Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Blocking Blockage

  • Published:
Philosophia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 10 May 2016

Abstract

The Blockage Argument is designed to improve upon Harry Frankfurt’s famous argument against the Principle of Alternative Possibilities (PAP) by removing the counterfactual intervener altogether. If the argument worked, then it would prove in a way that Frankfurt’s argument does not that moral responsibility does not require any alternative possibilities whatsoever, not even the weakest “flicker of freedom” (such as the possibility of avoiding voluntary action). Some philosophers have rejected the Blockage Argument solely on the basis of their intuition that the inability to do otherwise is incompatible with moral responsibility. I will argue, however, that it is not merely the inability to do otherwise by itself but rather the inability to do otherwise in combination with the absence of a counterfactual intervener that is incompatible with moral responsibility. If I cannot do otherwise and it is not because of a counterfactual intervener, then it must be the case that I am being forced to choose and therefore act as I do, in which case I cannot be morally responsible for this action. Because the Blockage Argument fails, and because it was really the only way to establish that moral responsibility does not require any alternative possibilities whatsoever, it follows that moral responsibility does indeed require at least one alternative possibility in any given situation. But it turns out that this conclusion does not tip the balance in favor of incompatibilism over compatibilism. It would have if blockage and determinism were equivalent. But they are not. Unlike blockage, determinism is compatible with certain counterfactuals that compatibilists traditionally believed the ability to do otherwise reduces to. So even though moral responsibility is incompatible with blockage, it does not necessarily follow that moral responsibility is incompatible with determinism.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. As Haji and McKenna (2011, 400–401) suggest, “By now, it must be thought that the debate has petered out, as there is little left to explore; every avenue has been traveled, every stone already turned.” Indeed, as far back as 1996, Robert Kane (1996, 41) was already noting – or lamenting – just how voluminous the literature on Frankfurt-style situations had become: “The literature on Frankfurt scenarios and what they prove is now so large that it would take an entire book to do justice to it.” Levy (2007, 124) describes the debate over Frankfurt-style situations as “increasingly convoluted.”

  2. See Fischer (2000, 145–146); Hunt (2000, 218–220, 2003, 169–173); Hurley (1999, 236–239); McKenna (2003, 206–213); Mele (1995, 141, 192–193); Stump (1990, 1996, 1999a, 316–317, 319); Wallace (1994, Ch. 6–7, 263). Zimmerman (2003, 315) is unsure if pure blockage is possible, but he does say that it “strikes” him as “promising.”

  3. Kane (2000, 162–163) and Levy (2011, 176–177) reject the Blockage Argument. Della Rocca (1998, 100) thinks that it is “difficult, if not impossible” to construct an example in which blockage is compatible with responsibility. Fischer (1999, 120, 2000, 145–146) is sympathetic to the Blockage Argument, but he is a bit more skeptical in Fischer (1994, 145, 1999, 119, 2002a, 295–297, 2002b, 1).

  4. See, e.g., Dennett (1984b); Foley (1979); Narveson (1977); Smart (1961).

  5. Unger (2002, 1–2, 5, 19–20) moves in a slightly different direction. He builds alternative possibilities into “full choice” (as opposed to responsibility) and argues that full choice is central to “the significance we commonly suppose our lives to have.” Similarly, Widerker (2009, 89) changes PAP to: “An agent S is morally blameworthy for performing a given act V only if S had a morally significant alternative to performing that act.” Blumenfeld (1971, 341–342) argues that Frankfurt’s argument against PAP fails if we modify PAP to PAP’: “A man is not morally responsible for what he has done if he did it because he could not have done otherwise.” Similarly, Funkhouser (2009) argues that Frankfurt is attacking a straw man because the principle that “the typical advocate of PAP really has in mind” is PAP+: “If a person could not have avoided performing a certain action or making a certain choice (due to factor x), then the agent is not morally responsible for that action or choice because that person lacked alternative possibilities (due to factor x).”

  6. See Caruso (2012, 72–73).

  7. For similar explanations of PAP’s intuitive appeal, see Frankfurt (1969, 144), McKenna and Widerker (2003, 2–3). Copp (2003, 282–283) and Wallace (1994, 152–153, 187, Ch. 7) offer rather different motivations for PAP.

