• Korean Journal of Logic
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.135-165
• /
• 2010

In this paper, I explore Turner's argument against libertarianism. He claims that libertarians can't be compatible with naturalism, without abandoning the Consequence Argument. In order to support this claim, he proposes the Supervenience Argument. According to him, the Supervenience Argument can't be rejected without abandoning either the Consequence Argument or naturalism. But I show that libertarians don't have to accept his Supervenience Argument, even though they stick to the Consequence Argument, and that even though they accept his Supervenience Argument, they don't have to abandon the freedom of agent. For these reasons, I conclude that Turner's argument against libertarianism turns out a failure.