Abstract

 
 

Footnotes (59)



 


 



Why Do We Resist Hard Incompatibilism? Thoughts on Freedom and Determinism


Michael Louis Corrado


University of North Carolina (UNC) at Chapel Hill - School of Law

October 1, 2011

in The Future of Punishment, ed. Thomas Nadelhoffer (Oxford 2013)

Abstract:     
One of the most difficult challenges for the “hard incompatibilist” is to deal with the overwhelming objections to the therapeutic/incapacitative approach to crime control that seems to follow naturally from his theory. See, for example, Pereboom’s Living without Free Will, Chapter 6. Responding to this challenge requires the hard determinist (1) to find a way to distinguish between those who have traditionally been found responsible for their crimes and those who have been found not to be responsible; and (2) to justify the infliction of intentionally harsh treatment on at least some of those who fall into the first category. I attempt to develop a theory that satisfies both those requirements.

Accepted Paper Series


Date posted: October 2, 2011 ; Last revised: March 6, 2013

Suggested Citation

Corrado, Michael Louis, Why Do We Resist Hard Incompatibilism? Thoughts on Freedom and Determinism (October 1, 2011). in The Future of Punishment, ed. Thomas Nadelhoffer (Oxford 2013). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1936665 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1936665

Contact Information

Michael Louis Corrado (Contact Author)
University of North Carolina (UNC) at Chapel Hill - School of Law ( email )
Van Hecke-Wettach Hall, 160 Ridge Road
CB #3380
Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3380
United States

Feedback to SSRN (Beta)


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 342

© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright
This page was processed by apollo5 in 0.328 seconds