Philosophy Free Will
by
Kevin Timpe
  • LAST MODIFIED: 10 May 2010
  • DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780195396577-0047

Introduction

Free will is a perennial issue in philosophy, both in terms of the history of philosophy and in contemporary discussions. Aspects of free will relate to a wide range of philosophical issues, but especially to metaphysics and ethics. For roughly the past three decades, the literatures on free will and moral responsibility have overlapped to such a degree that it is impossible to separate them. This entry focuses on contemporary discussions about the nature and existence of free will, as well as its relationship to work in the sciences and philosophy of religion.

General Overviews

Which introductory overview will best serve one’s needs depends on one’s familiarity with the contemporary discussions. Those not familiar with the subject at all should start with Strawson 2004 and then move on to O’Connor 2008. Levy and McKenna 2009 is the most up-to-date general overview of various central issues in the free will debates, but it will best serve those who already have some general knowledge of the topic. Vargas 2009 addresses methodological issues regarding how the free will debates are structured.

  • Levy, Neil, and Michael McKenna. “Recent Work on Free Will and Moral Responsibility.” Philosophy Compass 4.1 (2009): 96–133.

    DOI: 10.1111/j.1747-9991.2008.00197.xSave Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    A thorough and even-handed discussion of six current debates in the free will literature; an excellent source for those already familiar with the basics of the debates and who wish to find information on recent work.

    Find this resource:

    • O’Connor, Timothy. “Free Will.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edited by Edward N. Zalta. 2008.

      Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

      Focuses primarily on issues of rational deliberation, ownership of actions, and the relationship between causation and control as they relate to free will, though it also addresses some of the theological implications of free will. Less up-to-date than Levy and McKenna 2009.

      Find this resource:

      • Strawson, Galen. “Free Will.” In Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy Online. Edited by Edward Craig. 2004.

        Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

        Provides a very short introduction to the contemporary free will debates, originally published in 1998. While it leaves out many details and lesser issues, it nevertheless is useful as a very quick overview of the topic.

        Find this resource:

        • van Inwagen, Peter. “How to Think about the Problem of Free Will.” Journal of Ethics 12.3–4 (2008): 327–341.

          Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

          A useful though somewhat anomalous approach to terminological issues in the free will literature.

          Find this resource:

          • Vargas, Manuel. “The Revisionist Turn: A Brief History of Recent Work on Free Will.” 2009.

            Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

            Focuses on methodological issues and how distinct conceptions of the philosophical project generate the peculiar structure of the free will debate. Will be published also in print in the forthcoming New Waves in the Philosophy of Action, edited by Jesús Aguilar, Andrei Buckareff, and Keith Frankish (Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan).

            Find this resource:

            Textbooks

            Most introductory philosophy textbooks and anthologies contain a section devoted to free will, but these are often very mixed in quality and dated in terms of their coverage. A number of fairly recent textbooks focus exclusively on free will, and a number of forthcoming volumes appear to be promising in this regard as well. The best extant introductory textbook is clearly Kane 2005, which gives a clear and thorough outline of the terrain, while also arguing for Kane’s own preferred view. Pink 2004 and Honderich 2002 are less broad and thorough in their treatment, but they approach the free will debates through related issues (action theory and philosophy of mind, respectively). Fischer, et al. 2007 is a good introduction to some of the leading views, but it is not as extensive as Kane 2005. Timpe 2008 contains a historical discussion of the central debates of the past forty years and helps frame the contemporary debates.

            • Fischer, John Martin, Robert Kane, Derk Pereboom, and Manuel Vargas. Four Views on Free Will. Great Debates in Philosophy. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2007.

              Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

              A debate between a compatibilist, an even-causal libertarian, a hard incompatibilist, and a revisionist; covers the major arguments for and against these views, but provides little coverage of other views. An excellent addition to Blackwell’s Great Debates in Philosophy series.

              Find this resource:

            • Honderich, Ted. How Free Are You? The Determinism Problem. 2d ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.

              Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

              An introductory text on free will, with particular attention on the relationship with the philosophy of mind.

