scholarly journals Revising the Principle of Alternate Possibilities

2013 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 15-20
Author(s):  
Max Siegel ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Principle Of Alternate Possibilities ◽  
Alternate Possibilities

scholarly journals Revising the Principle of Alternate Possibilities

2013 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-20
Author(s):  
Max Siegel
Keyword(s):  
Moral Philosophy ◽  
Practical Reasoning ◽  
Moral Dilemmas ◽  
Harry Frankfurt ◽  
Causal Determinism ◽  
Principle Of Alternate Possibilities ◽  
Alternate Possibilities

This paper examines the position in moral philosophy that Harry Frankfurt calls the Principle of Alternate Possibilities (PAP). The paper first describes the principle as articulated by A.J. Ayer. Subsequently, the paper examines Frankfurt’s critique and proposed revision of the principle and argues that Frankfurt’s proposal relies on an excessively simplistic account of practical reasoning, which fails to account for the possibility of moral dilemmas. In response, the paper offers a further revision of PAP, which accounts for Frankfurt’s critique, moral dilemmas, and the challenge of causal determinism.

Incompatibilism and Prudential Obligation

2010 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 385-410
Author(s):  
Ishtiyaque Haji
Keyword(s):  
Moral Responsibility ◽  
Van Inwagen ◽  
Principle Of Alternate Possibilities ◽  
The Many ◽  
Alternate Possibilities ◽  
Skeptical Conclusion

Take determinism to be the thesis that for any instant, there is exactly one physically possible future (van Inwagen 1983, 3), and understand incompatibilism regarding responsibility to be the view that determinism is incompatible with moral responsibility. Of the many different arguments that have been advanced for this view, the crux of a relatively traditional one is this: If determinism is true, then we lack alternatives. If we lack alternatives, then we can't be morally responsible for any of our behavior. Therefore, if determinism is true, then we can't be morally responsible for any of our behavior. The second premise is a version of the principle of alternate possibilities (PAP): persons are morally responsible for what they have done only if they could have done otherwise. This principle, in conjunction with the assumptions that responsibility requires control, and that this control consists in the freedom to do otherwise, provides the vital bridge from the initial premise to the skeptical conclusion. Some incompatibilists, joining ranks with various compatibilists, have sought to reject this principle by invoking so-called ‘Frankfurt examples.’

Fischer on the Fragilist Account of Alternative Possibilities

Dialogue ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 52 (4) ◽  
pp. 787-800
Author(s):  
HUIYUHL YI
Keyword(s):  
Alternative Possibilities ◽  
John Martin Fischer ◽  
Principle Of Alternate Possibilities ◽  
Alternate Possibilities

One response to the Frankfurtian attack on the Principle of Alternate Possibilities is to advert to the observation that the agent’s actual action (or the particular event resulting from that action) is numerically distinct from the corresponding action (or the resultant event) he would have generated in the relevant counterfactual scenario. Since this response is based on taking actions and events to be fragile, I shall call it the fragilist account of alternative possibilities. This paper addresses an anti-fragilist argument delivered by John Martin Fischer. I contend that, on close examination, Fischer’s counterargument does not undermine the fragilist account.

Frankfurt Cases and Overdetermination

2009 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 341-369 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric Funkhouser
Keyword(s):  
Moral Responsibility ◽  
Frankfurt Cases ◽  
Principle Of Alternate Possibilities ◽  
Causal Preemption ◽  
In Virtue Of ◽  
Alternate Possibilities

For nearly forty years now, Frankfurt cases have served as one of the major contributors to the compatibilist's cause with respect to moral responsibility. These cases typically involve a causally preempted condition that is supposed to guarantee a choice without causing it. This has had the effect of softening up some to the idea that determinism does not exclude moral responsibility simply in virtue of guaranteeing a unique future. I believe that these traditional Frankfurt cases adequately support this cause. But I also believe that the traditional versions of Frankfurt cases suffer from some rhetorical defects.My strategy is as follows. First, I want to respond to a dilemma that has been raised by some libertarians against arguments utilizing Frankfurt cases. This dilemma has the effect of raising a question-begging charge against such arguments. Part of my response is to draw attention to the relevant principle that I think Frankfurt cases should really target, a principle slightly different from Harry Frankfurt's original Principle of Alternate Possibilities. Second, I elaborate and defend the claim that traditional Frankfurt cases involve causal preemption.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document