Résultat de la recherche
Deliberation and the possibility of skepticism
No one is responsible for their conduct because free will is an illusion, say some skeptics. Even when it seems that we have several options, we only have one. Hence, says the free will skeptic, we should reform our practices which involve responsibility attributions, such as punishment and blame. How seriously should we take this doctrine? Is it one that we could live by? One thorn in the side of the skeptic concerns deliberation. When we deliberate about what to do—what film to go see, whom to befriend, which doctrine to follow—we must presume that our options are open to us. But then, every time that skeptics deliberate, they presume something which is incompatible with their doctrine, i.e. that they have several options. In a word, skeptics cannot deliberate qua skeptics. Some philosophers have responded that deliberators don’t have to presume that their options are open; they only have to presume that their choice will be efficacious. I argue that this proposal uses resources which, if they are available and successful, can be employed to refute skepticism. The upshot is that free will skeptics are pushing for a doctrine that is either false or in tension with deliberation.
Knowing about Responsibility: A Trilemma
Here is a skeptical trilemma. We know that we are responsible. We do not know that determinism is false. Yet, if we do not know that determinism is false, we do not know that we are responsible. If we want to avoid the skeptical conclusion of rejecting the first claim, we ought to reject the third. It does not follow that compatibilism is true. But it follows that libertarianism, the view that we are responsible even though responsibility requires indeterminism, is unknowable, at least for now. To see this, we need to compare different forms of skepticism and their response.
Sceptical Deliberations
Suppose I am a leeway sceptic: I think that, whenever I face a choice between two courses of action, I lack true alternatives. Can my practical deliberation be rational? Call this the Deliberation Question. This paper has three aims in tackling it. Its constructive aim is to provide a unified account of practical deliberation. Its corrective aim is to amend the way that philosophers have recently framed the Deliberation Question. Finally, its disputative aim is to argue that leeway sceptics cannot deliberate entirely rationally about what to do because of the connection between deliberating and deciding.
Self-Defeating Beliefs and Misleading Reasons
We have no reason to believe that reasons do not exist. Contra Bart Streumer’s recent proposal, this has nothing to do with our incapacity to believe this error theory. Rather, it is because if we know that if a proposition is true, we have no reason to believe it, then we have no reason to believe this proposition. From a different angle: if we know that we have at best misleading reasons to believe a proposition, then we have no reason to believe it. This has two consequences. Firstly, coming close to believing the error theory is idle or pointless. Secondly, philosophers who argue that believing sweeping theories like determinism or physicalism is self-defeating because they are either false or believed for no reason pursue a worthwhile argumentative strategy.
Relever le défi déterministe une défense à la fois
In this leçon inaugurale (inaugural lecture) at the University of Neuchâtel, I explain how we can tackle the problem of determinism by asking whether it would give us a justification, an excuse, or an exemption. This strategy builds on Peter Strawson's in Freedom and Resentment, but completes it by (1) proposing a theory of excuses ; (2) proposing that lacking alternatives might give a weak justification--i.e. it might exclude wrongdoing. This forces us to make the best of two philosophical traditions, namely semi-compatibilism (à la Frankfurt/Fischer) and compatibilism (à la Lewis/Vihvelin). My proposal is that whereas compatibilism may have the upper hand, semi-compatibilists have always been right about excuses.
Excuses and Alternatives
A version of the principle of alternate possibilities (PAP) claims that one is only blameworthy for actions which one was able to avoid. Much of the discussion about PAP concerns Frankfurt’s counterexamples to it. After fifty years of refined debates, progress might seem hopeless. Yet, we can make headway by asking: “what’s our reason for believing PAP?” The best answer is this: lacking eligible alternatives—alternatives whose cost is not too high to reasonably opt for—is a good excuse. Yet, this principle is subject to straightforward counterexamples, unless it is given an epistemicised reading. And in this latter case, it does not support PAP. So, PAP is unsupported, at least for now.
Is Free Will Scepticism Self-defeating?
Free will sceptics deny the existence of free will, that is the command or control necessary for moral responsibility. Epicureans allege that this denial is somehow self-defeating. To interpret the Epicurean allegation charitably, we must first realise that it is propositional attitudes like beliefs and not propositions themselves which can be self-defeating. So, believing in free will scepticism might be self-defeating. The charge becomes more plausible because, as Epicurus insightfully recognised, there is a strong connection between conduct and belief—and so between the content of free will scepticism (since it is about conduct) and the attitude of believing it. Second, we must realise that an attitude can be self-defeating relative to certain grounds. This means that it might be self-defeating to be a free will sceptic on certain grounds, such as the putative fact that we lack leeway or sourcehood. This charge is much more interesting because of the epistemic importance of leeway and sourcehood. Ultimately, the Epicurean charge of self-defeat fails. Yet, it delivers important lessons to the sceptic. The most important of them is that free will sceptics should either accept the existence of leeway or reject the principle that “ought” implies “can”.
Agir et expliquer. Recension de Constantine Sandis, Raisons et responsabilité, essais de philosophie de l’action
La morale, une fable ? Recension de François Jaquet et Hichem Naar, Qui peut sauver la morale ? Essai de métaéthique
Connaissance morale et dogmatisme
Le réalisme moral, dans son acception classique, affirme qu’il existe des vérités morales objectives et nécessaires qu’il nous est parfois donné de découvrir. Appelé à motiver cette position forte, le réaliste se contente d’ordinaire de réfuter les accusations sceptiques. Au mieux, il invoque des faits moraux de premier ordre (éthique) pour justifier sa doctrine de second ordre (métaéthique). En un mot, si l’on croit au réalisme, ce serait ou bien sans argument ou bien en vertu d’un argument circulaire. Dans les deux cas, le réalisme semble reposer sur une forme de dogmatisme. Le réalisme est aussi accusé, souvent implicitement, de cautionner le dogmatisme en éthique. Après tout, selon le réalisme, la morale n’est pas une question d’opinion ou de consensus, mais de vérité et de découverte. Néanmoins, cette double accusation est erronée. D’une part, le réalisme ne repose pas forcément sur le dogmatisme puisqu’il est possible d’être réaliste sans être dogmatique. D’autre part, le réalisme ne cautionne pas le dogmatisme en éthique. Pour avancer ces deux thèses, j’offre une définition du dogmatisme en quatre volets et je montre que le réalisme peut tous les éviter. Cette réflexion suggère que la pratique de l’éthique et celle de la métaéthique doivent être reliées.