              Find this resource:

            • Kane, Robert. A Contemporary Introduction to Free Will. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

              Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

              Provides an excellent and balanced treatment of most aspects of contemporary debates about free will.

              Find this resource:

            • Pink, Thomas. Free Will: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.

              Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

              Part of Oxford’s Very Short Introduction series. Explains the concept of freedom via action, but focuses unduly on Pink’s preferred libertarian view at the expense of other aspects of the contemporary debates.

              Find this resource:

            • Timpe, Kevin. Free Will: Sourcehood and Its Alternatives. London: Continuum, 2008.

              Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

              Early chapters demarcate contemporary alternative possibilities and sourcehood approaches to free will by both compatibilists and incompatibilists.

              Find this resource:

            Anthologies

            There are numerous anthologies currently available on free will. Fischer 2005 is the most extensive collection, Kane 2002 is a standard collection, and Kane 2005 is the most valuable and wide-ranging single-volume collection. Watson 2003 collects in one volume the papers and positions that have had the most impact on the contemporary discussions. McKenna and Russell 2008 and Widerker and McKenna 2003 are also very useful, with each focusing on a subset of issues central to contemporary debates: McKenna and Russell explore the reactive attitudes, while Widerker and McKenna look at alternative possibilities. Other than Pereboom 1997, all of these anthologies contain only contemporary contributions.

            • Fischer, John Martin, ed. Free Will: Critical Concepts in Philosophy. New York: Routledge, 2005.

              Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

              A four-volume collection with more than seventy articles and excerpts from leading books. This is the most extensive collection available, though its cost makes it prohibitive for all but university libraries.

              Find this resource:

            • Kane, Robert, ed. Free Will. Blackwell Readings in Philosophy. Malden, MA: Blackwell. 2002.

              Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

              Contains a number of the same papers as Watson 2003 but is broader both in terms of containing older papers and covering a number of topics not touched on in Watson’s collection (e.g., foreknowledge).

              Find this resource:

            • Kane, Robert, ed. The Oxford Handbook of Free Will. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.

              Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

              Probably the best single-volume collection of new papers currently available. The volume’s introduction offers a fairly comprehensive survey of the recent free will debates. While the volume introduces all of the central issues, the level of sophistication makes this volume less than ideal for the introductory reader.

              Find this resource:

            • McKenna, Michael, and Paul Russell, eds. Free Will and Reactive Attitudes. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2008.

              Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

              Though narrower in focus than either Kane 2005 or Watson 2003, this is an excellent collection of papers on the relationship between free will, moral responsibility, and the reactive attitudes.

              Find this resource:

            • Pereboom, Derk, ed. Free Will. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 1997.

              Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

              Contains some historical selections from ancient, medieval, and modern philosophical treatments, as well as select influential essays from the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s.

              Find this resource:

            • Watson, Gary, ed. Free Will. 2d ed. Oxford Readings in Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.

              Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

              Probably the best collection of seminal papers from the past three decades. Nearly every inclusion is a classic in the literature.

              Find this resource:

            • Widerker, David, and Michael McKenna, eds. Moral Responsibility and Alternative Possibilities: Essays on the Importance of Alternative Possibilities. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2003.

              Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

              Focuses on the relationship between free will, moral responsibility, and the ability to do otherwise. Contains Frankfurt’s influential “Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility” and discusses of the impact of Frankfurt’s work by both compatibilists and incompatibilists. Many of the contributors recognize the need to locate the debate surrounding the debate over the ability to do otherwise within larger metaphysical discussions.

              Find this resource:

            Compatibilism

            Compatibilist theories, which hold that free will is compatible with the truth of causal determinism, come in a number of forms. Most generally, one can differentiate “classical compatibilist” theories (sometimes called “strong compatibilism”), which hold that the truth of determinism is compatible with free will (understood as having alternative possibilities), with “new compatibilist” theories (sometimes called “weak compatibilism”), which hold that free will and determinism are compatible, but that free will does not require the ability to do otherwise. Further subheadings in this section offer further readings on both families of compatibilist views. While most works on the topic will explain compatibilism, an excellent general overview of various forms of compatibilism can be found in McKenna 2004.