  8. See Kane (1996, 192). Arnold (2001, 54–55, 61–62) argues that coercion does not always negate responsibility. According to her “independent view”, as opposed to the “contingent view”, coercion does not negate my responsibility when I give into a threat or offer that I can be reasonably expected to have resisted.

  9. See Double (1997, 362); Haji (1996, 714); Stump (1988, 230).

  10. See Glatz (2008, 264). Analogously, criminal responsibility requires an absence of coercion and compulsion. This is why most jurisdictions explicitly provide for the defenses of duress and automatism. See Blum et al. (2013) and Reiser (2013).

  11. See Fischer (1999, 99, 101); Klein (1990, 12, 13); Stump (1990, 261–262, 1999a, 322).

  12. Zimmerman (2003, 305–316) refers to transitivity arguments for PAP as “the Strategy” and offers four different ways in which the Strategy can be “employed.”

  13. See Dennett (1984a, 132); Fischer (1982, 182–189, 1994, 131–134, 147–149, 157–158, 1999, 109–110, 2002a, 282–283, 306, 2002b, 3–4, 2008b, 170–172); Fischer and Ravizza (1998, 29–41); Haji (1998, 38, 61); Smilansky (2012, 215)

  14. The “Manipulation Argument” suggests that if I am manipulated by an external agent to perform a given action, I am not morally responsible for this action even if I am unaware of the manipulation and therefore fully believe that I performed the action entirely on my own. For different versions of, and responses to, the Manipulation Argument, see Campbell (2011, 66–69); Fischer (2004); Fischer & Ravizza (1998, 196–201, 230–239); Kane (1996, 64–71); Levy (2011, 85–89, 105–106), McKenna (2008b); Mele (1995, 187–191, 2006, 138–144, 164–195, 2008); Pereboom (2001, 110–122).

  15. See Frankfurt (1969, 1971, 78–79, 1975, 117, 121–123).

  16. See Fischer (2007, 467, 2008a, 215); McKenna (2005, 175–176, 178–179, 2008a, 786–787); Widerker (2009, 91). For arguments against this proposition (that I am morally responsible for W-ing in a Frankfurt-style situation), see Ginet (1996, 410–413); Levy (2008, 2011, 165–179); Widerker (2000, 2003). For a reply to Levy, see Haji and McKenna (2011). For a reply to Widerker, see McKenna (2008a, 780–787). Campbell (2006) argues that “source incompatibilists” may not assume that I am morally responsible for W-ing in a Frankfurt-style situation given that they subscribe to the “transfer principle,” which would negate my responsibility for W-ing. Waller (2011, 222–223) argues that Frankfurt is begging the question in favor of moral responsibility. Zimmerman (2003, 312) suggests that my W-ing is not “up to [me]” but is still “truly [my] own.” Similarly, Fischer (1982, 187) states, “An act can be yours without its being up to you; you can be in charge without being in control.”

  17. See Fischer (1982, 181–182, 183–187); Frankfurt (2003, 339–340); Funkhouser (2009, 349–350, 354–355); Mele and Robb (1998, 107–108, 2003, 129–130) (but see Mele (1998, 151)); Perry (2008, 163–165); Stump (1999a, 311, 322–323); Widerker (2009, 88). Some philosophers argue that the counterfactual intervener does not negate my ability to do otherwise: Campbell (1997, 319–330); Cohen and Handfield (2007, 364–367); Fara (2008, 853–856); Fischer (1994, 157–158, 2007, 57–61); Nelkin (2011, 66–67); Pereboom (2001, 27–28); Vihvelin (2000a, 14–21, 2000b, 141–147, 2004, 2008). For a critical response to Cohen and Handfield, Fara, and Vihvelin, see Clarke (2009).

