Reply to Huemer on the Consequence Argument

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