The consequence argument is widely regarded as the most important argument for incompatibilism. In this paper, I argue that, although the consequence argument may be sound in its standard formulations, it does not support any thesis that could reasonably be called ‘incompatibilism’.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Brian Cutter (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched one closely related paper. Consider it for comparative context: