Peter Schulte

The compatibilism debate revolves around the question whether moral responsibility and free will are compatible with determinism. Prima facie, this seems to be a substantial issue. But according to the triviality objection, the disagreement is merely verbal: compatibilists and incompatibilists, it is maintained, are talking past each other, since they use the terms “free will” and “moral responsibility” in different senses. In this paper I argue, first, that the triviality objection is indeed a formidable one and that the standard replies to it are unconvincing. This, however, does not mean that the objection succeeds. Starting with the debate about moral responsibility, I attempt to show that there is an account of moral responsibility which enables us to defend the compatibilism debate against the charge of triviality—namely, the normative conception of moral responsibility. If “moral responsibility” is defined in normative terms, then we cannot distinguish between a compatibilist and an incompatibilist sense of “moral responsibility”, because such a disambiguation would be inconsistent with the essential action-guiding force of normative expressions. Finally, I examine how the normative conception of moral responsibility can help us to defend the free will debate against the triviality objection and draw some general conclusions.

Naturalisten stehen heute vor zwei großen Herausforderungen: Sie müssen zunächst präzisieren, was sie mit dem Ausdruck „Naturalismus“ meinen, und ihre Position anschließend plausibel begründen. Gegner des Naturalismus haben in den letzten Jahren immer wieder zu zeigen versucht, dass der Naturalist diesen Herausforderungen nicht gerecht werden kann. Ich argumentiere in diesem Artikel dafür, dass traditionelle Formulierungen der Naturalismusthese tatsächlich problematisch sind, dass es aber einen Ausweg für den Naturalisten gibt: Er kann natürliche Entitäten durch ihre besondere Beziehung zu physikalischen Tatsachen charakterisieren. Als Kandidaten für diese besondere Beziehung kommen drei Relationen in Frage: Begriffliche Ableitbarkeit, Identität und Realisierung . Ich argumentiere dafür, dass man den Naturalismus am besten als These auffasst, nach der alle Tatsachen in einer dieser drei Relationen zu physikalischen Tatsachen stehen. Im letzten Teil zeige ich, dass sich diese Position durch gute Argumente stützen lässt.Naturalists today are confronted with two challenges: First, they have to give “naturalism” a precise meaning, and secondly, they have to provide a plausible justification for their position. In recent years, many opponents of naturalism have tried to show that the naturalist is not able to meet these challenges. In this article, I argue that traditional formulations of naturalism are indeed problematic, but that there is a remedy: the naturalist can characterize natural entities as entities which stand in a special relation to physical facts. There are three candidates for this ‚special relation’: conceptual entailment, identity and realization . I argue that naturalism is best understood as the thesis that all facts stand in one of these three relations to physical facts. In the last part, I show that this thesis can be supported by strong arguments

Truthmaker theorists hold that propositions about higher-level entities (e.g. the proposition that there is a heap of sand) are often made true by lower-level entities (e.g. by facts about the configuration of fundamental particles). This generates a problem: what should we say about these higher-level entities? On the one hand, they must exist (since there are true propositions about them), on the other hand, it seems that they are completely superfluous and should be banished for reasons of ontological parsimony. Some truthmaker theorists—most prominently David Armstrong—have tried to solve this puzzle by arguing that these entities are ‘an ontological free lunch’, i.e. real existents that are still ‘no addition of being’. This answer is prima facie attractive, but I argue in this paper that the standard approaches to truthmaking—modal theories and grounding theories—are unable to vindicate the doctrine of the ontological free lunch, and thus fail to solve the problem of higher-level entities. Fortunately, there is a non-standard account of truthmaking available, the reductive explanation account, which succeeds where the standard approaches fail

Teleosemantic theories of representation are often criticized as being “too liberal”, i.e. as categorizing states as representations which are not representational at all. Recently, a powerful version of this objection has been put forth by Tyler Burge. Focusing on perception, Burge defends the claim that all teleosemantic theories apply too broadly, thereby missing what is distinctive about representation. Contra Burge, I will argue in this paper that there is a teleosemantic account of perceptual states that does not fall prey to this problem, and that we can arrive at this account by combining some of Burge’s insights with a producer-oriented version of teleosemantics. The resulting theory turns out to be attractive and perfectly coherent. By contrast, the coherence of Burge’s own anti-teleosemantic approach becomes quite doubtful under closer examination—or so I will argue.

In this paper, I start from the observation that there are obvious instances of instrumental irrationality, i.e. cases where subjects act knowingly against their strongest preferences. This observation raises an important question: Which facts determine the ‘strength’ of preferences? I consider a standard answer to this question – ‘revealed preference theory’– which turns out to be unsatisfactory. Then I turn to a more promising alternative: the ‘higher order theory’ of preference strength. But this proposal also faces a major problem, the ‘problem of authority’. I argue that this difficulty can be overcome, but only if we are prepared to make some significant normative assumptions – assumptions which imply, among other things, that instrumentalism – the view that instrumental rationality is all there is to rationality – cannot be maintained

How do frogs represent their prey? This question has been the focus of many debates among proponents of naturalistic theories of content, especially among proponents of teleosemantics. This is because alternative versions of the teleosemantic approach have different implications for the content of frog representations, and it is still controversial which of these content ascriptions (if any) is the most adequate. Theorists often appeal to intuitions here, but this is a dubious strategy. In this paper, I suggest an alternative, empirical test for theories of content. I propose that we should examine whether a theory generates content ascriptions that fit with our best scientific explanations of animal behavior. I then focus on the most prominent version of teleosemantics, Ruth Millikan’s consumer-oriented approach, and argue that it fails the empirical test in the frog case, since it yields a content ascription that (i) does not include properties that should be included (namely, being small, dark and moving ) and (ii) includes a property that should not be included (namely, being frog food ). This is an important result in itself, but it also demonstrates by way of example how progress can be made in the complex debate about theories of content