  18. See supra note 13 and accompanying text.

  19. Proponents of different versions of the Flicker Strategy include: Davison (1999, 245); Della Rocca (1998, 101–102); Ginet (1996, 406–409); Hunt (2000, 208–209); Kane (1996, esp. 142–143, 2003, 97–98); McKenna (1997, 72–79, 2003, 203–213); Naylor (1984); Otsuka (1998, 692–693); Rowe (1989, 321, 1991, 276–278); Speak (2002); Stump (2003, 151); Van Inwagen (1978, 157–171, 1983, 171–180); Vihvelin (2000a); Widerker (1995a, 256–258, 1995b, 2000, 2002, 326–327, 2003); Widerker and Katzoff (1996); Wyma (1997, 62–68). O’Connor (2000, 81–84) arguably belongs in this list. Hetherington (2003, 231–233) argues that while Frankfurt’s argument correctly shows that moral responsibility is compatible with my not being able to do otherwise, it fails to show that moral responsibility is compatible with the complete elimination of alternative possibilities. Frankfurt (2003) surprisingly adopts the same position. See also Timpe (2003, 141). Ekstrom (1998, 283–284) finds the Flicker Strategy “unappealing” at least for the purposes of “protecting” incompatibilism from Frankfurt’s argument. She argues that instead of trying to find a flicker of freedom on which to predicate responsibility, proponents of PAP should question whether or not this responsibility even exists in a Frankfurt-style situation in the first place.

  20. Fischer (1994, 136–139) offers four different versions of the Flicker Strategy. I am collapsing these four versions into one here because they differ in respects that are not important for our purposes.

  21. For variations of this argument, see Blum (2000); Clarke (2000, 166); Fischer (1994, 137–139, 144–145, 1999, 122); Fischer and Ravizza (1998, 99–101); Goetz (2002, 132); Hetherington (2003, 231–232); Larvor (2010, 507–508); McKenna (1997, 73–74); Mele (2006, 92–93); Speak (2005, 264, 266); Widerker (1995a, 256–258); Wyma (1997, 61); Yaffe (1999, 220–222); Zagzebski (2000, 241). Widerker (2003, 53) formulates PAP itself in terms of the power to avoid. Stump (2003, 151–152) suggests that weaker alternative possibilities may constitute alternative modes of action rather than alternative actions themselves. Haji (2003, 289–291) thinks that having alternative possibilities is equivalent to the power to refrain.

  22. On this view, actionhood entails agency, agency entails voluntariness, and therefore all actions are essentially voluntary. Arnold (2001, 55) suggests that any motion of mine that is physically compelled is not an action. Funkhouser (2009, 358–359) rejects the notion that a choice can be coerced. Philosophers who believe that there can be involuntary actions include: Brand (1984, 5–6); D’Arcy (1963, 7–8); Husak (1998, 79–80); Kane (1996, 149).

  23. See Larvor (2010, 507–508); McKenna (1997, 76–78).

  24. See, for example, Widerker and Katzoff (1996, 419).

  25. See Fischer (1982, 181–182, 1994, 132–133, 140–147, 207–208, 1995, 124, 1999, 110–111, 113, 120–123, 2000, 147, 2002a, 287–289, 300–303, 306, 2002b, 6–7, 2008a, 209).

  26. Campbell (2005), however, goes so far as to suggest that, in a Frankfurt-style situation, I could have done otherwise not merely in the weak sense of avoiding voluntarily W-ing but in the robust sense of performing an alternative action because the counterfactual intervener negates only my “all-in ability” to R, not my “general ability” to R. Similarly, Campbell (1997) argues that because the counterfactual intervener is causally irrelevant to my W-ing, we may consider possible worlds in which the counterfactual intervener is absent when assessing my ability to do otherwise.

  27. According to McKenna’s “limited blockage strategy”, which he regards as a “cousin” of the blockage strategy, Frankfurt-style situations need not eliminate all alternative possibilities. Rather, they must eliminate only all robust alternative possibilities. See McKenna (2003, 206–208). Pereboom (2000, 128–134, 2001, 18–33) takes a similar position. But McKenna and Pereboom differ on whether or not these leftover non-robust alternative possibilities help to explain responsibility in the actual sequence. While McKenna believes that they do, Pereboom (2000, 131–134, 2001, 2, 18–33, 37, 2003, 187–188, 193–197) proposes the possibility that alternative possibilities may sometimes be necessary for, but not explanatory of, responsibility. Still, Pereboom does not go so far as to say that alternative possibilities cannot explain responsibility at all. Rather, he says only (a) that they cannot play a significant role in the explanation and (b) that responsibility is not explained by alternative possibilities qua alternative possibilities but rather by alternative possibilities qua indicators of indeterminism or of “a causal history of a kind that is relevant per se to explaining an agent’s moral responsibility.”

