• Korean Journal of Logic
• /
• v.18 no.3
• /
• pp.359-387
• /
• 2015

As is well known, the consequence argument(shortly, CA) is intended as showing the incompatibility of free will and determinism. Recently, professor Choi Hoon tries to show there is a way in which Davidson's anomalous monism(shortly, AM) can be interpreted to counter CA. But I do not agree with his interpretation. So, in this paper, I will try to show why in the following way. In order to counter CA, it must be possible for AM to deny at least one of the premises of CA or to deny ${\beta}$ rule which guarantees the validity of CA or to show that free will is compatible with determinism in spite of the soundness of CA. In this paper, I will show that AM can do neither.