In his landmark essay, “Freedom and Resentment,” P.F. Strawson articulated a certain kind of objection to libertarian theories of moral responsibility. In Strawson’s words, the libertarian seeks to provide an “external justification” of our practices of moral responsibility—something Strawson claims cannot be provided, but more importantly, something that he claims is simply not needed. “Inside the general structure or web of [reactive] attitudes,” Strawson explains, “there is endless room for modification, redirection, criticism, and justification.” But, he continues, “questions of justification are internal to the structure…. The existence of the general framework of attitudes itself is something we are given with the fact of human society. As a whole, it neither calls for, nor permits, an external ‘rational’ justification.” Various subsequent authors have developed this theme to provide a certain kind of argument for compatibilism. One such author—Gary Watson—has called the argument in question the “normative framework” argument. And David Beglin has built on similar themes to articulate the sense in which, for the “Strawsonian”, the facts about moral responsibility depend on the practice of moral responsibility. The purpose of this paper is to examine these Strawsonian themes at least somewhat more closely. As I aim to bring out, it is unclear that the libertarian does or must provide any such “external justification” at all. This paper is most fundamentally a reply to this persistent Strawsonian theme.

Theorists of moral responsibility have suggested that some of our responsibility-responses have a 'point', or a 'function', and that when, in general, blame with respect to a certain kind of person could not fulfill its function, that kind of person is not in fact blameworthy. Recently, however, some theorists (Beglin 2018, De Mesel 2025) seem to suggest a stronger thesis: if blame with respect to some kind of person can fulfill its function, then such persons are indeed blameworthy. Beglin and De Mesel thus seek to put pressure on traditional incompatibilism, on grounds that blame has a function that can be fulfilled, even if no one ever has libertarian free will. In this paper, I argue that this style of argument cannot succeed: once we distinguish between 'internal' and 'external' function, we can see that the core argument faces a dilemma. If the proposal is one about 'external' function, we cannot move 'from function to fittingness'; whereas if the proposal is about 'internal' function, the incompatibilist will reject that proposal on the usual grounds.

In a recent paper, Patrick Todd and Brian Rabern argued that-contra both Thomason's supervaluationism and MacFarlane's relativism-an "open future" view is incompatible with the principle they call "Retro-closure", according to which today's rain implies that yesterday it was true that it would rain a day later. In a recent piece, MacFarlane replies. This paper has two aims. First, I argue that MacFarlane's response to Todd and Rabern is unsuccessful on its own terms. Second, I attempt to clarify Todd and Rabern's overall argument, and explain how MacFarlane's replies should be construed within the overall dialectic. The intended result: if you want an "open future", then one's best option is a modified Peirceanism (as in Todd, The Open Future); if one wants Retro-closure, one's best option is one on which there is a determinate "Thin Red Line" (a view sometimes called "Ockhamism"). However, one cannot have what supervaluationism and relativism both promise, viz., a view that preserves both.

Various philosophers have wanted to move from a (P. F.) "Strawsonian" understanding of the "practices of moral responsibility" to a non-skeptical result. I focus on a strategy moving from a "response-dependent" theory of responsibility. I aim to show that a key analogy associated with this strategy fails to support a compatibilist result. It seems clear that nothing could show that nothing we have been laughing at has really been funny. If "the funny" is similar to "the blameworthy," then perhaps it would follow that nothing could show that no one we have ever blamed has really been blameworthy. The comparison is interesting, but inconclusive: even if we grant that these properties are normatively similar, the latter has substantive empirical presuppositions, whereas the former does not. One important upshot: even if the standards operative in our practices cannot be mistaken, it could nevertheless be that no one has ever met these standards.

In this symposium piece, I reply to the diverse and wide-ranging set of objections to my book (The Open Future: Why Future Contingents are All False) set forth by MacFarlane, Green, Wasserman, and Bigg & Miller.

In response to criticism, we often say – in these or similar words – “Let’s see you do better!” Prima facie, it looks like this response is a challenge of a certain kind – a challenge to prove that one has what has recently been called standing. More generally, the data here seems to point a certain kind of norm of criticism: be better. Slightly more carefully: One must: criticize x with respect to standard s only if one is better than x with respect to standard s. In this paper, I defend precisely this norm of criticism – an underexplored norm that is nevertheless ubiquitous in our lives, once we begin looking for it. The be better norm is, I hope to show, continuously invoked in a wide range of ordinary settings, can undergird and explain the widely endorsed non-hypocrisy condition on the standing to blame, and apparent counterexamples to the norm are no such counterexamples at all. I further contend that, given some plausible principles, my previous “moral commitment” account of the moral standing to blame will be extensionally equivalent to the be better norm.

