Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility by Harry Frankfurt

In “Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility”, Harry Frankfurt attempts to falsify the Principle of Alternate Possibilities. The Principle of Alternate Possibilities is the principle where a person is morally responsible for what he has done only if he could have done otherwise. A person would be morally responsible for their own actions if done by themselves. If someone else had forced that person to do the action, then the person doing the action is not morally responsible. Frankfurt does not believe this to be true and that the person doing the action is morally responsible. Frankfurt’s objections towards the Principle of Alternate Possibilities shows the refutation of natural intuition and places moral responsibility upon those who deserve it.

Frankfurt’s “Black and Jones” example is an appropriate explanation for how the Principle of Alternative Possibilities works. Black put a gun on Jones’ head and tells him to do action A. According to the Principle of Alternate Possibilities, this will play out in three ways. If Jones was not a reasonable man and was “gung-ho”, not caring about any consequences or cost, then he is not to be morally responsible for that action. If Jones was afraid of what Black will do with the gun and decides to change his decision from doing any other action to action A, then he is only morally responsible for the decision that he made earlier and not for the action. If Jones isn’t affected by Black’s actions, but he considers those actions in planning to make his next move yet still follows his original decision, then he is morally responsible for all actions and decisions.(Frankfurt; Watson, 169-170) What Frankfurt is considering to be a counter-example to the Principle of Alternate Possibil...

... middle of paper ...

...ow moral responsibility. One needs to will other alternate possibilities, knowing that there is no moral responsibility for them, to show that the original will has moral responsibility. It is like placing a white stone on a pile of black stones to emphasize the fact that that one stone is a white stone. This shows the need for alternate possibilities and strengthens Frankfurt’s argument.

In conclusion, Frankfurt’s argument against the Principle of Alternate Possibilities showed that people under coercion had moral responsibility for their own actions. Copp placed the value of moral responsibility to the ability of being able to do one’s will and Pereboom supports Frankfurt’s argument by placing the robustness condition on alternate possibilities. This shows that there is still a need to put more thought and brainstorming into who has the moral responsibility.