Revising the Principle of Alternate Possibilities

Abstract

This paper examines the position in moral philosophy that Harry Frankfurt calls the Principle of Alternate Possibilities (PAP). The paper first describes the principle as articulated by A.J. Ayer. Subsequently, the paper examines Frankfurt's critique and proposed revision of the principle and argues that Frankfurt's proposal relies on an excessively simplistic account of practical reasoning, which fails to account for the possibility of moral dilemmas. In response, the paper offers further revision of PAP, which accounts for Frankfurt's critique, moral dilemmas, and the challenge of causal determinism. A highly contested position within moral philosophy and the free will debate is the Principle of Alternate Possibilities (PAP), which holds that a person is morally responsible for what he has done only if he could have done 1 At first glance, this principle seems intuitive—it accords with our view that coercion exempts one from moral responsibility. However, PAP is actually quite problematic, as it seems that individuals can be morally responsible for certain actions, even when they could not have done otherwise. In this paper, I will discuss the problems of PAP, explain one prominent proposed revision to the principle, and also offer an alternative position that better accords with our considered moral judgments. This paper proceeds in five sections. I begin by discussing A.J. Ayer's defense of PAP and articulating the apparent merits of his position. Second, I explain Harry Frankfurt's well-known challenge to PAP, which I illustrate through counterexamples. Third, I explain Frankfurt's proposed revision to PAP. Fourth, I criticize Frankfurt's proposed revision, showing that it presents an excessively simplistic picture of practical reason and thus fails to capture our intuitions about responsibility in moral dilemmas. I suggest an alternate revision that might be more successful. Finally, I address several possible objections to my view. In his Freedom and Necessity, A.J. Ayer attempts to save moral responsibility from the challenge of determinism by claiming that moral responsibility requires not freedom from causal determination but rather freedom from constraint. 2 First, Ayer denies the relevance of causal determinism to moral responsibility. His argument is as follows: according to those who invoke causal determinism, we are not responsible for our actions if they were determined according to causal laws. At the same time, we are not responsible for our actions if they were not determined according to