Frankfurt cases: the fine-grained response revisited
- 292 Downloads
Frankfurt cases are supposed to provide us with counterexamples to the principle of alternative possibilities. Among the most well known responses to these cases is what John Fischer has dubbed the flicker of freedom strategy. Here we revisit a version of this strategy, which we refer to as the fine-grained response. Although a number of philosophers, including some who are otherwise unsympathetic to Frankfurt’s argument, have dismissed the fine grained response, we believe there is a good deal to be said on its behalf. We argue, in particular, that reflection on certain cases involving omissions undermines the main objections to the response and also provides the groundwork for an argument in support of it.
KeywordsMoral responsibility Alternative possibilities Frankfurt cases Flicker of freedom Omissions
Thanks to John Martin Fischer and an anonymous referee for very helpful comments.
- Fischer, J. M. (1994). The metaphysics of free will: An essay on control. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Fischer, J. M. & Ravizza, M. (1998). Responsibility and control: A theory of moral responsibility. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Kane, R. (1996). The significance of free will. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Mele, A., & Robb, D. (2003). Bbs, magnets and seesaws: The metaphysics of Frankfurt-style cases. In D. Widerker & M. McKenna (Eds.), Moral responsibility and alternative possibilities: Essays on the importance of alternative possibilities (pp. 107–126). Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
- O’Connor, T. (2000). Persons and causes: The metaphysics of free will. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Speak, D. (2002). Fanning the flickers of freedom. American Philosophical Quarterly, 39, 91–105.Google Scholar
- van Inwagen, P. (1983). An essay on free will. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Zagzebski, L. (2000). Does libertarian freedom require alternative possibilities? Philosophical Perspectives, 14, 231–248.Google Scholar