<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE ArticleSet PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD PubMed 2.7//EN" "https://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/ncbi/pubmed/in/PubMed.dtd">
<ArticleSet>
<Article>
<Journal>
				<PublisherName>University of Qom</PublisherName>
				<JournalTitle>Journal of Philosophical Theological Research</JournalTitle>
				<Issn>1735-9791</Issn>
				<Volume>24</Volume>
				<Issue>3</Issue>
				<PubDate PubStatus="epublish">
					<Year>2022</Year>
					<Month>09</Month>
					<Day>23</Day>
				</PubDate>
			</Journal>
<ArticleTitle>Libertarianism and Luck</ArticleTitle>
<VernacularTitle>Libertarianism and Luck</VernacularTitle>
			<FirstPage>115</FirstPage>
			<LastPage>134</LastPage>
			<ELocationID EIdType="pii">2360</ELocationID>
			
<ELocationID EIdType="doi">10.22091/jptr.2022.8297.2723</ELocationID>
			
			<Language>FA</Language>
<AuthorList>
<Author>
					<FirstName>Ishtiyaque</FirstName>
					<LastName>Haji</LastName>
<Affiliation>Professor of Philosophy, Department of Philosophy, University of Calgary, Canada.</Affiliation>
<Identifier Source="ORCID">0000-0000-0000-0000</Identifier>

</Author>
</AuthorList>
				<PublicationType>Journal Article</PublicationType>
			<History>
				<PubDate PubStatus="received">
					<Year>2022</Year>
					<Month>06</Month>
					<Day>13</Day>
				</PubDate>
			</History>
		<Abstract>According to event-causal modest libertarian accounts of free action, the sort of control an agent requires to perform free actions consists in the action’s being nondeviantly and indeterministically caused by apt reasons of the agent. It has been argued that these modest views succumb to a problem of luck because they imply that, given exactly the same past up to the time of action, and the same laws of nature, at this time the agent could have performed a different action, or no action at all. Hence, it appears that whatever the agent does at this time as a result of indeterministic deliberation is a matter of freedom- or responsibility-undermining luck. In this paper, I argue that neither Robert Kane’s variant of modest libertarianism, which combines a form of non-traditional agent causation with indeterministic event causation, nor John Lemos’ weightings variant, in which agents perform intentional acts of assigning weights to their reasons, circumvents the luck objection.&lt;br /&gt; </Abstract>
			<OtherAbstract Language="FA">According to event-causal modest libertarian accounts of free action, the sort of control an agent requires to perform free actions consists in the action’s being nondeviantly and indeterministically caused by apt reasons of the agent. It has been argued that these modest views succumb to a problem of luck because they imply that, given exactly the same past up to the time of action, and the same laws of nature, at this time the agent could have performed a different action, or no action at all. Hence, it appears that whatever the agent does at this time as a result of indeterministic deliberation is a matter of freedom- or responsibility-undermining luck. In this paper, I argue that neither Robert Kane’s variant of modest libertarianism, which combines a form of non-traditional agent causation with indeterministic event causation, nor John Lemos’ weightings variant, in which agents perform intentional acts of assigning weights to their reasons, circumvents the luck objection.&lt;br /&gt; </OtherAbstract>
		<ObjectList>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">agent-causal</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">Event-causal</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">Luck objection</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">Modest Libertarianism</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">Weighting reasons</Param>
			</Object>
		</ObjectList>
<ArchiveCopySource DocType="pdf">https://pfk.qom.ac.ir/article_2360_b1a332f499c2610c1681d4116a3ea9ca.pdf</ArchiveCopySource>
</Article>
</ArticleSet>