            Classical Compatibilism

            Up through roughly the 1960s, classical compatibilism was dominant, particularly the version often referred to as conditionalism. Conditionalists give subjunctive or conditional accounts of the ability to do otherwise (see, for example, Austin 1956 and Ayer 1954). Criticisms of conditionalism can be found in Chisholm 1966 and at length in van Inwagen 1983. Works from influential advocates of classical compatibilism who reject conditionalism include Lewis 1981 and Vihvelin 2000.

            • Austin, J. L. “Ifs and Cans.” Proceedings of the British Academy 42 (1956): 107–132.

              Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

              A representative exposition and defense of conditionalism.

              Find this resource:

              • Ayer, A. J. “Freedom and Necessity.” In Philosophical Essays. By A. J. Ayer. London: Macmillan, 1954.

                Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                Ayer, like Austin 1956, develops and defends conditionalism.

                Find this resource:

                • Chisholm, Roderick. “Freedom of Action.” In Freedom and Determinism. Edited by Keith Lehrer. New York: Random House, 1966.

                  Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                  A strong criticism of the conditional analysis of the ability to do otherwise, and thus of classical compatibilism as well.

                  Find this resource:

                  • Lewis, David. “Are We Free to Break the Laws?” Theoria 47 (1981): 113–121.

                    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                    Argues that agents still have the ability to do otherwise, even if determinism is true in the following sense: had the agent done otherwise, then something that is actually a law of nature would have been broken. This, however, does not mean that the agent has the ability to break the law of nature.

                    Find this resource:

                    • van Inwagen, Peter. An Essay on Free Will. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983.

                      Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                      While this volume is primarily an argument for compatibilism, it also contains a criticism of conditionalism.

                      Find this resource:

                    • Vihvelin, Kadri. “Freedom, Foreknowledge, and the Principle of Alternate Possibilities.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 30 (2000): 1–24.

                      Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                      Vihvelin, a compatibilist, argues that Frankfurt-inspired counterexamples do not and cannot show that the ability to do otherwise is not required for free will and moral responsibility.

                      Find this resource:

                      New Compatibilist Views

                      Most compatibilists now reject the idea that the ability to do otherwise is required for free will. The impact of both Fischer’s semicompatibilism and Frankfurt’s hierarchical account on this shift cannot be overstated. Frankfurt’s pioneering articles are “Free Will and the Concept of a Person” and “Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility,” both of which are reprinted in Frankfurt 1988. A more comprehensive and up-to-date presentation and defense of the semicompatibilist position (developed in Fischer and Ravizza 1998) can be found in Fischer 2006. Strawson 1962 has also exuded a tremendous impact on how moral responsibility is understood, and on the connection between the reactive attitudes and free will.

                      • Dennett, Daniel C. Elbow Room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1984.

                        Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                        Discusses what Dennett calls the “bugbears” of free will debates, and defends a compatibilist view according to which free will consists in an agent’s ability to control his or her actions on the basis of rational considerations.

                        Find this resource:

                      • Fischer, John Martin. My Way: Essays on Moral Responsibility. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.

                        Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                        A collection of many of Fischer’s central papers on free will and moral responsibility, constituting a presentation and extended defense of semicompatibilism.

                        Find this resource:

                      • Fischer, John Martin, and Mark Ravizza. Responsibility and Control: A Theory of Moral Responsibility. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

                        Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                        Argues that one kind of freedom (regulative control) is incompatible with the truth of causal determinism, but argues that the kind of freedom required for moral responsibility (guidance control) is compatible with the truth of causal determinism, thereby presenting a semicompatibilist account.

                        Find this resource:

                      • Frankfurt, Harry G. The Importance of What We Care About: Philosophical Essays. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1988.

                        Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                        Though not exclusively devoted to free will, this volume contains Frankfurt’s two seminal papers that together argue for compatibilism, “Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility” and “Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person.” The volume also includes a number of other related papers.

                        Find this resource:

                      • Strawson, P. F. “Freedom and Resentment.” Proceedings of the British Academy 48 (1962): 1–25.

