The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility
Abstract
A dominant role in nearly all recent inquiries into the free-will problem has been played by a principle which the author shall call ‘the principle of alternate possibilities.’ This principle states that a person is morally responsible for what he has done only if he could have done otherwise. Its exact meaning is a subject of controversy, particularly concerning whether someone who accepts it is thereby committed to believing that moral responsibility and determinism are incompatible. In seeking illustrations of the principle of alternate possibilities, it is most natural to think of situations in which the same circumstances both bring it about that a person does something and make it impossible for him to avoid doing it. The two main concepts employed in the principle of alternate possibilities are ‘morally responsible’ and ‘could have done otherwise.’ To discuss the principle without analyzing either of these concepts may well seem like an attempt at piracy.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
People are averse to machines making moral decisions.
Bigman, Y. E., & Gray, K. (2018) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2018.08.003 · Cited by 738
Mele, A. R. (2006) · doi:10.1093/0195305043.001.0001 · Cited by 493
Incorporating Ethics into Artificial Intelligence
Etzioni, A., & Etzioni, O. (2017) · The Journal of Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10892-017-9252-2 · Cited by 388
Doris, J. M., & The Moral Psychology Research Group (2010) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199582143.001.0001 · Cited by 227
Narrative responsibility and artificial intelligence
Coeckelbergh, M. (2023) · AI & SOCIETY · doi:10.1007/s00146-021-01375-x · Cited by 81
The Explanatory Component of Moral Responsibility
Björnsson, G., & Persson, K. (2012) · Noûs · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0068.2010.00813.x · Cited by 81
Sharing Territories: Overlapping Self-Determination and Resource Rights
Nine, C. (2022) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198833628.001.0001 · Cited by 66
Do Theories of Implicit Race Bias Change Moral Judgments?
Cameron, C. D., Payne, B. K., & Knobe, J. (2010) · Social Justice Research · doi:10.1007/s11211-010-0118-z · Cited by 52
Agency, Teleological Control and Robust Causation
Usher, M. (2020) · Philosophy and Phenomenological Research · doi:10.1111/phpr.12537 · Cited by 29
Metadata
- Authors
- Frankfurt, H. G.
- Venue
- The Journal of Philosophy
- Publisher
- Philosophy Documentation Center
- Published
- 1969-12-04
- Volume
- 66
- Issue
- 23
- Pages
- 829
- ISSN
- 0022-362X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W185512519
- Cited by
- 2,405
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 0.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.