Journal Article Critical Notice: The Open Future: Why Future Contingents are All False Get access The Open Future: Why Future Contingents are All False. By Todd Patrick. (Oxford: OUP, 2021. Pp. xi + 212.) Stephan Torre Stephan Torre University of Aberdeen, UK https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2296-839X Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Philosophical Quarterly, pqad086, https://doi.org/10.1093/pq/pqad086 Published: 15 September 2023 Article history Received: 23 August 2023 Published: 15 September 2023

Journal Article Critical Notice: The Modal Future: A Theory of Future-Directed Thought and Talk Get access The Modal Future: A Theory of Future-Directed Thought and Talk. By Fabrizio Cariani. (Cambridge: CUP, 2021. Pp. xxv + 292.) Patrick Todd Patrick Todd University of Edinburgh, Scotland Lund University, Sweden Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Philosophical Quarterly, pqad087, https://doi.org/10.1093/pq/pqad087 Published: 13 September 2023 Article history Received: 25 August 2023 Accepted: 31 August 2023 Published: 13 September 2023

I want to suggest that it would be bad if compatibilism were true, and that this gives us good reason to think that it isn't. This is, you might think, an outlandish argument, and the considerable burden of this paper is to convince you otherwise. There are two key elements at stake in this argument. The first is that it would be ‐ in a distinctive sense to be explained ‐ bad if compatibilism were true. The thought here is that compatibilism ultimately presents us with a picture on which, in principle, powerful manipulators can effectively guarantee that finite moral agents should become blameworthy. To my mind, this isn't just false ‐ though I think that it is ‐ it is also such that it would be bad (unfortunate, undesirable…) if it were true. The second is that the fact that it would be ‐ in this sense ‐ bad if true gives us reason to think that it isn't. It may be bad that there is no afterlife. But that, in itself, hardly gives us reason to think that there is an afterlife. That is true, but ‐ as others before me have suggested ‐ when the object of the relevant badness is morality itself, the inference seems secure. A more general aim of the paper is to investigate the nature of this very form of argument in itself, and I compare my argument (inter alia) to a recent argument from Sayre–McCord against the possibility of genuine moral dilemmas.

Incompatibilism about responsibility and determinism is sometimes directly construed as the thesis that if we found out that determinism is true, we would have to give up the reactive attitudes. Call this "the consequence". I argue that this is a mistake: the strict modal thesis does not entail the consequence. First, some incompatibilists (who are also libertarians) may be what we might call "resolute responsibility theorists" (or "flip-floppers"). On this view, if we found out that determinism is true, this would not be to find out that no one is responsible; instead, what this would suggest is that incompatibilism is after all false. Second, some incompatibilists may instead deny the claim that if we found out that no one deserves the reactive attitudes, we would have to give up the reactive attitudes. Call this position "innocent incompatibilism." I explore several different reasons why the fact that no one deserves the reactive attitudes likely does not translate into a requirement for us to give up the reactive attitudes. The upshot: incompatibilism may be practically irrelevant, even if true.

In this paper, we clarify, unpack, and ultimately resist what is perhaps the most prominent argument for the compatibility of free will and determinism: the epistemic argument for compatibilism. We focus on one such argument as articulated by David Lewis: (i) we know we are free, (ii) for all we know everything is predetermined, (iii) if we know we are free but for all we know everything is predetermined, then for all we know we are free but everything is predetermined, (iv) if for all we know we are free but predetermined, then it is really possible that we are, so (v) compatibilism. We uncover how the crucial epistemic modality underlying (iv) must be understood, and contend that, understood this way, the libertarian can resist (iv). Importantly, however, resisting the argument does commit the libertarian to what has been called “flip-flopping”—but we argue that this is perfectly coherent. We conclude by articulating two crucially ways the libertarian can resist the argument, by saying that we can know that determinism is false "from the armchair".

There is a longstanding argument that purports to show that divine foreknowledge is inconsistent with human freedom to do otherwise. Proponents of this argument, however, have for some time been met with the following reply: the argument posits what would have to be a mysterious non-causal constraint on freedom. In this paper, I argue that this objection is misguided - not because after all there can indeed be non-causal constraints on freedom (as in Pike, Fischer, and Hunt), but because the success of the incompatibilist's argument does not require the real possibility of non-causal constraints on freedom. I contend that the incompatibilist's argument is best seen as showing that, given divine foreknowledge, something makes one unfree - and that this something is most plausibly identified, not with the foreknowledge itself, but with the causally deterministic factors that would have to be in place in order for there to be infallible foreknowledge in the first place.

