Blog Coordinator

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

06/19/2013

Comments

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

Neil,

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