  28. See Davidson (1973, 70–72); Frankfurt (1978, 46); Ginet (1990, 5, 6–7); Klein (1990, 96); Wallace (1994, 120–121, 140–141).

  29. Hunt (2005) offers another argument against PAP. Contrary to the Blockage Argument, Hunt reinserts a counterfactual intervener. But what the counterfactual intervener blocks is not any alternative possibility, weak or robust. Instead, what the counterfactual intervener blocks is a necessary condition of an alternative possibility – specifically, my considering acting otherwise. The rest of the thought-experiment then goes through as Frankfurt’s original thought-experiment did: the necessary condition (my considering acting otherwise) happens not to (start to) obtain, in which case the counterfactual intervener does not activate to block it. So even though I could not have acted otherwise (because I could not have satisfied a necessary condition of my choosing/doing otherwise – again, considering doing otherwise), I am still morally responsible for the choice that I actually make and the action that I actually perform because I made this choice and performed this action on my own (without being forced to).

  30. See also Hunt’s personal correspondence with Fischer in Fischer (1999, 119–120 n. 46). Hunt’s second example (2000, 218–219) involves backward time travel. Hunt’s third example (2000, 219–220, 222; see also 1996, 397–398, 399, 2003) involves an infallible predictor of my decision and action. See also Fischer (1999, 120); Wyma (1997, 66).

  31. See Kane (2000, 162–163).

  32. Fischer (2007) and Speak (2007) argue that this assumption is difficult to maintain if we also assume indeterminism.

  33. See Kane (1985, 51 n 25, 1996, 142–144, 191–192, 2000, 161, 2003, 91–92, 99–100), and Widerker (1995a, 250 ff., 1995b, 2000, 183 ff., 2002, 323–327); see also Blumenfeld (1971), Caruso (2012, 76–78).

  34. See Berofsky (2003, esp. 116–120); Ekstrom (2002, 316–317); Kane (2000, 162–163, 2003, 97–99); Pereboom (2000, 126–128, 2001, 16–18); Widerker (2002, 328).

  35. See Funkhouser (2009, 347, 353–354); Goetz (2005, 85).

  36. See Blumenfeld (1971, 341–344).

  37. See Kane (1985, 51 n.25, 1996, 142–143, 191–192, 2000, 161, 2003, 91–92, 99–100); Widerker (1995a, 248–253, 1995b, 2000, 182–186, 2002, 324–327); Zagzebski (2000, 235). Philosophers who reject the proposition that indeterminism entails alternative possibilities include Fischer (1982, 183–187, 1994, 216, 1995, 122–124); Haji (1998, 36–37), McKenna 2009, 9); McKenna and Widerker (2003, 9–10); Mele and Robb (1998, 2003); Pereboom (1995, 27, 2001, 17, 21), and Stump (1999b, 414, 416–419). Fischer later qualifies his position. In Fischer (2000, 144), he says: “I think that my earlier confidence that Frankfurt-type examples can exist in causally indeterministic worlds was perhaps the result of youthful optimism. But even though I still do not think that it is obvious and straightforward that there can be Frankfurt-type cases in causally indeterministic worlds, I am still strongly inclined to this view.” And in Fischer (2002b, 6), he says: “I find . . . indeterministic Frankfurt-type examples, intriguing and highly suggestive.”

  38. So I oppose Smilansky’s conclusion in (2012, 215) that “it can no longer be taken for granted that free will and moral responsibility require that the agent was able to do otherwise, namely, had alternative possibilities when deciding and acting. . . . [W]hat matters is that this common assumption of the debate, on all sides, for some two thousand years, has been overturned.”

  39. There may be some degree of pressure or force involved. But the mere availability of a weak alternative is sufficient to show that this pressure or force cannot be 100 %. I must still have at least some, and very possibly much, freedom to avoid my actual action.

  40. Smilansky (2000, 94–141, 2003, 2005, 250–256, 2012) argues that we should not choose between compatibilism and incompatibilism (specifically, “hard determinism”) because both are largely correct.

