Abstract

This chapter presents and defends an account of rational deliberation according to which it is compatible with believing the determinist version of skepticism about the sort of free will required for basic-desert moral responsibility. The position proposed is a version of the view that Tomis Kapitan has developed, which features both epistemic openness and deliberative efficacy conditions on rational deliberation. It also has much in common with Dana Nelkin’s compatibilism about rational deliberation, although it differs in its details from each of these views.