Moral Responsibility
In this paper, I will first discuss why the principle of alternate possibilities (PAP) is true by sharing David Copp’s example of PAP and moral responsibility. Then, the argument will be rejected by Frankfurt’s example of a person being neither indifferent nor stampeded by a threat so the person is still morally responsible. Finally, I will show why Frankfurt does not defeat PAP because there are actions that are bigger than the threat being made. To start with, I will explain why the principle of alternate possibilities is true. The principle of alternate possibilities states that “one is morally responsible for an action only if one has alternate possibilities” (Frankfurt, 1969). David Copp writes about moral responsibility. …show more content…
In the previous Frankfurt case, the teacher should think there are still other options. That particular case does not show that there are other possibilities. While a reasonable person would hold they had no other options, the teacher should still think that she does because there is the option that she holds her beliefs so deeply, the threat is not big enough for the action. So, there are gun to the head cases where a reasonable person will still think there are other options. For instance, a nun deeply believes she is never to marry a mortal man. She has vowed to honor it for her entire life. A person holds a gun to her head and says that she must marry this man in front of her otherwise she will be killed. Many would say that she is not morally responsible if she breaks her vows to save her life. However, this nun believes in her vows so much that she chooses to ignore the threat and not marry the man. She was not indifferent to the threat, but rather she ignored the threat knowing the consequences. It is true that there are cases where the threat is bigger than the action so there are no other reasonable options. However, the nun case demonstrates that there are cases where the action is so powerful, that the threat is no longer a reasonable threat. Frankfurt’s case should have had the teacher still realize there are other options, even to a reasonable person, because the action could have been more powerful
In this paper, I will first discuss why the principle of alternate possibilities (PAP) is true by sharing David Copp’s example of PAP and moral responsibility. Then, the argument will be rejected by Frankfurt’s example of a person being neither indifferent nor stampeded by a threat so the person is still morally responsible. Finally, I will show why Frankfurt does not defeat PAP because there are actions that are bigger than the threat being made. To start with, I will explain why the principle of alternate possibilities is true. The principle of alternate possibilities states that “one is morally responsible for an action only if one has alternate possibilities” (Frankfurt, 1969). David Copp writes about moral responsibility. …show more content…
In the previous Frankfurt case, the teacher should think there are still other options. That particular case does not show that there are other possibilities. While a reasonable person would hold they had no other options, the teacher should still think that she does because there is the option that she holds her beliefs so deeply, the threat is not big enough for the action. So, there are gun to the head cases where a reasonable person will still think there are other options. For instance, a nun deeply believes she is never to marry a mortal man. She has vowed to honor it for her entire life. A person holds a gun to her head and says that she must marry this man in front of her otherwise she will be killed. Many would say that she is not morally responsible if she breaks her vows to save her life. However, this nun believes in her vows so much that she chooses to ignore the threat and not marry the man. She was not indifferent to the threat, but rather she ignored the threat knowing the consequences. It is true that there are cases where the threat is bigger than the action so there are no other reasonable options. However, the nun case demonstrates that there are cases where the action is so powerful, that the threat is no longer a reasonable threat. Frankfurt’s case should have had the teacher still realize there are other options, even to a reasonable person, because the action could have been more powerful