                        Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                        A seminal article arguing that the reactive attitudes—”essentially natural human reactions to the good or ill will or indifference of others toward us, as displayed in their attitudes and actions”—are central to free will and moral responsibility. Strawson argues that we neither could nor should give up the reactive attitudes if determinism is true, thus promoting a version of compatibilism. Also published in Strawson’s Freedom and Resentment and Other Essays (London: Methuen, 1974), and available online

                        Find this resource:

                        • Watson, Gary. “Free Agency.” Journal of Philosophy 72 (1975): 205–220.

                          DOI: 10.2307/2024703Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                          A compatibilist criticism of Frankfurt’s hierarchical compatibilism. Watson also distinguishes between an agent’s valuational systems (roughly, the agent’s values and judgments about what she or he should do) and the agent’s motivational system (roughly, the desires and passions that lead the person to act in various ways). Agents have free will, according to Watson, when these two systems are in harmony.

                          Find this resource:

                          • Wolf, Susan. Freedom Within Reason. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990.

                            Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                            Develops a compatibilist account, called “the Reason View,” according to which free will concerns an agent’s ability to act in accordance with “the True and the Good.”

                            Find this resource:

                          Incompatibilism

                          While all incompatibilist views hold that free will and the truth of causal determinism are incompatible, various sub-versions of incompatibilism can be differentiated in a number of different ways. Libertarians are incompatibilists who think that free will exists. Libertarian views come in event-causal, agent-causal, and non-causal versions, each of which is discussed in further detail in the following subsections. In the past twenty years, the number of people arguing for skepticism about free will (i.e., the claim that we lack free will) has increased; almost all free will skeptics are also incompatibilists, though for different reasons. All of the readings in this section contain arguments for incompatibilism. Though over twenty years old, van Inwagen 1983 has had a tremendous impact on the development of incompatibilist arguments, and the novice reader would do well to begin there. A precursor to van Inwagen’s work can be found in Ginet 1966. Vihvelin 2007 critically discusses the major articles for incompatibilism. Mele 2006 addresses, among other topics, the relationship between luck and incompatibilist accounts of free will.

                          • Ginet, Carl. “Might We Have No Choice?” In Freedom and Determinism. Edited by Keith Lehrer, 87–104. New York: Random House, 1966.

                            Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                            An influential midcentury argument for incompatibilism that helped frame how incompatibilism was presented and defended during the later 20th century.

                            Find this resource:

                            • Mele, Alfred R. Free Will and Luck. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.

                              Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                              A thorough treatment of issues of luck as they relate to free will; develops both an incompatibilist and a compatibilist view that Mele thinks can withstand the threat luck raises to free will. Also contains a forceful presentation of Mele’s “Zygote Argument” against compatibilism.

                              Find this resource:

                            • van Inwagen, Peter. An Essay on Free Will. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983.

                              Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                              A significant book arguing for the incompatibilism of free will and determinism, largely known for its role delineating and defending the “Consequence Argument.”

                              Find this resource:

                            • Vihvelin, Kadri. “Arguments for Incompatibilism.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edited by Edward N. Zalta. 2007.

                              Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                              A critical discussion of the major arguments (e.g., the Consequence Argument and manipulation-based arguments) given in favor of incompatibilism.

                              Find this resource:

                              Libertarianism

                              As mentioned above, libertarian views come in event-causal, agent-causal, and non-causal versions. The leading event-causal view is put forth in Kane 1996, while the leading agent-causal view is in O’Connor 2000. Clarke 2003 argues that the best libertarian view will involve both event-causal and agent-causal elements. Ginet 1990 and Goetz 2009 develop non-causal accounts.

                              Skeptical Accounts

                              Skeptical accounts all deny that agents have free will, though there are numerous different routes to a skeptical conclusion. For example, Pereboom 2001 accepts traditional arguments for incompatibilism, and the author presents his own—the “four-case argument.” Pereboom rejects the existence of free will because he thinks that people do not have the required agent-causal powers. In contrast, Strawson 2010 argues that free will is impossible. While this technically makes Strawson an incompatibilist, it is motivated by a very different set of concerns that those of Pereboom. Smilansky 2000 also posits that free will is impossible, but Smilansky thinks that the illusion that we have it is beneficial in a number of ways.

