Title: A must read for traditional compatibilists
Product review: Russell makes a compelling case that the traditional compatiblist interpretation of Hume is mistaken, and that Hume's account of responsibility is part of his greater discussion of moral sentiments. In the end, Russell argues that Hume's position is closer to that of P.F. Strawson in "Freedom and Resentment" than it is to the traditional reading that Ayer, Mill, and Schlick give. Russell also gives an account of what implications Hume's theory has for a contemporary theory of responsibility.
Would you say this review depicts the product in a flattering or unflattering light?
