Philosophical Studies 157 (2):177-194 (2012)
|Abstract||A great deal of attention has been paid recently to the claim that traditional Frankfurt-type counterexamples to the Principle of Alternative Possibilities (PAP), which depend for their success on the presence of a perfectly reliable indicator (or prior sign ) of what an agent will freely do if left to act on his own, are guilty of begging the question against incompatibilists, since such indicators seem to presuppose a deterministic relation between an agent’s free action and its causal antecedents. Objections of this sort have given rise to considerable efforts to construct alternative Frankfurt-type counterexamples that do not rely on prior signs of this kind and so do not presuppose determinism in a way that incompatibilists should find objectionable. One consequence of this shift in the way Frankfurt-type counterexamples are formulated is that it provides an opportunity for the forceful resurgence of certain versions of the so-called flicker defense of PAP. In this paper I develop two versions of the flicker defense, indicate their advantages over other versions of this strategy, and defend them against objections. Insofar as either of these is successful, it will show not only that PAP has yet to be falsified by any of the modified Frankfurt-type counterexamples currently on offer but that cases of this sort are in principle incapable of falsifying PAP|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
David P. Hunt (1996). Frankfurt Counterexamples. Faith and Philosophy 13 (3):395-401.
Eleonore Stump (1999). Alternative Possibilities and Moral Responsibility: The Flicker of Freedom. Journal of Ethics 3 (4):299-324.
David Hunt (1996). ``Frankfurt Counterexamples: Some Comments on the Widerker--Fischer Debate&Quot. Faith and Philosophy 13 (3):395-401.
David Widerker & Stewart Goetz (2013). Fischer Against the Dilemma Defence: The Defence Prevails. Analysis 73 (2):283-295.
Kevin Timpe (2006). A Critique of Frankfurt-Libertarianism. Philosophia 34 (2):189-202.
Kevin Timpe (2006). The Dialectic Role of the Flickers of Freedom. Philosophical Studies 131 (2):337 - 368.
Justin A. Capes (2010). The W-Defense. Philosophical Studies 150:61-77.
David P. Hunt (2007). Black the Libertarian. Acta Analytica 22 (1):3-15.
Ezio Di Nucci (2010). Refuting a Frankfurtian Objection to Frankfurt-Type Counterexamples. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 13 (2).
David Widerker (2000). ``Theological Fatalism and Frankfurt Counterexamples to the Principle of Alternate Possibilities&Quot. Faith and Philosophy 17 (2):249-254.
Peter van Inwagen (1999). Moral Responsibility, Determinism, and the Ability to Do Otherwise. Journal of Ethics 3 (4):343-351.
Peter Van Inwagen (1999). Moral Responsibility, Determinism, and the Ability to Do Otherwise. Journal of Ethics 3 (4):341 - 350.
David Palmer (forthcoming). Pereboom on the Frankfurt Cases. Philosophical Studies.
Christopher Evan Franklin (2011). Neo-Frankfurtians and Buffer Cases: The New Challenge to the Principle of Alternative Possibilities. Philosophical Studies 152:189–207.
Maria Alvarez (2009). Actions, Thought-Experiments and the 'Principle of Alternate Possibilities'. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 87 (1):61 – 81.
Added to index2010-11-18
Total downloads53 ( #19,386 of 549,122 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #25,740 of 549,122 )
How can I increase my downloads?