  41. See Ginet (1990, 106–117); van Inwagen (1983, 2–8, 55–105). Fara (2008, 861–863) challenges this premise.

  42. See supra note 4 and accompanying text. Perhaps the strongest of the most recent defenses of compatibilism are Dennett (1984a, 2003) and Fischer (2006). Smilansky (2000, 13–93, 2003, 2005, 250–256, 2008, 2012) argues that compatibilism is true so far as it goes, but it only goes so far and must therefore be supplemented (as opposed to negated or replaced) by “hard determinism.”

  43. See Fischer (1983, 130–135); Lewis (1981).

References

  • Arnold, D. (2001). Coercion and moral responsibility. American Philosophical Quarterly, 38, 53–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berofsky, B. (2003). Classical Compatibilism: Not Dead Yet. In Widerker and McKenna (Ed)., Moral responsibility and alternative possibilities: essays on the importance of alternative possibilities. (pp. 107–126). Hants, England: Ashgate Publishing Limited.

  • Blum, A. (2000). The Kantian versus Frankfurt. Analysis, 60, 287–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blum, G. et al. (2013). (updated). Coercion, duress, or compulsion. American Jurisprudence (2nd edition) 21, sections 142 and 146.

  • Blumenfeld, D. (1971). The principle of alternative possibilities. Journal of Philosophy, 68, 339–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brand, M. (1984). Intending and acting. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J. K. (1997). A compatibilist theory of alternative possibilities. Philosophical Studies, 88, 319–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J. K. (2005). Compatibilist alternatives. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 35, 387–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J. K. (2006). Farewell to direct source incompatibilism. Acta Analytica, 21, 36–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J. K. (2011). Free will. Malden: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caruso, G. D. (2012). Free will and consciousness: A determinist account of the illusion of free will. Lanham: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, R. (2000). Libertarianism, action theory, and the loci of responsibility. Philosophical Studies, 98, 153–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, R. (2009). Dispositions, abilities to Act, and free will: the new dispositionalism. Mind, 118, 323–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, D., & Handfield, T. (2007). Finking Frankfurt. Philosophical Studies, 135, 363–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Copp, D. (2003). ‘Ought’ Implies ‘Can’, Blameworthiness, and the principle of alternate possibilities. In Widerker and McKenna (2003), 265–299.

  • D’Arcy, E. (1963). Human acts. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, D. (1973). Freedom to Act. In Honderich (Ed)., Essays on freedom of action. Reprinted in Davidson (1980), 63–81 (pp. 137–156). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

  • Davison, S. A. (1999). Moral luck and the flicker of freedom. American Philosophical Quarterly, 36, 241–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Della Rocca, M. (1998). Frankfurt, Fischer and Flickers. Noûs, 32, 99–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennett, D. C. (1984a). Elbow room: The varieties of free will worth wanting. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennett, D. C. (1984b). I could not have done otherwise – So what? Journal of Philosophy, 9, 553–565.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennett, D. C. (2003). Freedom evolves. New York: Viking.

    Google Scholar 

  • Double, R. (1997). Misdirection in the free will problem. American Philosophical Quarterly, 34, 357–366.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekstrom, L. W. (1998). Protecting incompatibilist freedom. American Philosophical Quarterly, 35, 281–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekstrom, L. (2002). Libertarianism and Frankfurt-Style Cases. In Kane (Ed)., The Oxford handbook of free will. (pp. 309–322). New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Fara, M. (2008). Masked abilities and compatibilism. Mind, 117, 843–865.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, J. M. (1982). Responsibility and control. Journal of Philosophy, 89, 24–40. Reprinted in Fischer (1986), 174–190.

  • Fischer, J. M. (1983). Incompatibilism. Philosophical Studies, 43, 127–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, J. M. (1994). The metaphysics of free will: an essay on control. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, J. M. (1995). Libertarianism and avoidability: a reply to widerker. Faith and Philosophy, 12, 119–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, J. M. (1999). Recent work on moral responsibility. Ethics, 110, 93–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, J. M. (2000). The significance of free will by Robert Kane. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 60, 141–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, J.M. 2002a. Frankfurt-Type Examples and Semi-Compatibilism. In Kane (Ed)., The Oxford handbook of free will. (pp. 281–308). New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Fischer, J M. 2002b. Frankfurt-style compatibilism. In Buss and Overton (Eds)., Contours of agency: Essays on themes from Harry Frankfurt. (pp. 1–26). Cambridge: The MIT Press.