                              • Double, Richard. The Nonreality of Free Will. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990.

                                Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                Argues against both compatibilist and libertarian views of free will, insofar as there is no single analysandum to be captured. Also includes an insightful discussion of the role of intuitions in free will debates.

                                Find this resource:

                              • Pereboom, Derk. Living Without Free Will. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

                                Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                Develops the influential “four-case argument” against compatibilism. Argues for the contingent nonexistence of free will, and describes how many of our social practices (e.g., punishment) need to be modified as a result.

                                Find this resource:

                              • Smilansky, Saul. Free Will and Illusion. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

                                Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                Argues that compatibilist accounts of free will are insufficient, that libertarian views are too demanding to be sustained, and that hard determinism is unconvincing. Smilansky then argues that the illusory beliefs about free will we currently have play an important role both personally and socially.

                                Find this resource:

                              • Strawson, Galen. Freedom and Belief. Rev. ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.

                                Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                Containing Strawson’s widely known argument for the impossibility of moral responsibility, this volume argues that we don’t have free will, and it examines the reasons why the belief that we do is so persistent. Originally published in 1986.

                                Find this resource:

                              The Free Will Problem and Moral Theory

                              The question of whether humans have free will appears to be of great significance to the field of ethics. Can humans fairly be blamed and held responsible for what they do? If they can, what do blame and moral responsibility involve, and do they presuppose the existence of some human capacity for freedom or self-determination, whether at the point of action or at the point of the will? Two key notions that need to be explained and related to free will are the notions of an obligation, the kind of ethical standard for which people are held responsible for observing, and the nature of blame, the criticism in which moral responsibility for breach of obligation or wrong-doing is asserted. A central project of English-language ethics since Hobbes and Hume, and especially since Sidgwick, has been to ring-fence ethics from any metaphysically problematic commitment to human free will. But can ethics be so set apart? Hart 2008 is an attempt to do so with regard to the issue of legal responsibility, while Williams 1985 applies Hart’s approach to specifically moral responsibility. Scanlon 1997 is an influential attempt to explain moral responsibility without a commitment to free will. Pink 2009 argues that the practice of blame commits us to free will.

                              • Hart, H. L. A. Punishment and Responsibility: Essays in the Philosophy of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.

                                Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                An attempt in the philosophy of law to explain legal responsibility without commitment to a metaphysics of free will. This has influenced attempts within moral philosophy to apply the approach to moral responsibility. Originally published in 1968 (Oxford: Clarendon).

                                Find this resource:

                              • Pink, Thomas. “Power and Moral Responsibility.”Philosophical Explorations 12.2 (2009): 127–149.

                                Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                Explores what the practice of blaming people and holding them responsible involves. Pink argues that the practice commits us to the idea that people have a genuine power to determine for themselves what they do. He explores what a power of self-determination might involve, and whether it need take the form of a freedom of the will.

                                Find this resource:

                                • Scanlon, T. M. What We Owe to Each Other. Cambridge, MA: Belknap, 1997.

                                  Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                  An attempt to explain moral obligation and moral responsibility without commitment to a metaphysics of free will. Blame is assimilated to general rational criticism.

                                  Find this resource:

                                • Williams, Bernard. Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985.

                                  Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                  Applies elements of Hart’s 2008 approach to give an account of moral responsibility, moral obligation, and blame.

                                  Find this resource:

                                Free Will and the Sciences

                                While free will has traditionally been primarily a philosophical topic, a number of scholars in cognate disciplines have begun examining the topic as well. Some scientific writings on free will have received wide public attention, most specifically the work of Benjamin Libet and Daniel Wegner.

                                Neurobiology

                                A number of scientists have examined the implications of developments in neurobiology for free will. The work of the neurophysiologist Benjamin Libet, in particular, has attracted significant attention (see Libet 1999). Libet, et al. 2000 contains a number of responses. An excellent philosophical criticism of Libet’s methodology can be found in Mele 2009.

