Three Recent Frankfurt Cases

Philosophia 42 (4):1005-1032 (2014)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
Three recent ‘state of the art’ Frankfurt cases are responded to: Widerker’s Brain-Malfunction-W case and Pereboom’s Tax Evasion cases (2 & 3). These cases are intended by their authors to resurrect the neo-Frankfurt project of overturning the Principle of Alternative Possibilities (PAP) in the teeth of the widespread acceptance of some combination of the WKG (Widerker-Kane-Ginet) dilemma, the Flicker of Freedom strategy and the revised PAP response (‘Principle of Alternative Blame’, ‘Principle of Alternative Expectations’). The three neo-Frankfurt cases of Pereboom and Widerker shown to be insufficient for their intended purpose. Of central importance to any account of responsibility is that this applies at the level of the Right and not the Good. Arguments of Carlos Moya are expanded and augmented by considerations from Chisholm, Lucas, Dummett and Lockie (2003) to show that a number of severe problems remain for anyone attempting to resurrect the Frankfurt project
PhilPapers/Archive ID
LOCTRF
Revision history
First archival date: 2014-06-08
Latest version: 2 (2018-01-07)
View upload history
References found in this work BETA

View all 39 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Added to PP index
2014-05-27

Total views
436 ( #8,294 of 45,590 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
13 ( #41,084 of 45,590 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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