  • Fischer, J. M. (2004). Responsibility and manipulation. Ethics, 8, 145–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, J. M. (2006). My Way: essays on moral responsibility. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, J. M. (2007). The importance of Frankfurt-style argument. Philosophical Quarterly, 57, 464–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, J. M. (2008a). Responsibility and the kinds of freedom. Journal of Ethics, 12, 203–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, J. M. (2008b). My way and Life’s highway: replies to Steward, Smilansky, and Perry. Journal of Ethics, 12, 167–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, J. M., & Ravizza, M. (1998). Responsibility and control: A theory of moral responsibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Foley, R. (1979). Compatibilism and control over the past. Analysis, 39, 70–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frankfurt, H. G. (1969). Alternate possibilities and moral responsibility. Journal of Philosophy, 66, 828–839. Reprinted in Fischer (1986), 143–152.

  • Frankfurt, H. G. (1971). Freedom of the will and the concept of a person. Journal of Philosophy, 68, 5–20. Reprinted in Fischer (1986), 65–80.

  • Frankfurt, H.G. (1975). Three concepts of free action: II. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, supp. vol. IL, 113–125. Reprinted in Fischer (1986), 113–123.

  • Frankfurt, H. G. (1978). The problem of action. American Philosophical Quarterly, 15, 157–162. Reprinted in Mele (1997), 42–52.

  • Frankfurt H.G. (2003). Some thoughts concerning PAP. In Widerker and McKenna (2003), 339–345.

  • Funkhouser, E. (2009). Frankfurt cases and overdetermination. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 39, 341–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ginet, C. (1990). On action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ginet, C. (1996). In defense of the principle of alternative possibilities: why I do not find Frankfurt’s argument convincing. Philosophical Perspectives, 10, 403–417.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glatz, R. M. (2008). The (near) necessity of alternate possibilities for moral responsibility. Philosophical Studies, 139, 257–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goetz, S. (2002). Alternative Frankfurt-style counterexamples to the principle of alternative possibilities. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 83, 131–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goetz, S. (2005). Frankfurt-style counterexamples and begging the question. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 29, 83–105.

  • Haji, I. (1996). Moral responsibility and the problem of induced pro-attitudes. Dialogue, 35, 703–720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haji, I. (1998). Moral appraisability: puzzles, proposals, and perplexities. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haji, I. (2003). Flickers of freedom, obligation, and responsibility. American Philosophical Quarterly, 40, 287–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haji, I. & McKenna, M. (2004). Dialectical delicacies in the debate about freedom and alternative possibilities. Journal of Philosophy, 101, 299–314.

  • Haji, I., & McKenna, M. (2011). Disenabling Levy’s Frankfurt-style enabling cases. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 92, 400–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hetherington, S. (2003). Alternate possibilities and avoidable moral responsibility. American Philosophical Quarterly, 40, 229–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, D. P. (1996). Frankfurt counterexamples: some comments on the Widerker-Fischer debate. Faith and Philosophy, 13, 295–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, D. P. (2000). Moral responsibility and unavoidable action. Philosophical Studies, 97, 195–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, D P. 2003. “Freedom, Foreknowledge and Frankfurt.” In Widerker and McKenna (2003), 159–183.

  • Hunt, D.P. 2005. Moral Responsibility and Buffered Alternatives. In French and Wettstein (Eds)., Free will and moral responsibility. (pp. 126–45). Boston: Blackwell Publishing.

  • Hurley, S. L. (1999). Responsibility, reason, and irrelevant alternatives. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 28, 205–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Husak, D. (1998). Does criminal liability require an act? In Duff (Ed)., Philosophy and the criminal law. (pp. 60–100). New York: Cambridge University Press.

  • Kane, R. (1985). Free will and values. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kane, R. (1996). The significance of free will. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kane, R. (2000). Responses to Bernard Berofsky, John Martin Fischer and Galen Strawson. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 60, 157–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kane, R. (2003). Responsibility, Indeterminism and Frankfurt-style Cases: A Reply to Mele and Robb. In Widerker and McKenna (2003), 91–105.

