Abstract
The possibility of predetermined choices raises a challenge for Causal Decision Theory [Ahmed 2014b]. Sandgren and Williamson [2021] have recently proposed a response—Selective Causal Decision Theory—that they hope will avoid Ahmed’s counterexamples, maintain (a particular kind of) compatibilism, and endorse universal Two-boxing in Newcomb’s Problem—CDT’s raison d’être. Their proposal does an admirable job of satisfying the first two desiderata. However, in this reply I raise several worries about whether it can satisfy the third.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 620-627 |
| Number of pages | 8 |
| Journal | Australasian Journal of Philosophy |
| Volume | 100 |
| Issue number | 3 |
| DOIs |
|
| Publication status | Published - 2022 |
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Causal Decision Theory, Two-Boxing, and Deliberation-Compatibilism: A Reply to Sandgren and Williamson'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver