Destinism: Puzzle Solved

Abstract

AbstractIn a recent article in this journal, “Destinism,” Andrew Bailey presents a puzzle (in different versions) for “Destinism,” the view that the only things we can do are those we in fact do. The puzzle is intriguing and important in part because it challenges a doctrine (Destinism) that many philosophers think could be true compatibly with our being morally responsible. Destinism is at least a viable view. Bailey’s puzzle derives from very plausible assumptions, but I argue that these assumptions are not as plausible as they appear. Interpreted in a way that renders one of them acceptable makes another problematic. There is no one interpretation on which the puzzling arguments are uncontrovertibly sound.