  • Klein, M. (1990). Determinism, blameworthiness, and deprivation. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Larvor, B. (2010). Frankfurt counter-example defused. Analysis, 70, 506–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, N. (2007). Agents and mechanisms: Fischer’s way. Philosophical Quarterly, 57, 123–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, N. (2008). Counterfactual intervention and agents’ capacities. Journal of Philosophy, 105, 223–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, N. (2011). Hard luck: How luck undermines free will and moral responsibility. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D. (1981). Are We Free to Break the Laws? Theoria, 47, 113–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKenna, M. S. (1997). Alternative possibilities and the failure of the counterexample strategy. Journal of Social Philosophy, 28, 71–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKenna, M.S. (2003). Robustness, control, and the demand for morally significant alternatives: Frankfurt examples with Oodles and Oodles of alternatives. In Widerker and McKenna (2003), 201–217.

  • McKenna, M. S. (2005). Where Frankfurt and Strawson meet. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 29, 163–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKenna, M. S. (2008a). Frankfurt’s argument against alternative possibilities: looking beyond the examples. Noûs, 42, 770–793.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKenna, M. S. (2008b). A Hard-line reply to pereboom’s four-case manipulation argument. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 77, 142–159.

  • McKenna, M. S. (2009). Compatibilism & desert: critical comments on four views of free will. Philosophical Studies, 144, 3–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKenna, M S. and Widerker, D. (2003). Introduction. In Widerker and McKenna (2003), 1–16.

  • Mele, A. R. (1995). Autonomous agents: from self-control to autonomy. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mele, A. R. (1998). Flickers of freedom. Journal of Social Philosophy, 29, 144–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mele, A. R. (2006). Free will and luck. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mele, A. R. (2008). Manipulation, compatibilism, and moral responsibility. Journal of Ethics, 12, 263–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mele, A. R., & Robb, D. (1998). Rescuing Frankfurt-style cases. The Philosophical Review, 107, 97–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mele, A.R. and Robb D. (2003). Bbs, Magnets and Seesaws: The Metaphysics of Frankfurt-style Cases.” In Widerker and McKenna (2003), 127–138.

  • Narveson, J. (1977). Compatibilism defended. Philosophical Studies, 32, 83–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naylor, M. B. (1984). Frankfurt on the principle of alternative possibilities. Philosophical Studies, 46, 249–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelkin, D. K. (2011). Making sense of freedom and responsibility. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor, T. (2000). Persons and causes: the metaphysics of free will. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Otsuka, M. (1998). Incompatibilism and the avoidability of blame. Ethics, 108, 685–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pereboom, D. (1995). Determinism al Dente. Noûs, 29, 21–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pereboom, D. (2000). Alternative possibilities and causal histories. Philosophical Perspectives, 14, 119–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pereboom, D. (2001). Living without free will. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pereboom, D. 2003. “Source Incompatibilism and Alternative Possibilities.” In Widerker and McKenna (2003), 185–199.

  • Perry, J. (2008). Can’t we all just be compatibilists? a critical study of John Martin Fischer’s my way. Journal of Ethics, 12, 157–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiser, L.I. (2013). (updated). Coercion, compulsion, or duress as defense to criminal prosecution. American Law Reports 2d 40, section 908.

  • Rowe, W. (1989). Causing and being responsible for what is inevitable. American Philosophical Quarterly, 26, 153–159. Reprinted in Fischer and Ravizza (1993), 310–321.

  • Rowe, W. (1991). Thomas Reid on freedom and morality. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smart, J. J. C. (1961). Free-will, praise and blame. Mind, 70, 291–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smilansky, S. (2000). Free will and illusion. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smilansky, S. (2003). Compatibilism: the argument from shallowness. Philosophical Studies, 115, 257–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smilansky, S. (2005). Free will and respect for persons. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 29, 248–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smilansky, S. (2008). Fischer’s way: the next level. Journal of Ethics, 12, 147–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smilansky, S. (2012). Free will and moral responsibility: the trap, the appreciation of agency, and the bubble. The Journal of Ethics, 16, 211–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Speak, D. (2002). Fanning the Flickers of freedom. American Philosophical Quarterly, 39, 91–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Speak, D. (2005). PAPistry: Another Defense. In French and Wettstein (2005), 262–268.

