{"title":"Free Will and Responsibility","authors":"J. Corlett","doi":"10.1163/18756735-00000123","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nProfessor Keith Lehrer has recently argued for what this author shall refer to as his “preference compatibilism,” according to which, among other things, knowledge of S’s preferences is what a counterfactual intervener uses to decide when S will depart from the counterfactual intervener’s plan. Lehrer assumes, among other things, Harry G. Frankfurt’s notion of “effective wants,” which are what Lehrer calls “preferences that reveal themselves in choice given the opportunity to act” (Lehrer 2016, 36). While the author here generally concurs with Lehrer’s preference compatibilism, he shall make some suggestions with the intention of increasing its plausibility even further, especially with regard to its conception of free will when it is considered in light of certain matters of philosophy of law in particular and the ethics of responsibility (moral responsibility) more generally.","PeriodicalId":43873,"journal":{"name":"Grazer Philosophische Studien-International Journal for Analytic Philosophy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Grazer Philosophische Studien-International Journal for Analytic Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18756735-00000123","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Professor Keith Lehrer has recently argued for what this author shall refer to as his “preference compatibilism,” according to which, among other things, knowledge of S’s preferences is what a counterfactual intervener uses to decide when S will depart from the counterfactual intervener’s plan. Lehrer assumes, among other things, Harry G. Frankfurt’s notion of “effective wants,” which are what Lehrer calls “preferences that reveal themselves in choice given the opportunity to act” (Lehrer 2016, 36). While the author here generally concurs with Lehrer’s preference compatibilism, he shall make some suggestions with the intention of increasing its plausibility even further, especially with regard to its conception of free will when it is considered in light of certain matters of philosophy of law in particular and the ethics of responsibility (moral responsibility) more generally.
Keith Lehrer教授最近为作者所称的“偏好相容主义”辩护,根据该理论,除其他外,对S偏好的了解是反事实干预者用来决定S何时偏离反事实干预的计划的。Lehrer假设了Harry G.Frankfurt的“有效需求”概念,即Lehrer所说的“在有机会采取行动的情况下,在选择中展现自己的偏好”(Lehrer 2016,36)。虽然作者在这里普遍同意Lehrer的偏好相容主义,但他将提出一些建议,以进一步提高其合理性,特别是在考虑自由意志的概念时,特别是从法律哲学的某些问题和更普遍的责任伦理(道德责任)来考虑。