                                • Libet, Benjamin. “Do We Have Free Will?” Journal of Consciousness Studies 6.8–9 (1999): 47–57.

                                  Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                  A highly cited and publicized paper that claims to show that unconscious processes in the brain initiate volitional acts before the agent is consciously aware of intending to act. Libet suggests that this leaves little room for free will except in the form of “the power of veto.”

                                  Find this resource:

                                  • Libet, Benjamin, Anthony Freeman, and Keith Sutherland. The Volitional Brain: Towards a Neuroscience of Free Will. Exeter, UK: Imprint Academic, 2000.

                                    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                    A wide-ranging collection of papers exploring recent work in neuroscience, psychology, and physics, and the implication of this work for free will. Included in this collection is Libet 1999.

                                    Find this resource:

                                  • Mele, Alfred R. Effective Intentions: The Power of Conscious Will. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.

                                    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                    An excellent philosophical critique of much of the recent scientific work on free will, including that done by Libet and Wegner, suggesting that much of the scientific work has established less than is often claimed.

                                    Find this resource:

                                  • Murphy, Nancey, and Warren S. Brown. Did My Neurons Make Me Do It? New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.

                                    DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199215393.001.0001Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                    Argues, on the basis of recent work in neuroscience, that while free will is compatible with biological determinism, the more pressing threat to free will is neurobiological reductionism—which the authors argue is false. Also contains an extended critique of Kane’s libertarian view.

                                    Find this resource:

                                  Psychology

                                  As with neurobiology, there has been a resurgence of work addressing the relationship between issues in psychology and free will. A representative sample of recent work on free will by psychologists can be found in Baer, et al. 2008, though the work that has attracted the most attention is Wegner 2002. Nahmias 2002 contains a critique of Wegner’s work, as does Mele 2009 (cited under Neurobiology).

                                  • Baer, John, James C. Kaufman, and Roy F. Baumeister, eds. Are We Free? Psychology and Free Will. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.

                                    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                    A collection of essays by philosophers and psychologists addressing a wide range of issues related to free will. While the quality of the essays is very mixed, the contributions by Nichols, Dennett, Pinker, and Mele, in particular, are quite good.

                                    Find this resource:

                                  • Nahmias, Eddy. “When Consciousness Matters: A Critical Review of Daniel Wegner’s The Illusion of Conscious Will.” Philosophical Psychology 15.4 (2002): 527–541.

                                    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                    Argues that Wegner’s evidence for the claim that free will is an illusion is inconclusive, and that Wegner has not shown that conscious will does not play a crucial causal role in forming intentions to act.

                                    Find this resource:

                                    • Wegner, Daniel M. The Illusion of Conscious Will. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2002.

                                      Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                      Wegner, a psychologist, argues that intentions play no causal role in bringing about actions, thereby undercutting free will.

                                      Find this resource:

                                    Experimental Philosophy

                                    One of the topics focused on in early work in experimental philosophy was free will. For an introduction to experimental philosophy in this regard, see Nichols and Knobe 2007. Nahmias, et al. 2006 and Nahmias, et al. 2007 describe some of the most influential experimental results to date.

                                    • Nahmias, Eddy, Stephen G. Morris, Thomas Nadelhoffer, and Jason Turner. “Is Incompatibilism Intuitive?” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 73.1 (2006): 28–53.

                                      DOI: 10.1111/j.1933-1592.2006.tb00603.xSave Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                      An experimental work that suggests that incompatibilist intuitions are not as pervasive as is often assumed, insofar as the majority of subjects judge that agents can act of their own free will and be morally responsible, even in deterministic scenarios. Also discusses the philosophical implications of such data.

                                      Find this resource:

                                      • Nahmias, Eddy, D. Justin Coates, and Trevor Kvaran. “Free Will, Moral Responsibility, and Mechanism: Experiments on Folk Intuitions.” Midwest Studies in Philosophy 31.1 (2007): 214–242.

