The Free Will Show Episode 5: The Consequence Argument with Peter van Inwagen
Sep 14, 2020
Philosopher Peter van Inwagen explains the consequence argument for incompatibilism and discusses the problem of freedom and determinism. He explores different versions of the consequence argument, challenges the fixity of laws of nature, and explores the complexities of free will and attributing blame. The podcast also touches on the mind argument, the problem of luck, and references Harry Frankfurt's cases.
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
Origin Story Of The Consequence Argument
- Peter van Inwagen recounts a 1965 conversation with a fellow grad student that sparked his doubt about compatibilism and led to the consequence argument.
- He explains the intuition: if determinism fixes past plus laws, then alternative actions would require changing the past or laws, which seems impossible.
Ability Framed As Rendering Propositions False
- Van Inwagen reframes abilities as the power to render true propositions false, tying freedom claims to propositions about the world.
- Example: you can make 'my hands are pressed together' false now, but you cannot render 'the moon is spherical' false.
Why Determinism Blocks Alternative Possibilities
- The consequence argument: if you did one action but could have done another, that alternative world would require a different past or different laws, so determinism rules out genuine alternative possibilities.
- Van Inwagen emphasizes our freedom would need to 'add to the given past' to make alternatives possible.