Abstract
In a recent paper, Michael Huemer (2000) provides a new interpretation for 'N', the operator that occurs in Peter van Inwagen's Consequence Argument,1 and argues that, given that interpretation, the Consequence Argument is sound. I have no quarrel with Huemer's claim that the Consequence Argument is valid. I shall argue instead that his defense of its premises-a defense that allegedly involves refuting David Lewis's (1981) response to van Inwagen-is unsuccessful. Following Huemer, let
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callDisclaimer: 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.
