Consequence Argument

The "Consequence Argument" is a philosophical argument in the free will debate that belongs to the class of logical arguments aiming to demonstrate the incompatibility of determinism and moral responsibility, distinguished by its claim that because agents cannot change the past or the laws of nature, and present actions are logical consequences of these, they cannot be free in a way that allows for alternative possibilities.

81

Publications

3K

Citations

107

Authors

75

Institutions

Publications per year

2017–2026

15

Parents

Authors

107

  1. AC
    Andrew C. Khoury

    London School of Economics and Political Science, United Kingdom

    2 publications · 59 citations

    2

    h-index

  2. AB
    Arnold Binder

    University of California, Irvine, United States

    2 publications · 55 citations

    2

    h-index

  3. GG
    Gilbert Geis

    University of California, Irvine, United States

    2 publications · 55 citations

    2

    h-index

  4. KJ
    Kenneth J. Perszyk

    Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand

    1 publications · 12 citations

    1

    h-index

  5. IH
    Ioana Hulpuş

    University of Mannheim, Germany

    1 publications · 27 citations

    1

    h-index

1–5 of 107

Venues

  1. Analysis

    7 publications · 228 citations

    7

    h-index

  2. Synthese

    3 publications · 125 citations

    3

    h-index

  3. Canadian Journal of Philosophy

    CJP · 3 publications · 103 citations

    3

    h-index

  4. Philosophical Studies

    3 publications · 160 citations

    3

    h-index

  5. Australasian Journal of Philosophy

    3 publications · 101 citations

    3

    h-index

1–5