Lockie, Robert ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8340-5158 (2014) Three recent Frankfurt cases. Philosophia, 42 (4). pp. 1005-1032. ISSN 0048-3893

PDF Lockie last proofs 16 May paper 9530 in Philosophia.pdf - Published Version Restricted to Repository staff only Download (549kB) | Request a copy

Abstract

Three recent 'state of the art' Frankfurt cases are responded to: Widerker's Brain-Malfunction-W case and Pereboom's Tax Evasion cases (2 & 3). These cases are
intended by their authors to resurrect the neo-Frankfurt project of overturning the Principle of Alternative Possibilities (PAP) in the teeth of the widespread acceptance of some combination of the WKG (Widerker-Kane-Ginet) dilemma, the Flicker of Freedom strategy and the revised PAP response ('Principle of Alternative Blame',
'Principle of Alternative Expectations'). The three neo-Frankfurt cases of Pereboom and Widerker shown to be insufficient for their intended purpose. Of central importance to any account of responsibility is that this applies at the level of the Right and not the Good. Arguments of Carlos Moya are expanded and augmented by considerations from Chisholm, Lucas, Dummett and Lockie (2003) to show that a number of severe problems remain for anyone attempting to resurrect the Frankfurt project.

Item Type:	Article
Identifier:	10.1007/s11406-014-9530-1
Subjects:	Philosophy
Depositing User:	Bob Lockie
Date Deposited:	03 Mar 2016 15:03
Last Modified:	04 Nov 2024 12:19
URI:	https://repository.uwl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1762

Actions (login required)

View Item