Reply to Brueckner

Anthony Brueckner (2008) offers a compelling argument for incompati bilism the New Third Argument (here after 'NTA') in response to my criticisms of the Third Argument (Campbell 2007).11 explicate NTA (?2), offer some preliminary considerations (?3), and then close with a discus sion of Brueckner's critique of my Adam example (2007: 109) (?4). In the end I show that, like the Third Argument, NTA does not establish incom patibilism, the view that no one has free will if determinism is true.