Moral Responsibility And The Flicker Of Freedom

In Moral Responsibility and the Flicker of Freedom, Justin A. Capes challenges that thought experiments such as the sort devised by Harry Frankfurt are counter examples to the principle that a person is morally responsible for what he did only if he could avoid doing it. He argues that, far from being counterexamples to the principle, Frankfurt cases, as they have come to be known, actually provide further confirmation of it, a conclusion that has important implications for our understanding of free will and moral responsibility.

This book was published in 2003. This book explores an important issue within the free will debate: the relation between free will and moral responsibility. In his seminal article "Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility", Harry Frankfurt launched a vigorous attack on the standard conception of that relation, questioning the claim that a person is morally responsible for what she has done only if she could have done otherwise. Since then, Frankfurt's thesis has been at the center of philosophical discussions on free will and moral responsibility. "Moral Responsibility and Alternative Possibilities", edited by David Widerker and Michael McKenna, draws together the most recent work on Frankfurt's thesis by leading theorists in the area of free will and responsibility. As the majority of the essays appear here for the first time, "Moral Responsibility and Alternative Possibilities" offers the newest developments in this important debate.

Thought experiments of a sort devised by Harry Frankfurt are widely believed to be counterexamples to the principle that a person is morally responsible for what he did only if he could have avoided doing it. In Moral Responsibility and the Flicker of Freedom, Justin A. Capes challenges that widespread belief. He argues that, far from being counterexamples to the principle, Frankfurt cases, as they have come to be known, actually provide further confirmation of it, a conclusion that has important implications for our understanding of free will and moral responsibility. Central to Capes's argument is a version of what's known as the flicker of freedom strategy. Capes contends that while an agent's freedom is significantly curtailed in Frankfurt cases, it isn't extinguished entirely, which is why there is typically something in such cases for which the featured agent is morally responsible (though it's never something the agent couldn't have avoided). This analysis of Frankfurt cases is supported by reflection on vignettes involving omissions (or inaction more generally). Drawing on a detailed analysis of such vignettes, Capes offers a compelling defense of a symmetrical view of moral responsibility, according to which having a fair opportunity to do otherwise is an essential determinant of moral responsibility for both actions and omissions.

Determinism is, roughly, the thesis that facts about the past and the laws of nature entail all truths. A venerable, age-old dilemma concerning responsibility distils to this: if either determinism is true or it is not true, we lack “responsibility-grounding” control. Either determinism is true or it is not true. So, we lack responsibility-grounding control. Deprived of such control, no one is ever morally responsible for anything. A number of the freshly-minted essays in this collection address aspects of this dilemma. Responding to the horn that determinism undermines the freedom that responsibility (or moral obligation) requires, the freedom to do otherwise, some papers in this collection debate the merits of Frankfurt-style examples that purport to show that one can be responsible despite lacking alternatives. Responding to the horn that indeterminism implies luck or randomness, other papers discuss the strengths or shortcomings of libertarian free will or control. Also included in this collection are essays on the freedom requirements of moral obligation, forgiveness and free will, a “desert-free” conception of free will, and vicarious legal and moral responsibility. The authors of the essays in this volume are philosophers who have made significant contributions to debates in free will, moral responsibility, moral obligation, the reactive attitudes, philosophy of action, and philosophical psychology, and include John Martin Fischer, Robert Kane, Michael McKenna, Alfred Mele, and Derk Pereboom.

A collection of John Martin Fischer's essays on free will and moral responsibility. Fischer's overall framework contains an argument for the contention that moral responsibility does not require free will in the sense that implies alternative possibilities and a sketch of a comprehensive theory of moral responsibility.

The Metaphysics of Free Will provides a through statement of the major grounds for skepticism about the reality of free will and moral responsibility. The author identifies and explains the sort of control that is associated with personhood and accountability, and shows how it is consistent with causal determinism. In so doing, out view of ourselves as morally responsible agents is protected against the disturbing changes posed by science and religion.

An important and engaging book on a key argument in contemporary debates about free will and moral responsibility.

Calvinist determinism destroys moral responsibility and makes God the author of sin. These two accusations are not new, and were arguably anticipated by Paul in Romans 9, but they remain today the most important objections offered against Calvinist/determinist views of human free will. This book is a philosophically rigorous and comprehensive defense of Calvinism against these two families of arguments. With respect to human moral responsibility, it discusses whether determinism destroys “free will,” turns humans into pets or puppets, and involves or is analogous to coercion and manipulation. It responds to the consequence argument and direct argument for incompatibilism, the principle of alternate possibilities, the “ought implies can” maxim, and related claims. With respect to the authorship of sin, it discusses whether Calvinist determinism improperly involves God in evil. Does it mean that “God sins,” or “causes sin,” or “wills sin” in problematic ways? “Does God intend our sin, or (merely) permit sin?” In each case the coherence of the Calvinist view is defended against its most potent objections, to reject the claim that Calvinism is “excusing sinners and blaming God.”