Some have seen P. F. Strawson’s “Freedom and Resentment” as suggesting a point about the “order of explanation” concerning moral responsibility: it is not that it is appropriate to hold agents responsible because they are morally responsible, rather, it is … something else. I argue that extant developments of “the reversal” face a dilemma: in order to make the proposals plausibly antilibertarian, they must be made to be implausible on other grounds. I conclude by suggesting a way of clarifying the intended thesis: an analogy with the concept of funniness. The result: there is no clear path to compatibilism from “the reversal.”
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Patrick Todd (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched one closely related paper. Consider it for comparative context: