Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorAhmed, Arif
dc.date.accessioned2020-09-21T15:09:16Z
dc.date.available2020-09-21T15:09:16Z
dc.date.issued2019-11-13
dc.identifier.issn0031-8116
dc.identifier.others11098-019-01375-0
dc.identifier.other1375
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/310528
dc.description.abstractAbstract: A standard argument for one-boxing in Newcomb’s Problem is ‘Why Ain’cha Rich?’, which emphasizes that one-boxers typically make a million dollars compared to the thousand dollars that two-boxers can expect. A standard reply is the ‘opportunity defence’: the two-boxers who made a thousand never had an opportunity to make more. The paper argues that the opportunity defence is unavailable to anyone who grants that in another case—a Frankfurt case—the agent is deprived of opportunities in the way that advocates of Frankfurt cases typically claim.
dc.languageen
dc.publisherSpringer Netherlands
dc.rightsAttribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)en
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en
dc.subjectArticle
dc.subjectDecision Theory
dc.subjectNewcomb’s Problem
dc.subjectFrankfurt cases
dc.subjectFree will
dc.titleFrankfurt cases and the Newcomb Problem
dc.typeArticle
dc.date.updated2020-09-21T15:09:16Z
prism.endingPage3408
prism.issueIdentifier11
prism.publicationNamePhilosophical Studies
prism.startingPage3391
prism.volume177
dc.identifier.doi10.17863/CAM.57623
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1007/s11098-019-01375-0
rioxxterms.versionVoR
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.contributor.orcidAhmed, Arif [0000-0001-7826-3335]
dc.identifier.eissn1573-0883
pubs.funder-project-idLeverhulme Trust (RF-2018-231\10)


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
Except where otherwise noted, this item's licence is described as Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)