Erratum to: Philosophia
DOI 10.1007/s11406-016-9707-x
The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake. The correct details are given below.
In the second full paragraph of the Conclusion, the word (or name) “Frankfurt” should be replaced with “Principle of Alternative Possibilities” or “PAP”. In other words, the entire paragraph should read:
In the section above entitled “The Flicker Strategy,” we saw the difference between the Principle of Alternative Possibilities (PAP) and the Flicker Strategy. While PAP says that moral responsibility requires a “robust” alternative possibility – that is, the possibility of voluntarily performing an alternative, non-resembling action – the Flicker Strategy says that moral responsibility requires only a weak alternative possibility – for example, the possibility of avoiding voluntarily performing the same (resembling) action. The failure of the Blockage Argument supports only the latter (the Flicker Strategy), not the former (PAP).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The online version of the original article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11406-016-9707-x.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Levy, K. Erratum to: Blocking Blockage. Philosophia 44, 583 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-016-9721-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-016-9721-z