A problem not peculiar to counterfactual sufficiency

IF 1.1 1区哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY

ANALYSIS Pub Date : 2024-08-03 DOI:10.1093/analys/anae004

Chaoan He

引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Consequence Argument for incompatibilism is beset by two rival interpretations: the counterfactual sufficiency interpretation and the counterfactual might interpretation. In a 2023 paper Waldrop argued that the counterfactual sufficiency interpretation conflicts with certain principles governing the logic of counterfactuals. In this paper, I show that Waldrop’s argument can be adapted to prove that the counterfactual might interpretation also conflicts with the same principles. So the problem Waldrop pointed out is not peculiar to the counterfactual sufficiency interpretation.

查看原文本刊更多论文

一个并非反事实充分性特有的问题

不相容论的后果论证受到两种对立解释的困扰：反事实充分性解释和反事实可能解释。瓦尔德罗普在 2023 年的一篇论文中指出，反事实充分性解释与反事实逻辑的某些原则相冲突。在这篇论文中，我证明了瓦尔德罗普的论证可以调整为证明反事实可能解释也与同样的原则相冲突。因此，瓦尔德罗普指出的问题并不是反事实充分性解释所特有的。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

ANALYSIS PHILOSOPHY-

CiteScore

1.30

自引率

12.50%

发文量

期刊介绍： Analysis is the most established and esteemed forum in which to publish short discussions of topics in philosophy. Articles published in Analysis lend themselves to the presentation of cogent but brief arguments for substantive conclusions, and often give rise to discussions which continue over several interchanges. A wide range of topics are covered including: philosophical logic and philosophy of language, metaphysics, epistemology, philosophy of mind, and moral philosophy.