  • Speak, D. (2007). The impertinence of Frankfurt-style argument. Philosophical Quarterly, 57, 76–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stump, E. (1988). Sanctification, hardening of the heart, and Frankfurt’s concept of free -will. Journal of Philosophy, 85, 395–420. Reprinted in Fischer and Ravizza (1993), 211–234.

  • Stump, E. (1990). Intellect, will, and alternative possibilities. In Beaty (Ed)., Christian theism and the problems of philosophy. Reprinted in Fischer and Ravizza (1993) (pp. 237–262). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.

  • Stump, E. (1996). Libertarian freedom and the principle of alternative possibilities. In Jordan and Howard-Snyder (Eds)., Faith, freedom, and rationality: philosophy of religion today. (pp. 73–88). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

  • Stump, E. (1999a). Alternative possibilities and moral responsibility: the flicker of freedom. Journal of Ethics, 3, 299–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stump, E. (1999b). Dust, determinism, and Frankfurt: a reply to Goetz. Faith and Philosophy, 16, 413–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stump, E. (2003). Moral Responsibility without Alternative Possibilities. In Widerker and McKenna (2003), 139–158.

  • Timpe, K. (2003). Review of moral responsibility and alternative possibilities: essays on the importance of alternative possibilities (Michael McKenna and David Widerker, eds.). Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 83, 138–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Unger, P. (2002). Free will and scientiphicalism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 65, 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Inwagen, P. (1978). Ability and Responsibility. Philosophical Review, 87, 201–224. Reprinted in Fischer (1986), 153–173.

  • Van Inwagen, P. (1983). An essay on free will. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vihvelin, K. (2000a). Freedom, foreknowledge, and the principle of alternate possibilities. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 30, 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vihvelin, K. (2000b). Libertarian compatibilism. Philosophical Perspectives, 14, 139–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vihvelin, K. (2004). Free will demystified: a dispositional account. Philosophical Topics, 32, 427–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vihvelin, K. (2008). Foreknowledge, Frankfurt, and ability to do otherwise: a reply to Fischer. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 38, 343–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, R. J. (1994). Responsibility and the moral sentiments. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waller, B. (2011). Against moral responsibility. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Widerker, D. (1995a). Libertarianism and Frankfurt’s attack on the principle of alternative possibilities. Philosophical Review, 104, 247–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Widerker, D. (1995b). Libertarian freedom and the avoidability of decisions. Faith and Philosophy, 12, 113–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Widerker, D. (2000). Frankfurt’s attack on the principle of alternative possibilities: a further look. Philosophical Perspectives, 14, 181–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Widerker, D. (2002). Responsibility and Frankfurt-Type Examples. In Kane (Ed)., The Oxford handbook of free will. (pp. 323–334). New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Widerker, D. (2003). Blameworthiness and Frankfurt’s argument against the principle of alternative possibilities. In Widerker and McKenna (2003), 53–73.

  • Widerker, D. (2009). A defense of Frankfurt-friendly libertarianism. Philosophical Explorations, 12, 87–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Widerker, D., & Katzoff, C. (1996). Avoidability and libertarianism: a response to Fischer. Faith and Philosophy, 13, 415–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wyma, K. D. (1997). Moral responsibility and leeway for action. American Philosophical Quarterly, 34, 57–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yaffe, G. (1999). ‘Ought’ implies ‘can’ and the principle of alternate possibilities. Analysis, 59, 218–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zagzebski, L. (2000). Does libertarian freedom require alternate possibilities? Philosophical Perspectives, 14, 231–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, M. (2003). The Moral Significance of Alternate Possibilities. In Widerker and McKenna (2003), 301–325.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Holt B. Harrison Associate Professor of Law, Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University, 110 LSU Student Union Building, Baton Rouge, LA, 70803-0106, USA

    Ken Levy

Authors
  1. Ken Levy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ken Levy.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Levy, K. Blocking Blockage. Philosophia 44, 565–582 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-016-9707-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-016-9707-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation