Moral Responsibility
Moral responsibility refers to those actions that can be praise or blame worthy. For example if I shoplift, I am morally responsible for that action and should be blamed for it.
The Principal of Alternative Possibilities (PAP)
The principal of alternative possibilities is basically the idea that, given we have the ability to do otherwise, that is I have other options available to me like being able to not shoplifting or paying for items instead, I can be healed morally able. Whereas I would not be blame worthy if I were being forced, coerced or even hypnotised to shoplift since in the latter scenario I have no choice but too shoplift. So in other words PAP gives certain actions we do the status of moral responsibility.
Frankfurt-Style Cases (FSC)
Frankfurt-Style Cases aim to show that PAP does not show actions can be considered morally praise or blame worthy by using a thought experiment.
Suppose Black wants Jones to commit a robbery with him, but he is worried that Jones won’t go through with his plans and might back out. To ensure that Jones does go through with the crime, Black hypnotises Jones days before the robbery to force him into committing the crime if he decides to back out. However Jones does go through with the robbery without the need of Black’s hypnosis, Jones commits the crime from his own volition.
Is Jones morally responsible for committing the crime?
It seems that if we say yes Jones is responsible, we have found a counter example for PAP and that PAP on its own is not is not enough to show moral responsibility since Jones did not have the ability to do otherwise but still chose to go through with the robbery.
If we say no, Jones is not responsible then are any of our actions made from our own volitions praise or blame worthy?
![The Ability To Do Otherwise-[B]Moral Responsibility
Moral responsibility refers to those actions that can be praise or blame](https://image.staticox.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fpm1.aminoapps.mejordescarga.net%2F9245%2F495c9c69183efbadde51ba38397341390090a6cer1-750-675v2_hq.jpg)
Comments (11)
I don't get this. In the real world it's down to a good lawyer. Why would he willingly say that he committed it on his own volition? They're both getting in trouble either way. In a literal sense, he is guilty because he has the intent, peer pressure and things like such do not excuse a crime, but it could help with damage control. Assuming he does say "yeah, I did it and there's no hypnosis here" yes obviously he's guilty
Would also like to note, PAP is used in cases where there is a literal threat such as threat of death or hostage, blackmail, things like that. There needs to be reasonable assumption that if the person did not go through with the crime, there would be an immediate sense of danger (in hypnosis yes, maybe he made him assume he would be dead if he didn't go through with it) but that was multiple days before where he was fine despite doing no crimes
I think legally speaking you would be right, but I’m more focused on the moral sense, and whether we hold jones responsible in a moral sense rather than a legal sense because those two things can be different. In reality we won’t have access to any of jones thoughts so perhaps looking at it through a legal sense makes more sense and we don’t need to look at PAP in any other way then just practically.
I don't see the problem. You clearly state he willingly committed the crime. Yes, he was hypnotized, but the hypnosis never came into play. The fact that he couldn't back out if he tried is irrelevant because he never attempted to back out.
If he had attempted to back out, he would have been forced to do it anyway. In this case, he would have to prove he was hypnotized as the evidence would show he had done it willingly. Even if he could prove that he was hypnotized, I dont see how he could prove that he attempted to not go through with it. And even if he could prove it, in my opinion he is still not really innocent. Maybe he is not completely guilty of the robbery, but he still conspired to commit the robbery and assisted the other person, even if it was just in the form of persuasion or emotional . His agreeing to the robbery would be a form of encouraging the other person to commit the robbery. So, in my opinion, he would still be at least somewhat responsible both legally and morally.
Reply to: Blitz
If we break down how we form choice we may start with having a desire to do something being inclined to do something over something else, and deliberating/weighing your options using reason to determine what choices you will do, and finally making up your mind, then doing the choice or committing the act.
Everything before the making up your mind bit isn’t or can’t be seen as committing an act that can be considered morally praise or blame worthy, since we’re thinking about acting and not actually acting. it’s the thought process that helps us decide how to act, so even if Jones goes through the process of deliberation he is not committing an act, he only commits an act when he makes up his mind, if he does make up his mind and says yes I am not going to commit this crime and then Blacks hypothesis kicks in preventing him from doing so, then I would agree that he is not morally responsible because he had the choice to do otherwise, even if that choice was not made to come into reality.
The problem is Blacks hypothesis only needs to be pushed back, it doesn’t have to affect Jones when he made up his mind, it can affect his deliberation process, so if he has an inclination to not go through with the crime, it’ll be blocked. But jones doesn’t even consider not committing the crime he just chooses to go through with it. Even if let’s say Jones does have inclinations to not commit the crime we can’t say that this is him choosing to actually not commit the crime, because like I said above inclination aren’t actions the same way committing a crime is an action, it’s just a thought.
Reply to: Man
You do understand that none of this even really matters right? Mind control is not a reality. We can only be persuaded to do, or not do things. You always have the ability to make a conscious choice. So in actuality, there is no issue with PAP.
Reply to: Blitz
This is a completely different argument from what we were talking about before but sure yeah this doesn’t really matter if we take the thought experiment literally, but that’s not the point of thought experiments, it’s just showing there can be counter example to PAP at least logically speaking so we can’t say PAP is flawless. Most thought experiment test the consistency of world views and don’t necessarily have to be spelled out as thought experiments it’s just there as a convenience. Plus there are other FSCs that don’t go into this bizarre realm of fiction, I’ll link some below. But even still if you want you can just say for practical purposes PAP works.
If you want to see other FSCs you can find some here along with some of the objections given to FSCs in section 4.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/alternative-possibilities/