Notes for 2/13/2026

 2/13/2026
[Philosophy Club every Monday, 4-5 pm, in the Buchtel College of Arts and Sciences room 436 ("The Cave")]
[Bioethics Club: Mondays from 5:30pm-6:30pm in Leigh Hall 408]

Do you have any bad habits?


 In philosophy (as in other areas), choosing between alternative positions is largely a matter of deciding which problems you are willing to inherit.



A common objection to both compatibilism and hard determinism is that they are inconsistent with responsibility/accountability. 
This is because of the “’ought’ implies ‘can” principle.

If I have murdered Bob, why isn’t appealing to determinism a compelling defense?


The challenge for compatibilists (and HDs) is to propose a model of accountability that is consistent with determinism.

As usual, it can be helpful to ask, “What, exactly, is it to hold someone accountable for what they do?”

Accountability is generally associated with punishment. 


Two models of punishment:
-    Retributivism
-    Consequentialism


Compatibilists and HDs generally favor consequentialism.

Most retributivists are libertarians (I’m not sure whether or not most libertarians are retributivists).


However:
Most people think it matters WHY someone has acted in determining whether or how to hold someone accountable.

It is unclear how reasons are relevant under retributivism.

Most people believe there are cases where forgiveness is preferable to punishment.

Retributivism has a difficult time accommodating this. 

The point is that neither compatibilism nor incompatibilism does an obviously better job in providing a fully satisfactory account of accountability.

Influence vs causation