Do intuitions about Frankfurt-style cases rest on an internalist prejudice?

Philosophical Explorations 19 (3):290-305 (2016)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
“Frankfurt-style cases” are widely considered as having refuted the Principle of Alternate Possibilities by presenting cases in which an agent is morally responsible even if he could not have done otherwise. However, Neil Levy has recently argued that FSCs fail because our intuitions about cases involving counterfactual interveners are inconsistent, and this inconsistency is best explained by the fact that our intuitions about such cases are grounded in an internalist prejudice about the location of mental states and capacities. In response to this challenge, we argue that there is no inconsistency in our intuitions about cases involving CIs, as soon as we draw the comparison properly, and that intuitions about such cases do not rest on an internalist prejudice, but on a more basic distinction between two kinds of dispositions. Additionally, we discus...
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Upload history
Archival date: 2016-09-17
View other versions
Added to PP index

Total views
560 ( #12,595 of 68,964 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
32 ( #26,055 of 68,964 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.