Frankfurt-Style Cases User Manual: Why Frankfurt-Style Enabling Cases Do Not Necessitate Tech Support

Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 17 (3):505-521 (2014)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
‘Frankfurt-style cases’ (FSCs) are widely considered as having refuted the Principle of Alternate Possibilities (PAP) by presenting cases in which an agent is morally responsible even if he could not have done otherwise. However, Neil Levy (J Philos 105:223–239, 2008) has recently argued that FSCs fail because we are not entitled to suppose that the agent is morally responsible, given that the mere presence of a counterfactual intervener is enough to make an agent lose responsibility-grounding abilities. Here, I distinguish two kinds of Frankfurt counter-arguments against the PAP: the direct and the indirect counter-arguments. I then argue that Levy’s argument, if valid, can shed doubt on the indirect argument but leaves the direct argument untouched. I conclude that FSCs can still do their job, even if we grant that the mere presence of a counterfactual intervener can modify an agent’s abilities
PhilPapers/Archive ID
COVFCU
Revision history
Archival date: 2013-08-17
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
Explaining Away Incompatibilist Intuitions.Murray, Dylan & Nahmias, Eddy

View all 18 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

View all 9 citations / Add more citations

Added to PP index
2013-08-17

Total views
400 ( #5,890 of 37,197 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
44 ( #8,087 of 37,197 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.