ABSTRACT
It may be thought that whether or not one accepts determinism is in the end just a matter of taste. Nevertheless, the choice is not just a matter of taste. Instead, this choice is fraught with many implications about how we view the world and our place in it, what we aspire to do and become, and how we treat other human beings. Libertarianism is completely opposed to the possibility of a science of humanity and is, to that extent, unscientific and superstitious. Science, on the other hand, is committed to and in the process of developing a view of the world that is completely subject to laws of nature. Regularity accounts may seem to be just what the indeterminist needs to overcome the implications of physical determinism. Mechanism appears to be incompatible with moral responsibility, traditionally construed. If we accept mechanism as true, then something about our moral beliefs must change, on pain of inconsistency.
