Blog Coordinator

« Eddy Nahmias deserves credit... | Main | Zygotes and intuitions, part 2. »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Thanks for this interesting post. These are complicated and delicate matters. At this point I simply want to make a small "scholarly" point. In my Analysis paper, "The Zygote Argument Remixed", I discussed premise 1* precisely because the Zygote Argument, as presented by Mele (which was the subject of my paper), uses 1*. So it was not inappropriate to focus on 1*. Todd graciously points out that indeed Mele's presentation employs !*, so it was not surprising that I would address it. So I guess it is true that I replied to a "different" argument from the *reconstructed* argument; but then again I *did* reply to the Zygote Argument! And, despite my considerable admiration for Patrick Todd's paper, I still think that what I said about the Zygote Argument as it was presented by Mele, using 1*, is correct. Perhaps I can argue for this sort of view more persuasively in future work.

The reconstructed argument is much harder to evaluate, since it doesn't really say *why* we should deem Ernie not responsible, and you are right to press issues about what exactly the source of our intuitions is. Perhaps X-Phi could be helpful here. I'm not sure, but also there might be other ways of getting at this: related thought-experiments, for example.

I agree with you that a lot hangs on intuitions here--there is not really an "argument" for premise 1. This of course is not surprising or especially problematic in itself--in my view, and I think Patrick Todd would agree, we all have to rely on intuitions at *some* point.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Books about Agency

3QD Prize 2014: Marcus Arvan