-order desires" or "desires of the (...) first order," which are simply desires to do or not to do one thing or another. No animal other than man, however, appears to have the capacity for reflective self-evaluation that is manifested in the formation of second-order desires. (shrink)

Machine generated contents note: Essay 1.

"This is an important book, and no one interested in issues which touch on the free will will want to ignore it."--Ethics. In this stimulating and thought-provoking book, the author defends the thesis that free will is incompatible with determinism. He disputes the view that determinism is necessary for moral responsbility. Finding no good reason for accepting determinism, but believing moral responsiblity to be indubitable, he concludes that determinism should be rejected.

What is the Moral Problem? NORMATIVE ETHICS VS. META-ETHICS It is a common fact of everyday life that we appraise each others' behaviour and attitudes from ...

Der Freiheitsbegriff ist im Kern als ein Möglichkeitsbegriff zu verstehen, der die Rede von einem „Anderskönnen" voraussetzt. Eine Explikation dieses Könnens bietet die konditionale Analyse, der zufolge,,x kann h tun" etwa soviel bedeutet wie,,x wird h tun, wenn x will, daß h, und x wird -h tun, wenn x will, daß -h". In der Analytischen Philosophie wird sie zumeist mit Moore und dem britischen Empirismus in Verbindung gebracht. Sie hat jedoch einen viel älteren theologischen Ursprung. Obwohl schon immer gewichtige Einwände (...) gegen sie vorgebracht wurden, hat sie ihre Anziehungskraft auf,,kompatibilistische" Freiheitstheoretiker bislang behalten. Der Aufsatz fragt, warum das so ist und worin der zentrale Defekt der Analyse besteht. Er liegt weniger in ihrer notorischen Unfähigkeit zur Erfassung der Willensfreiheit. Wichtiger ist, daß der Sinn der Rede vom,,Können" unspezifiziert bleibt. Schließt man die Lücke, zeigt sich, daß die Konditionalanalyse selbst jenes,,Anderskönnen" voraussetzt, das sie verabschieden wollte, sc. das Bestehen ontologisch offener Alternativen. (shrink)

Der Freiheitsbegriff ist im Kern als ein Möglichkeitsbegriff zu verstehen, der die Rede von einem „Anderskönnen" voraussetzt. Eine Explikation dieses Könnens bietet die konditionale Analyse, der zufolge,,x kann h tun" etwa soviel bedeutet wie,,x wird h tun, wenn x will, daß h, und x wird -h tun, wenn x will, daß -h". In der Analytischen Philosophie wird sie zumeist mit Moore und dem britischen Empirismus in Verbindung gebracht. Sie hat jedoch einen viel älteren theologischen Ursprung. Obwohl schon immer gewichtige Einwände (...) gegen sie vorgebracht wurden, hat sie ihre Anziehungskraft auf,,kompatibilistische" Freiheitstheoretiker bislang behalten. Der Aufsatz fragt, warum das so ist und worin der zentrale Defekt der Analyse besteht. Er liegt weniger in ihrer notorischen Unfähigkeit zur Erfassung der Willensfreiheit. Wichtiger ist, daß der Sinn der Rede vom,,Können" unspezifiziert bleibt. Schließt man die Lücke, zeigt sich, daß die Konditionalanalyse selbst jenes,,Anderskönnen" voraussetzt, das sie verabschieden wollte, sc. das Bestehen ontologisch offener Alternativen. (shrink)

In this paper I shall define a thesis I shall call ' determinism ', and argue that it is incompatible with the thesis that we are able to act otherwise than we do. Other theses, some of them very different from what I shall call ' determinism ', have at least an equal right to this name, and, therefore, I do not claim to show that every thesis that could be called ' determinism ' without historical impropriety is incompatible with (...) free will. I shall, however, assume without argument that what I call ' determinism ' is legitimately so called. In Part I, I shall explain what I mean by ' determinism '. In Part II, I shall make some remarks about 'can'. In Part III, I shall argue that free will and determinism are incompatible. In Part IV, I shall examine some possible objections to the argument of Part III. I shall not attempt to establish the truth or falsity of determinism, or the existence or nonexistence of free will. (shrink)

The doyen of living English philosophers, by these reflections, took hold of and changed the outlook of a good many other philosophers, if not quite enough. He did so, essentially, by assuming that talk of freedom and responsibility is talk not of facts or truths, in a certain sense, but of our attitudes. His more explicit concern was to look again at the question of whether determinism and freedom are consistent with one another -- by shifting attention to certain personal (...) rather than moral attitudes, first of all gratitude and resentment. In the end, he arrived at a kind of Compatibilist or, as he says, Optimist conclusion. That is no doubt a recommendation but not the largest recommendation of this splendidly rich piece of philosophy. (shrink)

I shall present a problem about accountability, and its solution by Strawson’s ‘Freedom and Resentment’. Some readers of this don’t see it as a profound contribution to moral philosophy, and I want to help them. It may be helpful to follow up Strawson’s gracefully written discussion with a more staccato presentation. My treatment will also be angled somewhat differently from his, so that its lights and shadows will fall with a certain difference, which may make it serviceable even to the (...) converted. Also, I shall point to some disputable things in ‘Freedom and Resentment’, and offer repairs. So I wrote in the first published version of this paper. I wanted not only to be useful to others but also to elicit Strawson’s certificate of approval; and that hope was realized. In his ‘Reply’ Strawson wrote: ‘Bennett in the first eleven sections of his essay sets out and elaborates the essence of my position with such thorough and sympathetic understanding as to leave me little to say.’ I also tried, unsuccessfully, to analyse with more precision Strawson’s concept of reactive attitude, and to explore the extent of and reasons for the incompatibility between reactive attitudes and the objective attitude. I hoped that the display of my failures would induce Strawson to tackle the problems himself, with more success. No such luck! He wrote: ‘Bennett seeks . . . to produce a tighter and more unified organisation of the phenomena . . . than I achieved in “Freedom and Resentment”’, but he did not return to the fray. On the contrary: ‘It does not seem to me to matter if a strict definition [of ‘reactive’] is not to be had’; and he said nothing about reasons for the reactive/objective conflict. In the present version of the paper, I expound ‘Freedom and Resentment’ much as before. Since my attempts to tighten and deepen the theory failed to hook Strawson, and are not of much intrinsic interest, I now omit them. I shall, however, add an application of the doctrines of ‘Freedom and Resentment’ to the most basic philosophical question regarding punishment.. (shrink)