Many compatibilists think the Consequence Argument fails because
A) it does not define the "past" in a satisfactory way.
B) its logic is faulty.
C) the laws of nature are indeed up to us to some extent.
D) it uses a faulty interpretation of "could do otherwise."

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The Consequence Argument suggests that if determinism is true, then our actions are the consequence of the laws of nature and events in the remote past, hence we have no control over them. Many compatibilists argue against this by critiquing the interpretation of "could do otherwise" used in the argument. They suggest that being able to do otherwise is not necessary for free will, as long as the agent's actions are the result of their own desires, intentions, or motivations, thus the argument's interpretation of "could do otherwise" is seen as faulty.

Many Compatibilists Think the Consequence Argument Fails Because