Philosophical Studies

, Volume 158, Issue 1, pp 1–15 | Cite as

Action, responsibility and the ability to do otherwise

Article

Abstract

Here it is argued that in order for something someone “does” to count as a genuine action, the person needn’t have been able to refrain from doing it. If this is right, then two recent defenses of the principle of alternative possibilities, a version of which says that a person is morally responsible for what he has done only if he could have refrained from doing it, are unsuccessful.

Keywords

Action Free will Moral responsibility Alternative possibilities Frankfurt-style cases 

References

  1. Alvarez, M. (2009). Actions, thought-experiments and the ‘principle of alternate possibilities’. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 87, 61–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Capes, J. A. (2010). The W-defense. Philosophical Studies, 150, 61–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Clarke, R. (2009). Dispositions, abilities to act, and free will: The new dispositionalism. Mind, 118, 323–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Copp, D. (1997). Defending the principle of alternative possibilities: Blameworthiness and moral responsibility. Nous, 31, 441–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Copp, D. (2003). ‘Ought’ implies ‘can’, blameworthiness, and the principle of alternate possibilities. In D. Widerker & M. McKenna (Eds.), Moral responsibility and alternative possibilities: Essays on the importance of alternative possibilities (pp. 265–300). Aldershot: Ashgate Press.Google Scholar
  6. Dennett, D. (1984). Elbow room: The varieties of free will worth wanting. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Fischer, J. M. (1982). Responsibility and control. The Journal of Philosophy, 79, 24–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fischer, J. M. (2003). Responsibility and agent-causation. In D. Widerker & M. McKenna (Eds.), Moral responsibility and alternative possibilities: Essays on the importance of alternative possibilities (pp. 235–250). Aldershot: Ashgate Press.Google Scholar
  9. Fischer, J. M. (2008). My way and life’s highway: Replies to Steward, Smilansky and Perry. The Journal of Ethics, 12, 167–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fischer, J. M., & Ravizza, M. (1998). Responsibility and control. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Frankfurt, H. (1969). Alternate possibilities and moral responsibility. Journal of Philosophy, 66, 829–839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Frankfurt, H. (1978). The problem of action. American Philosophical Quarterly, 15, 157–162.Google Scholar
  13. Frankfurt, H. (1999). Necessity, volition, and love. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Ginet, C. (1990). On action. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Glover, J. (1970). Responsibility. New York: Humanities Press Inc.Google Scholar
  16. Larvor, B. (2010). Frankfurt counter-example defused. Analysis, 70, 506–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lewis, D. (2000). Causation as influence. The Journal of Philosophy, 97, 182–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Speak, D. (2005). PAPistry: Another defense. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 29, 262–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Steward, H. (2008). Moral responsibility and the irrelevance of physics: Fischer’s semi-compatibilism vs. anti-fundamentalism. Journal of Ethics, 12, 129–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Steward, H. (2009). Fairness, agency and the flicker of freedom. Noûs, 43, 64–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. van Inwagen, P. (1989). When is the will free? Philosophical Perspectives, 3, 399–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Widerker, D. (1991). Frankfurt on ‘Ought implies can’ and alternative possibilities. Analysis, 51, 222–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Widerker, D. (2000). Frankfurt’s attack on alternative possibilities: A further look. Philosophical Perspectives, 14, 181–201.Google Scholar
  24. Widerker, D., & McKenna, M. (Eds.). (2003). Moral responsibility and alternative possibilities: Essays on the importance of alternative possibilities. Aldershot: Ashgate Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyFlorida State UniversityTallahasseeUSA

Personalised recommendations