Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility by Harry Frankfurt Ess

In jump-start Possibilities and Moral Responsibility, Harry capital of Kentucky attempts to falsify the Principle of switch over Possibilities. The Principle of Alternate Possibilities is the principle where a person is clean-livingly trusty for what he has done only if he could have done otherwise. A person would be morally responsible for their own actions if done by themselves. If someone else had forced that person to do the action, then the person doing the action is not morally responsible. capital of Kentucky does not believe this to be true and that the person doing the action is morally responsible. capital of Kentuckys objections towards the Principle of Alternate Possibilities shows the refutation of natural intuition and places moral certificate of indebtedness upon those who deserve it.Frankfurts Black and Jones example is an tolerate explanation for how the Principle of Alternative Possibilities works. Black put a petrol on Jones head and tells him to do action A. According to the Principle of Alternate Possibilities, this impart play out in three ways. If Jones was not a reasonable man and was gung-ho, not caring about whatever consequences or cost, then he is not to be morally responsible for that action. If Jones was hangdog of what Black will do with the gun and decides to change his decision from doing any other action to action A, then he is only morally responsible for the decision that he made earlier and not for the action. If Jones isnt affected by Blacks actions, but he considers those actions in planning to make his next move yet still follows his sea captain decision, then he is morally responsible for all actions and decisions.(Frankfurt Watson, 169-170) What Frankfurt is considering to be a counter-example to the Principle of Alternate Possibil... ...ow moral responsibility. One needs to will other alternate possibilities, knowing that there is no moral responsibility for them, to show that the original will has moral r esponsibility. It is like placing a white-hot stone on a pile of black stones to emphasize the detail that that one stone is a white stone. This shows the need for alternate possibilities and strengthens Frankfurts argument.In conclusion, Frankfurts argument against the Principle of Alternate Possibilities showed that people under coercion had moral responsibility for their own actions. Copp move the value of moral responsibility to the ability of being able to do ones will and Pereboom supports Frankfurts argument by placing the robustness condition on alternate possibilities. This shows that there is still a need to put more thought and brainstorming into who has the moral responsibility.