Robert Kane

This book provides an introduction to Hartshorne’s contributions to contemporary philosophy and theology. It also covers some of the current controversies in philosophy and theology that Hartshorne’s contributions have generated. The opening chapter is a lucid and penetrating introduction to Hartshorne’s thought. Some of the following chapters break new ground on issues that have concerned Hartshorne throughout his career: the nature and methods of metaphysics, the existence and nature of God, and the place of religion and metaphysics in the modern world. Many chapters survey the current state of controversies on those topics. Other chapters relate Hartshorne’s work to other traditions and to trends in contemporary philosophy—to postmodernism, classical Western theism, Indian philosophy, analytical philosophy, and American pragmatism.

REMARKS ON EVOLUTION AND TIME-SCALES, Graham Cairns-Smith; HODGSON'S BLACK BOX, Thomas Clark; DO HODGSON'S PROPOSITIONS UNIQUELY CHARACTERIZE FREE WILL?, Ravi Gomatam; WHAT SHOULD WE RETAIN FROM A PLAIN PERSON'S CONCEPT OF FREE WILL?, Gilberto Gomes; ISOLATING DISPARATE CHALLENGES TO HODGSON'S ACCOUNT OF FREE WILL, Liberty Jaswal; FREE AGENCY AND LAWS OF NATURE, Robert Kane; SCIENCE VERSUS REALIZATION OF VALUE, NOT DETERMINISM VERSUS CHOICE, Nicholas Maxwell; COMMENTS ON HODGSON, J.J.C. Smart; THE VIEW FROM WITHIN, Sean Spence; COMMENTARY ON HODGSON, Henry Stapp.

Four Views on Free Will is a robust and careful debate about free will, how it interacts with determinism and indeterminism, and whether we have it or not. Providing the most up-to-date account of four major positions in the free will debate, the second edition of this classic text presents the opposing perspectives of renowned philosophers John Martin Fischer, Robert Kane, Derk Pereboom, and Manuel Vargas. Substantially revised throughout, this new volume contains eight in-depth chapters, almost entirely rewritten for the new edition, in which the authors state their different positions on the debate, offer insights into how their views have evolved over the past fifteen years, respond to recent critical literature in the field, and interact and engage with each other in dialogue. In the first four chapters the authors defend their distinctive views about free will: libertarianism, compatibilism, hard incompatibilism, and revisionism. The subsequent four chapters consist of direct replies by each of the authors to the other three.

Focusing on the concepts and interactions of free will, moral responsibility, and determinism, this text represents the most up-to-date account of the four major positions in the free will debate. Four serious and well-known philosophers explore the opposing viewpoints of libertarianism, compatibilism, hard incompatibilism, and revisionism The first half of the book contains each philosopher’s explanation of his particular view; the second half allows them to directly respond to each other’s arguments, in a lively and engaging conversation Offers the reader a one of a kind, interactive discussion Forms part of the acclaimed _Great Debates in Philosophy_ series.

Over the past three decades, I have been developing a distinctive view of free will motivated by a desire to reconcile a non-determinist view of free will with modern science as well as with recent developments in philosophy. A view of free will of the kind I defend did not exist in a developed form before the 1980s, but is now discussed in the philosophical literature as one of three chief options an incompatibilist or libertarian view of free will might take. As such, this view has been the subject of much recent discussion. In this paper, I explain and defend my view of free will, and answer recent criticisms of it. Some of these criticisms are made by Robert Allen in his paper “Self-forming Actions,” a contribution to the seminar of which the present paper is a part. I also respond to Katherin Rogers’ contribution to this seminar “Libertarianism in Kane and Anselm.” Her book, Anselm on Freedom , argues that Anselm defended a unique libertarian view of free will, avoiding both Pelagianism and Augustine’s later compatibilism, a view that she argues has affinities to my view of free will. I also discuss these affinities to Anselm in my paper and their theological and well as philosophical implications

It is now more than half a century since I first began thinking about issues of free will. The libertarian views of free will I developed over this long period have been much debated and have been refined and further developed in response to the critical literature. The goal of this book is to provide an overview of recent developments of my views along with responses to the latest critical literature on them over the past twenty-five years since the publication of my book, The Significance of Free Will (OUP, 1996). Chapters 1-5 present an overview of my current view with the recent additions and alterations to it defended in greater detail. Chapters 6-10 include critical examinations of influential views of many philosophers in the past twenty-five years who have defended alternative views of free will and moral responsibility, including prominent defenders of competing libertarian views, prominent defenders of compatibilist views, free will skeptical views, revisionist views, illusionist views, and others. The goal of these chapters is not merely to criticize these views, but to show what I believe they get right and what aspects of many of them can be accommodated in the libertarian view of free will I defend here. In the final chapter 11, I relate the view of free will of earlier chapters to ethical views I have developed in other works over this same period and to the philosophy of religion, including Eastern religions (Hinduism, Buddhism) as well as theistic traditions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). Free will, moral responsibility, self-forming actions, ultimate responsibility, incompatilism, AC/EC libertarianism, plural voluntary control, teleological guidance control, will-setting.

