Best papers 2007

As many of you will know by now, the Philosopher's Annual has apparently been revived. Brian Leiter and Keith DeRose have both opened threads  calling for suggestions on the best papers of 2007. Now it's your turn: what were the best papers in free will/moral responsibility/agency in 2007?

Comments

[Andrei A. Buckareff]

Al Mele's paper, "Persisting Intentions," Nous 41 (2007), pp. 735-57 definitely deserves a place among the best in the philosophy of action (broadly construed) for 2007.

[Neal Tognazzini]

I'll put my vote in for Angela Smith's article, "On Being Responsible and Holding Responsible", from the Journal of Ethics 11: 465-484. This is an article on a very important issue written with admirable clarity and insight.

[Neil]

I note, without surprise, that only one member of the nominating board has a serious and continuing interest in agency (that's Peter Van Inwagen). I suspect that this puts our little neck of the woods at a competitive disadvantage compared to some other areas.

[Andrei Buckareff]

If the nominating board list is current (I suspect it is not since at least one of the members is no longer living), there are others with ongoing interests in agency and action besides Peter van Inwagen. Granted, their most recent output in the field is not as significant as in the past. I'm thinking of Christopher Peacocke, J.J.C. Smart, Owen Flanagan, Michael Slote, and Keith Lehrer. Also, if you look at past issues, authors working in the philosophy of action and on agency related issues in moral psychology are represented. If you look back ten years (since 1997), papers by Michael Bratman, Nomy Arpaly, and Richard Holton found their way into the PA.

[Andrei Buckareff]

I should qualify my including Smart and Slote on the list. I don't think either of them has published anything on agency-related topics within the last twenty years. But Peacocke, Flanagan, and Lehrer have published stuff within the last ten years or so.

[Kip Werking]

I haven't been keeping as up to date as I should. But I remember the paper by Nahmias, Coates and Kvaran, and I think that definitely deserves a place up here.

[Thom Brooks]

While I agree that some papers are much better than others, I am a but uncertain on which I would identify as 'the best' (or certainly 'the top ten'), not least as that clearly suggests I should have read all (or at least nearly all) articles in the area. If I did this, then I doubt I'd have time for much else...

[Joe Campbell]

Andrei is correct but I still think that Neil has a point. It would be nice if some other folks currently working in the field were on the board (not that I would remove any of those mentioned by Andrei!), folks like Fischer, Mele, Kane, Strawson, or Pereboom. Is there a way to make suggestions about additions to the board?

Also, in response to Kip's suggestion, it seems that the annual is rather lite on experimental philosophy. Of course, I just took a quick look, so I might be wrong about that.