Di Nucci, Ezio:
Frankfurt versus Frankfurt : a new anti-causalist dawn
In: Philosophical explorations, Jg. 14 (2011), Heft 1, S. 117 - 131
2011Artikel/Aufsatz in Zeitschrift
PhilosophieFakultät für Geisteswissenschaften » Institut für Philosophie
Titel:
Frankfurt versus Frankfurt : a new anti-causalist dawn
Autor*in:
Di Nucci, EzioUDE
LSF ID
51311
Sonstiges
der Hochschule zugeordnete*r Autor*in
Erscheinungsjahr:
2011

Abstract:

There is an important anomaly to the causalist/compatibilist paradigm in the philosophy of action and free will. This anomaly, which to my knowledge has gone unnoticed so far, can be found in the philosophy of Harry Frankfurt. Two of his most important contributions to the field – his influential counterexample to the Principle of Alternate Possibilities and his ‘guidance’ view of action – are incompatible. Frankfurt's counterexample to the Principle works only if we do not understand action as Frankfurt does in his guidance account. If, on the other hand, we understand agency in terms of the agent's guidance, then his counterexample to the Principle fails because, then, counterfactual scenarios of Frankfurt-type counterexamples are such that what happens does not count as the relevant agent's action. So Frankfurt-type counterexamples do not show that the agent could not have avoided acting as she did: so they fail to offer a scenario in which the agent is intuitively responsible even though she could not have avoided acting as she did. Therefore, Frankfurt-type counterexamples do not challenge the Principle, according to which ‘a person is morally responsible for what he has done only if he could have done otherwise’. The importance of this inconsistency goes far beyond the issue of coherence within Frankfurt's philosophy. I shall argue that this inconsistency represents an important anomaly within the causalist/compatibilist framework; so that we should start to seriously consider having to move on from the established paradigm.