Graduate studies at Western
Canadian Journal of Philosophy 30 (1):1-23 (2000)
|Abstract||The traditional debate between compatibilists and incompatibilists was based on the assumption that if determinism deprives us of free will and moral responsibility, it does so by making it true that we can never do other than what we actually do. All parties to the debate took for granted the truth of a claim now widely known as "the principle of alternate possibilities": someone is morally responsible only if he could have done otherwise. In a famous paper, Harry Frankfurt argued that the principle of alternate possibilities is false. I argue that Frankfurt's argument rests on a modal fallacy|
|Keywords||Ethics Foreknowledge Freedom Responsibility Frankfurt, H|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Eleonore Stump (1999). Alternative Possibilities and Moral Responsibility: The Flicker of Freedom. [REVIEW] Journal of Ethics 3 (4):299-324.
L. Nathan Oaklander (1995). Time and Foreknowledge: A Critique of Zagzebski. Religious Studies 31 (1):101 - 103.
Ted A. Warfield (2000). On Freedom and Foreknowledge. Faith and Philosophy 17 (2):255-259.
Katherin A. Rogers (2008). Anselm on Freedom. Oxford University Press.
Galen Strawson (1986). On the Inevitability of Freedom (From the Compatibilist Point of View). American Philosophical Quarterly 23 (4):393-400.
Michael McKenna (2008). Frankfurt's Argument Against Alternative Possibilities: Looking Beyond the Examples. Noûs 42 (4):770-793.
Jason Wyckoff (2010). On the Incompatibility of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom. Sophia 49 (3):333-41.
David Hunt (1996). ``Frankfurt Counterexamples: Some Comments on the Widerker--Fischer Debate&Quot. Faith and Philosophy 13 (3):395-401.
David P. Hunt (1996). Frankfurt Counterexamples. Faith and Philosophy 13 (3):395-401.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads40 ( #33,743 of 739,324 )
Recent downloads (6 months)10 ( #10,817 of 739,324 )
How can I increase my downloads?