It is widely accepted that there is what has been called a non-hypocrisy norm on the appropriateness of moral blame; roughly, one has standing to blame only if one is not guilty of the very offence one seeks to criticize. Our acceptance of this norm is embodied in the common retort to criticism, “Who are you to blame me?” But there is a paradox lurking behind this commonplace norm. If it is always inappropriate for x to blame y for a wrong that x has committed, then all cases in which x blames x (i.e., cases of self-blame) are rendered inappropriate. But it seems to be ethical common-sense that we are often, sadly, in position (indeed, excellent, privileged position) to blame ourselves for our own moral failings. And thus, we have a paradox: a conflict between the inappropriateness of hypocritical blame, and the appropriateness of self-blame. We consider several ways of resolving the paradox and contend none is as defensible as a position that simply accepts it: we should never blame ourselves. In defending this starting position, we defend a crucial distinction between self-blame and guilt.

In this chapter, the author introduces a crucial comparison between his approach to the future directed will and certain more familiar approaches to the counterfactual would. In particular, the author draws an analogy between his view, which denies “Will Excluded Middle” (WEM), and certain views about counterfactuals that deny what has been called “Conditional Excluded Middle” (CEM). He argues that if CEM is no semantic truth—and many have argued that it is not—then neither is WEM. The author extends his claim that will is a neg-raiser to the counterfactual would. Overall, it emerges that the author’s view on will parallels closely David Lewis’ view about the counterfactual would. Semantically, both views are on a par—although metaphysically, it may be that counterfactuals plausibly need “grounds” in a way that future-tense truths do not. This is, however, a separate matter; the semantic claims stand or fall together.

In this chapter, Patrick Todd considers how presentists can argue that the future is open, holding fixed that they maintain that the past is not. He argues that any such presentist argument is doomed to failure, if it proceeds by appeal to a general thesis about truth (such as that “truth supervenes on being”). Thus, he contends, presentist open futurists should not argue for the open future from an intuition about truth in general, but from an intuition about the future in particular. The result, however, is that presentist open futurists cannot make their case by appeal to anything like a metaphysically neutral starting point. Nevertheless, due to certain asymmetries between facts about the past and facts about the future, a presentist open future view remains substantially theoretically motivated.

A.N. Prior considered an objection to open future views, viz. that they are inconsistent with our ordinary practices of betting. Prior worried that, on open future views, if we bet on rain, and then it does rain, I could refuse to grant the payout on grounds that the proposition you bet was true was not true at the time of the bet. The author argues that this objection fails, by developing a picture of betting on which we are not betting on anything like current truth. He then considers the objection that his view is inconsistent with the idea that there are non-zero probabilities of future events; he argues that though our credence in a given future contingent proposition may be zero, the objective probability of the relevant event may nevertheless be high. The author develops a comparison between this view and parallel views about the probability of conditionals and probabilities in fictions.

In The Open Future: Why Future Contingents are All False, Patrick Todd launches a sustained defense of a radical interpretation of the doctrine of the open future, one according to which all claims about undetermined aspects of the future are simply false. Todd argues that this theory is metaphysically more parsimonious than its rivals, and that objections to its logical and practical coherence are much overblown. Todd shows how proponents of this view can maintain classical logic, and argues that the view has substantial advantages over Ockhamist, supervaluationist, and relativist alternatives. Todd draws inspiration from theories of “neg-raising” in linguistics, from debates about omniscience within the philosophy of religion, and defends a crucial comparison between his account of future contingents and certain more familiar theories of counterfactuals. Further, Todd defends his theory of the open future from the charges that it cannot make sense of our practices of betting, makes our credences regarding future contingents unintelligible, and is at odds with proper norms of assertion. In the end, in Todd’s classical open future, we have a compelling new solution to the longstanding “problem of future contingents”.

Perhaps one of the chief objections to open future views is that they must deny a principle we may call “Retro-closure”: roughly, if something is the case, then it was the case that it would be the case. Certain theorists, however—supervaluationists and relativists—have attempted to maintain both the open future view, and Retro-closure. In this chapter, the author argues (with Brian Rabern) that this combination of views is untenable: we must take our pick between the open future and Retro-closure. They argue that this combination of views results either in an unacceptable form of changing the past, or instead implausibly rules out the (former) existence of an omniscient being. In the appendix to this chapter, Todd argues that we can plausibly do without the Retro-closure principle, and that the principle, while intuitive, is not nearly so obvious as many have seemed to suppose.