ABSTRACT
What is clear from this discussion is that on this point Anselm would take issue with the trend in contemporary philosophy (Kane 2005, 2007) that wishes to maintain that actions that are the result of a consistent character trait are free. And this is the case even though Anselm rejects PAP as being necessary for the exercise of free will. The reason is that, while PAP is unnecessary, as one can preserve justice for its own sake in the absence of alternatives (see below), one’s character (to the extent that it even makes sense to talk of character in Anselm) is either part of our nature, and so necessitated, or a result of our preserving rectitude. In the latter case, any action will only be consistent with our character, but not ow from it. If the motivation is something other than justice itself, it won’t be free. See below for a discussion of character development in Anselm.
