Philosophical Studies

, Volume 166, Issue 1, pp 149–162 | Cite as

What time travelers cannot not do (but are responsible for anyway)



The Principle of Alternative Possibilities is the intuitive idea that someone is morally responsible for an action only if she could have done otherwise. Harry Frankfurt has famously presented putative counterexamples to this intuitive principle. In this paper, I formulate a simple version of the Principle of Alternative Possibilities that invokes a course-grained notion of actions. After warming up with a Frankfurt-Style Counterexample to this principle, I introduce a new kind of counterexample based on the possibility of time travel. At the end of the paper, I formulate a more sophisticated version of the Principle of Alternative Possibilities that invokes a certain fine grained notion of actions. I then explain how this new kind of counterexample can be augmented to show that even the more sophisticated principle is false.


Time travel Principle of Alternative Possibilities Frankfurt 



Thanks to Andrew Cullison, Ben Caplan, Hud Hudson, André Gallois, Kelly McCormick, Neal Tognazzini, and an anonymous referee for several helpful comments and suggestions. Thanks to the anonymous referee for suggesting the title for this paper. Earlier drafts of this paper were presented at University of Wisconsin—Milwaukee and at SUNY Fredonia (for the Young Philosophers lecture series). Thanks to both audiences.


  1. Alvarez, M. (2009). Actions, thought-experiments and the ‘principle of alternate possibilites’. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 87, 61–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arntzenius, F., & Maudlin, T. (2002). Time travel in modern physics. In C. Callender (Ed.), Time, reality and experience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bricker, P. (1991). Plenitude of possible structures. The Journal of Philosophy, 88, 607–619.Google Scholar
  4. Davies, P. (2001). How to build a time machine. New York: Viking Penguin.Google Scholar
  5. Fischer, J. M. (2003). Responsibility and agent causation. In D. Widerker & M. McKenna (Eds.), Moral responsibility and alternative possibilities. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  6. Fischer, J. M. (2006). “Introduction” in My Way. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Frankfurt, H. (1969). Alternate possibilities and moral responsibility. Journal of Philosophy, 66, 829–839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kiourti, I. (2008). Killing baby Suzy. Philosophical Studies, 139, 343–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lewis, D. (1976). The paradoxes of time travel. American Philosophical Quarterly 13, (pp. 145–152). Reprinted in Philosophical Papers vol. II. (pp. 67–80) Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Sider, T. (2002). Time travel, coincidences and counterfactuals. Philosophical Studies, 110, 115–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. van Inwagen, P. (1983). An essay on free will. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Vihvelin, K. (1996). What time travelers cannot do. Philosophical Studies, 81, 315–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Vranas, P. B. M. (2010). What time travellers may be able to do. Philosophical Studies, 150, 115–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of Wisconsin - MilwaukeeMilwaukeeUSA

Personalised recommendations