Katherin A. Rogers
- Published in print:
- 2015
- Published Online:
- October 2015
- ISBN:
- 9780198743972
- eISBN:
- 9780191803963
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198743972.003.0007
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Metaphysics/Epistemology, Moral Philosophy
Against the principle of alternative possibilities (PAP) Frankfurt proposes counterexamples (FSCs): Manipulator (M) wants agent (S) to choose B. If M foresees that S chooses A, M makes him choose B. ...
More
Against the principle of alternative possibilities (PAP) Frankfurt proposes counterexamples (FSCs): Manipulator (M) wants agent (S) to choose B. If M foresees that S chooses A, M makes him choose B. If M foresees that S chooses B on his own, M does nothing. S lacks options, but isn’t he free? The “dilemma defense” raises problems concerning foresight, but “blockage” (Mele and Robb) and “buffered” (Hunt) FSCs attempt to circumvent this defense. This chapter introduces a timeline and four theses, including the grounding principle. Anselmian FSCs are impossible since no one foresees what an agent will choose absent the agent’s choice. But an agent who chooses A (logically) cannot be made to choose B instead. Blockage cases fail, too, and buffered cases deny the “torn condition.” One possibility in which a divine manipulator might control the outcome of an agent’s a se choice—Rewind—is considered, but rejected.Less
Against the principle of alternative possibilities (PAP) Frankfurt proposes counterexamples (FSCs): Manipulator (M) wants agent (S) to choose B. If M foresees that S chooses A, M makes him choose B. If M foresees that S chooses B on his own, M does nothing. S lacks options, but isn’t he free? The “dilemma defense” raises problems concerning foresight, but “blockage” (Mele and Robb) and “buffered” (Hunt) FSCs attempt to circumvent this defense. This chapter introduces a timeline and four theses, including the grounding principle. Anselmian FSCs are impossible since no one foresees what an agent will choose absent the agent’s choice. But an agent who chooses A (logically) cannot be made to choose B instead. Blockage cases fail, too, and buffered cases deny the “torn condition.” One possibility in which a divine manipulator might control the outcome of an agent’s a se choice—Rewind—is considered, but rejected.
