David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophical Studies 150 (1):61-77 (2010)
There has been a great deal of critical discussion of Harry Frankfurt’s argument against the Principle of Alternative Possibilities (PAP), almost all of which has focused on whether the Frankfurt-style examples, which are designed to be counterexamples to PAP, can be given a coherent formulation. Recently, however, David Widerker has argued that even if Frankfurt-style examples can be given a coherent formulation, there is reason to believe that an agent in those examples could never be morally blameworthy for what she has done. Therefore, such examples do not undermine a version of PAP restricted to blameworthiness. Widerker refers to his argument for this claim as the W-defense. I examine the W-defense in some detail, along with three recent replies to it by defenders of Frankfurt’s argument. I contend that each of these replies is problematic and, indeed, that two of them play directly into the hands of those seeking to defend PAP. I then develop my own reply to the W-defense by calling into question an assumption which is at the heart of that argument regarding the nature of moral blame.
|Keywords||Frankfurt Alternative possibilities W-defense Moral responsibility Blame David Widerker|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Harry Frankfurt (2003). Some Thoughts Concerning PAP. In David Widerker & Michael McKenna (eds.), Moral Responsibility and Alternative Possibilities: Essays on the Importance of Alternative Possibilities. Ashgate. 339--345.
Harry G. Frankfurt (1969). Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility. Journal of Philosophy 66 (3):829-39.
Carl Ginet (1996). In Defense of the Principle of Alternative Possibilities: Why I Don't Find Frankfurt's Argument Convincing. Philosophical Perspectives 10:403-17.
David P. Hunt (2005). Moral Responsibility and Buffered Alternatives. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 29 (1):126–145.
Citations of this work BETA
Justin Capes (2012). Action, Responsibility and the Ability to Do Otherwise. Philosophical Studies 158 (1):1-15.
David Palmer (2013). Capes on the W-Defense. Philosophia 41 (2):555-566.
Similar books and articles
Christopher Evan Franklin (2011). Neo-Frankfurtians and Buffer Cases: The New Challenge to the Principle of Alternative Possibilities. Philosophical Studies 152 (2):189–207.
Michael McKenna (2008). Frankfurt's Argument Against Alternative Possibilities: Looking Beyond the Examples. Noûs 42 (4):770-793.
Kevin Timpe (2009). Causal History Matters, but Not for Individuation. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 39 (1):77-91.
Eleonore Stump (1999). Alternative Possibilities and Moral Responsibility: The Flicker of Freedom. [REVIEW] Journal of Ethics 3 (4):299-324.
Stewart Goetz (1999). Stumping For Widerker. Faith and Philosophy 16 (1):83-89.
David P. Hunt (1996). Frankfurt Counterexamples. Faith and Philosophy 13 (3):395-401.
David Hunt (1996). ``Frankfurt Counterexamples: Some Comments on the Widerker--Fischer Debate&Quot. Faith and Philosophy 13 (3):395-401.
Kevin Timpe (2006). A Critique of Frankfurt-Libertarianism. Philosophia 34 (2):189-202.
Michael Robinson (2012). Modified Frankfurt-Type Counterexamples and Flickers of Freedom. Philosophical Studies 157 (2):177-194.
Ira M. Schnall (2010). Weak Reasons-Responsiveness Meets its Match: In Defense of David Widerker's Attack on PAP. Philosophical Studies 150 (2):271 - 283.
Added to index2009-03-30
Total downloads70 ( #21,946 of 1,099,865 )
Recent downloads (6 months)8 ( #33,366 of 1,099,865 )
How can I increase my downloads?