For a half - century, I have been developing a view of free will that is incompatible with determinism and, in the process, attempting to answer the Intelligibility Question about such a free will: Can one make sense of an incompatibilist or libertarian free will without reducing it to mere chance, or mystery, and can such a free will be reconciled with modern views of the cosmos and human beings? In this paper, I discuss recent refinements to my earlier writings on such a view, refinements developed in recent years in response to the large critical literature on my views in the past several decades. My view has usually been designated an event-causal view of libertarian free will and distinguished from non-causal and agent-causal libertarian views. But I was never happy with this designation of my view as “event-causal” and did not use it myself in earlier writings. In this paper, I explain why I now reject it altogether. I have come to believe that to avoid numerous misunderstandings in current debates about free will, we must distinguish four different kinds of libertarian theories, not merely three: in addition to non-causal, agent-causal, and event-causal theories, we need to add a fourth kind, which might be called an agent-causal/event-causal theory. My view has always been of this fourth kind. It represents what I call in the title of this paper the “fourth way forward” for making sense of an incompatibilist free will.

The present essay is about this problem of the intelligibility of incompatibilist freedom. I do not think Kant, Nagel and Strawson are right in thinking that incompatibilist theories cannot be made intelligible to theoretical reason, nor are those many others right who think that incompatibilist accounts of freedom must be essentially mysterious or terminally obscure. I doubt if I can say enough in one short paper to convince anyone of these claims who is not already persuaded. But I hope to persuade some readers that new ways of thinking about the problem are necessary and, more to the point, that new ways of thinking about the problem are possible. As Nagel says, "nothing approaching the truth has yet been said on this subject." Parts V and VI of this paper present one new way of thinking about the problem. Parts II through IV prepare for this way by distinguishing and discussing two kinds of incompatibilist theories.

Over the past five decades, I have been developing a distinctive view of free will according to which it requires that agents be to some degree ultimately responsible for the formation of their own wills. To act ‘of one's own free will’ in this sense is to act ‘from a will’ that is to some extent ‘of one's own free making’. A free will of this ultimate kind has been under attack in the modern era as obscure and unintelligible. In this paper, I discuss the arguments for such a view and compare it to other contemporary views of free will and action. I then address criticisms that such a non‐determinist free will cannot be made intelligible or reconciled with modern science, does not allow sufficient agent control, reduces to mere chance or luck or randomness, leads to various regresses, or fails to account for moral responsibility, among other criticisms.

Libertarian or incompatibilist conceptions of free will (according to which free will is incompatible with determinism) have been under withering attack in the modern era of Western philosophy as obscure and unintelligible and have been dismissed as outdated by many twentieth century philosophers and scientists because of their supposed lack of fit with modern images of human beings in the natural and human sciences. In a recent book (The Significance of Free Will), I attempt to reconcile incompatibilist free will with new images of human beings emerging in the physical, biological, behavioral, cognitive, and neuro-sciences—avoiding the usual libertarian appeals to obscure or mysterious forms of agency or causation. In this paper, I extend that effort with special attention to the relation of libertarian free will to recent research on neural networks and cognition and to recent philosophical debates about freedom, control, rationality and responsibility.

This paper responds to three critical essays on my book, The Significance of Free Will(Oxford, 1996) by Randolph Clarke, Istiyaque Haji and Alfred Mele (which essays appear in this issue and an earlier issue of this journal). This response first explains crucial features of the theory of free will of the book, including the notion of ultimate responsibility.The paper then answers objections of Haji and Mele that the occurrence of undetermined choices would be matters of luck or chance, and so could not be responsible actions. It then responds to concerns of Clarke that indeterminism provides no greater degree of control for defenders of incompatibilist free will and to concerns Clarke has about the notions of "effort" and "willing" in the book. Finally, the paper addresses objections of Haji concerning Frankfurt type-examples and the relation of moral responsibility to the power to act otherwise, and it addresses a concern of Mele's about why we should want a free will that is incompatible with determinism

The early chapters of this book deal with what the author calls the "dilemma of obligability.". The apparent dilemma is that obligability is not compatible with either determinism or indeterminism. The author believes the dilemma can be avoided by denying the principle that "'ought' implies 'can'," or the principle that obligability entails substitutability. This is because, as the dilemma is presented in the book, it is generated by the assumption that obligability entails substitutability together with arguments to the effect that substitutability is not compatible with either determinism or indeterminism. In support of this latter claim, arguments are marshalled in Chapters 4 and 5 against hypothetical analyses of "could have done otherwise" favored by compatibilists, on the one hand, and against incompatibilist analyses, on the other. Both are found wanting. The author argues that the only way out of the dilemma is to deny that obligability entails substitutability. In Chapter 6, he gives further reasons, involving concrete examples, for denying the "'ought' implies 'can'" principle. Chapters 7 and 8 shift gears somewhat in order to defend a modified ethical intuitionism; and then Chapter 9 returns to the obligability issue, arguing that the ultimate justification for holding persons obligable is that it helps bring about "patterns of behavior deemed socially desirable". The final chapter is a critique of divine command theories of obligability.