Libertarians and others. Chisholm, Holbach and Frankfurt. Roderick Chisholm. A foundationalist (remember?). Also an enthusiastic defender of the primacy of ‘raw’ experience in epistemology. Also a libertarian. Human freedom and the self.
Chisholm, Holbach and Frankfurt
4 implies that the act isn’t determined by any event that isn’t also within your control– including your desires and beliefs.
“If the flood of desire caused the weak-willed man to give in, then he, too, had to do just what it was that he did do and he was no more responsible than was the dam for the results that followed”
But what is an agent, and how does it cause events?
For Chisholm, this is the kind of case where we would say his motive (the desire for the bribe) inclines but doesn’t necessitate, since he doesn’t try to make the bribe come his way, but if it does come his way, he can’t resist.
1. Without a story that somehow links the agent to the choice in an explanatory way, the attribution of the choice to the agent (and the consequent assignment of responsibility to her) is utterly opaque.
By ‘links in an explanatory way’ I mean that something about the agent should explain why she chose as she did.