Alternative Possibilities and Causal Overdetermination

Disputatio ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (45) ◽  
pp. 193-217
Author(s):  
Ferenc Huoranszki
Keyword(s):  
Alternative Possibilities ◽  
Substantive Theory ◽  
Principle Of Alternative Possibilities ◽  
Causal Overdetermination ◽  
Ability To Act

Abstract This paper argues against dismissing the Principle of Alternative Possibilities merely on the ground of so-called Frankfurt-style cases. Its main claims are that the interpretation of such cases depends on which substantive theory of responsibility one endorses and that Frankfurt-style cases all involve some form of causal overdetermination which can be interpreted either as being compatible with the potentially manipulated agent’s ability to act otherwise or as a responsibility undermining constraint. The paper also argues that the possibility of such scenarios can support the truth of classical compatibilism as much as the truth of semicompatibilism.

Causation and Free Will in Early Buddhist Philosophy

2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 191-220
Author(s):  
Paul Bernier
Keyword(s):  
Free Will ◽  
Buddhist Philosophy ◽  
Alternative Possibilities ◽  
Causal Determinism ◽  
Principle Of Alternative Possibilities ◽  
Early Buddhism

Free will and determinism have recently attracted the attention of Buddhist scholars who have defended conflicting views on this issue. I argue that there is no reason to think that this problem cannot arise in Buddhist philosophy, since there are two senses of ‘free will’ that are compatible with the doctrine of non-self. I propose a reconstruction of a problem of free will and determinism in Early Buddhism, given a) the assumption that Buddhist causation entails universal causal determinism, and b) a crucial passage (A I 173–175) suggesting that Early Buddhism is committed to the principle of alternative possibilities which is arguably incompatible with a determinist interpretation of causation. This passage suggests that Early Buddhism must leave room for a robust, incompatibilist form of free will, and that a conception of indeterminist free will in the spirit of Robert Kane’s theory allows us to make sense of that notion.

ROBUST FLICKERS OF FREEDOM

2019 ◽  
Vol 36 (01) ◽  
pp. 211-233
Author(s):  
Michael Robinson
Keyword(s):  
Moral Responsibility ◽  
Alternative Possibilities ◽  
Principle Of Alternative Possibilities ◽  
Flicker Of Freedom

Abstract:This essay advances a version of the flicker of freedom defense of the Principle of Alternative Possibilities (PAP) and shows that it is invulnerable to the major objections facing other versions of this defense. Proponents of the flicker defense argue that Frankfurt-style cases fail to undermine PAP because agents in these cases continue to possess alternative possibilities. Critics of the flicker strategy contend that the alternatives that remain open to agents in these cases are unable to rebuff Frankfurt-style attack on the grounds that they are insufficiently robust (that is, morally significant in a way that could ground ascriptions of moral responsibility). Once we see that omissions are capable of constituting robust alternatives, even when they are not intentional, it becomes clear that agents in these cases do indeed possess robust alternative possibilities—alternatives that are ineliminable from cases of this sort. The upshot is that Frankfurt-style cases are theoretically incapable of providing us with good grounds for rejecting PAP.

scholarly journals The All-Powerful, Perfectly Good, and Free God

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Ryan Byerly
Keyword(s):  
Relevant Literature ◽  
Self Control ◽  
Alternative Possibilities ◽  
Truth Conditions ◽  
Principle Of Alternative Possibilities ◽  
Divine Freedom

This paper argues that to be omnipotent is to possess all the powers. This view accommodates the demands and insights of the literature on omnipotence quite well while overcoming difficulties faced by alternative accounts of omnipotence. At the same time, the account makes available equally attractive resolutions of two puzzles: one concerning the compatibility of omnipotence and perfect goodness and a second concerning the compatibility of perfect goodness and divine freedom. In the course of articulating solutions to these puzzles, novel suggestions are proposed about divine self-control and about how best to understand the principle of alternative possibilities, while engaging with relevant literature on topics such as the truth conditions of counterpossible conditionals, the neo-Aristotelian view of powers and dispositions, and the interpretation of so-called “Luther cases.”

Why the Perfect Being Theologian Cannot Endorse the Principle of Alternative Possibilities

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 113-131
Author(s):  
Samuel Director
Keyword(s):  
Alternative Possibilities ◽  
Principle Of Alternative Possibilities ◽  
Perfect Being Theology

I argue that perfect being theologians cannot endorse the Principle of Alternative Possibilities (AP). On perfect being theology, God is essentially morally perfect, meaning that He always acts in a morally perfect manner. I argue that it is possible that God is faced with a situation in which there is only one morally perfect action, which He must do. If this is true, then God acts without alternative possibilities in this situation. Yet, unless one says that this choice is not free, one must say that God has acted freely without alternative possibilities.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document