Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

7
  • I upvoted your original answer. I have some issues though. One is your equating 'ultimate responsibility' with omnipotence, another is that this is what Strawson is implying. A 3rd is that the absence of evidence for anything 'causa sui' might be an a priori (or close) reason why 'that dispositions/reasons are necessarily compatible with only one course of action or choice'. I'll leave it there for now, other than to say the references look apt and very interesting. Give me a while to take a look. Commented Feb 12, 2023 at 12:06
  • @Futilitarian Ultimate responsibility is related to omnipotence in the sense, that an agent cannot control all factors that may influence future actions or future outcomes. So even if an agent has free will, the agent may still not be able to ultimately control everything as ultimate responsibility would require. Then it is shown that "ultimate" can be countered with "sufficient" and this is not ruled out by the argument. Commented Feb 12, 2023 at 12:11
  • I see 'ultimate' as ultimate in the sense of decisive. This does not necessarily describe omnipotence. It actually aligns quite well with your 'sufficient'. Commented Feb 12, 2023 at 12:17
  • @Futilitarian then sufficient reasons are not ruled out by the argument. Regress is not bound to happen for sufficient reasons, assuming agent has some choices to make. Commented Feb 12, 2023 at 12:18
  • @Futilitarian to claim that a priori what an agent has as reasons are only compatible with one course of action is a priori denying choice and free will. Furthermore it is not realistic, we do experience multiple choices which are in fact all compatible with our reasons (arranged in different ways). If one claims that, there is no need for a basic argument, choice is denied a priori. Commented Feb 12, 2023 at 12:34