Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility by Harry Frankfurt
Nevertheless, with all inquiries, there will be objections to findings. There are objections to how Frankfurt is approaching the Principle of Alternate Possibilities. David Copp wrote an essay, “Defending the Principle of Alternate Possibilities: Blameworthiness and Moral Responsibility,” where he states that Frankfurt cases challenge our intuition and common sense. He believes that the Principle of Alternate Possibilities is based on this one-sentence foundation: “’ought’ implies ‘can’”. What that means is that having the ability to do something grants moral responsibility. So in the third case, moral responsibility lies on the fact of his ability to do his own will. If Jones’ original action was going to be action A, then Black was Jones’ obstacle in expressing his true will. It does not matter if he wanted to do action A, Black took away Jones’ will and replaced it with his command. Even though Jones’ will and Black’s command are the same, Jones’ inability to express his own individual will takes away the moral responsibility of his action.
While many left objections for Frankfurt, there were some that attempt