                                        DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-4975.2007.00158.xSave Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                        Argues that the experimental data show that what the folk think is a threat to free will is not the truth of determinism, but rather a reductive and mechanistic explanation of action.

                                        Find this resource:

                                        • Nichols, Shaun, and Joshua Knobe. “Moral Responsibility and Determinism: The Cognitive Science of Folk Intuitions.” Noûs 41.4 (2007): 663–685.

                                          Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                          While primarily about moral responsibility rather than free will, this article addresses the processes that lead to compatibilist and incompatibilist intuitions, arguing that each set of intuitions appeals to a different aspect of our psychological makeup.

                                          Find this resource:

                                          Free Will and Foreknowledge

                                          Free will impacts a number of issues in the philosophy of religion, most notably divine foreknowledge. (The term foreknowledge can be somewhat misleading, as many theists believe that God is atemporal, and thus that none of God’s knowledge is had at a time, and thus cannot be before what is known. In what follows, this complexity is left aside.) Theological fatalists argue that exhaustive divine infallible knowledge (whether temporal foreknowledge or atemporal knowledge) is incompatible with free choices. Three general responses to theological fatalism are Ockhamism, open theism, and Molinism, each of which is discussed in further detail in its respective subsection. Each of the readings in this section describes the problem of theological fatalism, as well as outlining the major families of responses to that challenge. Zagzebski 2008 will likely be the most helpful beginning point. Fischer 1989 is a collection of various responses to the issue, while Zagzebski 1991 is an extended development of a particular response.

                                          Ockhamism

                                          The Ockhamist solution to the problem of theological fatalism is credited to the 13th-century philosophy William of Ockham, though it has notable contemporary defenders as well. At the heart of Ockhamism is the claim that free agents have counterfactual power over some of God’s past beliefs. Readers would do well to begin with Plantinga 1986 and then move on to Fischer 1994 and Widerker 1990.

                                          Open Theism

                                          Open theists accept that free will and divine foreknowledge are incompatible, and they reject the latter. The most thorough treatment of open theism is Hasker 1998, while Rhoda 2007 and Rhoda 2008 are more current defenses of open theism.

                                          • Hasker, William. God, Time, and Knowledge. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1998.

                                            Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                            An extended philosophical defense of open theism, with particular emphasis on comparing it to other responses to theological fatalism.

                                            Find this resource:

                                          • Rhoda, Alan. “The Philosophical Case for Open Theism.” Philosophia 35.3–4 (2007): 301–311.

                                            Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                            An argument for the incompatibility of foreknowledge and free will.

                                            Find this resource:

                                            • Rhoda, Alan. “Generic Open Theism and Some Varieties Thereof.” Religious Studies 44.2 (2008): 225–234.

                                              Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                              A helpful discussion of different accounts of open theism, and a useful place to begin for those not familiar with the issues.

                                              Find this resource:

                                              Molinism

                                              Though Molinism is primarily an account of divine providence (see Flint 1998), it is sometimes also presented as a response to the challenge of theological fatalism. However, Fischer 2008 and Fischer 2009 argue that Molinism presupposes a response to the challenge raised by theological fatalism rather than a unique solution.

                                              • Fischer, John Martin. “Molinism.” In Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Religion. Vol. 1. Edited by Jonathan Kvanvig, 18–43. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.

                                                Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                Argues that whatever its independent merits as an account of divine providence, Molinism presupposes the compatibility of free will and divine foreknowledge rather than providing a unique solution to the problem of theological fatalism.

                                                Find this resource:

                                              • Fischer, John Martin. “More on Molinism.” In Metaphysics and God: Essays in Honor of Eleonore Stump. Edited by Kevin Timpe, 127–140. New York: Routledge, 2009.

                                                Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                Extends Fischer 2008, particularly in light of two recent objections.

                                                Find this resource:

                                              • Flint, Thomas P. Divine Providence: The Molinist Account. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1998.

                                                Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

                                                The definitive contemporary exposition and defense of Molinism.

                                                Find this resource:

                                              back to top

                                              Article

                                              Up

                                              Down