VIII—Abilities, Goals and Justifications

Abstract Many of our practices presuppose moral responsibility. Arguably, agents can only be morally responsible if they are able to act other than they do. Compatibilists and incompatibilists traditionally disagree about whether determinism precludes the ability to do otherwise, often reaching an impasse because they endorse different readings of ‘able to do otherwise’. I argue that the correct reading of ‘able to do otherwise’ depends on the purposes of our responsibility-entailing practices. Practices serving different purposes may warrant different readings. Consequently, there may be no single independently ascertainable definition of freedom to do otherwise that justifies our responsibility-entailing practices wholesale.