Abstract

In several writings, John Martin Fischer has argued that those who deny a principle about abilities that he calls ‘the Fixity of the Past’ are committed to absurd conclusions concerning practical reasoning. I argue that Fischer’s ‘practical rationality’ argument does not succeed. First, Fischer’s argument may be vulnerable to the charge that it relies on an equivocation concerning the notion of an ‘accessible’ possible world. Secondly, even if Fischer’s argument can be absolved of that charge, I maintain that it can be defeated by appeal to an independently plausible principle about practical reasoning that I call ‘the Knowledge Principle’. In addition, I point out that Fischer’s own presentation of his argument is flawed by the fact that the principle that he labels ‘the Fixity of the Past’ does not, in fact, succeed in representing the intuitive idea that it is intended to capture. Instead, the debate (including Fischer’s practical rationality argument) should be recast in terms of a different (and stronger) principle, which I call ‘the Principle of Past-Limited Abilities’. The principal contribution of my paper is thus twofold: to clarify the terms of the debate about the fixity of the past, and to undermine Fischer’s ‘practical rationality’ argument for the fixity of the past.

Highlights

  • In several writings, John Martin Fischer has argued that those who deny a principle about abilities that he calls ‘the Fixity of the Past’ are committed to absurd conclusions concerning practical reasoning

  • Fischer points out that a certain type of compatibilist will deny the Fixity Principle (FP*), and hold, instead, that, even if there is no ‘past-matching’ world in which S does A at t, an agent may have at t* the ability to do A at t in virtue of the existence of a possible world in which S does A at t against the background of a different past at t*

  • Given the principle that in one’s practical reasoning about whether to perform an action A, it is appropriate to treat, as potentially providing reasons for or against performing A, facts that obtain in any possible world that is ‘accessible’ to one, the compatibilist is in an embarrassing position, since it is manifestly inappropriate for the deliberator (Sam) to take the fact that there is no accident on Monday in the B-world as providing a reason for him to go ice-skating on Tuesday

Read more

Summary

Introduction

John Martin Fischer has argued that those who deny a principle about abilities that he calls ‘the Fixity of the Past’ are committed to absurd conclusions concerning practical reasoning. I argue that Fischer’s ‘practical rationality’ argument does not succeed. I point out that Fischer’s own presentation of his argument is flawed by the fact that the principle that he labels ‘the Fixity of the Past’ does not, succeed in representing the intuitive idea that it is intended to capture. The debate (including Fischer’s practical rationality argument) should be recast in terms of a different principle: ‘the Principle of Past-Limited Abilities’. 4, I argue that the debate that Fischer presents as concerning the Fixity Principle needs to be recast as a debate about the truth of a stronger principle that I call ‘the Principle of Past-Limited Abilities’ (PLA). 7, I argue that, even if Fischer’s practical rationality argument can be absolved of this charge, it can be defeated by appeal to a general principle about practical reasoning that I call ‘the Knowledge Principle’.

Relevant possibilities and the ability principle
Fischer’s principle of the fixity of the past
Practical reasoning and the fixity of the past
Accessibility and the ability principle
Accessibility and the knowledge principle
The explanatory power of the knowledge principle
The generality of the knowledge principle
10 Gallois and the fixity of reasons
11 Concluding remarks
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.