Is there a problem for counterfactual sufficiency?

Abstract

Translate Article

Take Notes

Abstract In a recent paper, John William Waldrop presents a problem for a popular interpretation of the consequence argument for the inconsistency of determinism and free will. This argument depends essentially on considerations as to whether, for some proposition p, anyone has, or has ever had, any choice about whether p. Under the counterfactual sufficiency interpretation (CSI), ‘No one has, or ever had, any choice about whether p’ is further unpacked as ‘no matter what anyone had done (at any time), if they had done it, p might still have been true’. Waldrop claims to show that this interpretation clashes with our intuitions about typical examples discussed in the literature. I conclude, however, that he has misstated one of our key intuitions about the case. Hence CSI remains viable.