The Principle Of Alternate Possibilities

The Principle of Alternative Possibilities (PAP) asserts the idea that an individual is morally responsible for what they have done only if they could have done otherwise. For example, if we were to praise our friend Tyrion for keeping his promise to Sansa, then he must have been capable of breaking that promise; regardless if he wasn’t inclined or likely to do so. In turn, if breaking his promise to Sansa was impossible, due to some outside force then Tyrion doesn’t deserve any moral praise for keeping it. The basic principle behind the PAP is that we can only be morally responsible for our actions if there are choices; alternate possibilities.

Harry G. Frankfurt addresses the concern of moral responsibility regarding the actions of an agent and the notion of free-will in his article Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility. I will first present “the principle of alternate possibilities”, as Frankfurt describes, and explain its relation to free-will along with the concept of moral responsibility. Afterwards I will incorporate Frankfurt’s argument that “the principle of alternate possibilities” is false and explain how one can still be held morally responsible even under certain circumstances, under threat, if the agent had an intent. Finally, I will propose that intention does not constitute an action and thus one would still not be morally responsible.

Have you ever thought about why people choose to make the choices they make? There is controversy over if people are able to make their own choices. Almost all of the time you have full control over your decisions. You have the ability to follow the rules if you want to and know that there could be a good or bad consequence to what you do. An individual has the power to choose their response in any situation.

Having choices can sometime leave a negative result that could affect others. Because of some individuals who could have caused problems for society,or because of strict individuals working for the government, choices are sometimes limited to the privileged. But it can cause problems for individuals who need the ability to make their own choices for their own sake.

Actions and inactions all have moral implications; they are either right or wrong depending on the individual and what s/he believes or feels is right or wrong. Each person’s conduct can and does have implications and ramifications. For every action there is an equal and/or opposite reaction not only for the average person but also for professionals; especially in the area of law enforcement, criminal justice, and criminal procedure. Just discussed is known as moral philosophy.

A choice issues from, and can be sufficiently explained by, an agent’s character and motives, then to be ultimately responsible for the choice, the agent must be at least in part responsible by virtue of choices or actions voluntarily performed in the past for having the character and motives he now has (295).

(PAP) a person is morally responsible for what he has done only if he could have done otherwise (829)

when the choices is made people instantly think to themselves oh darn I should have choose something different and believe the trails of these of these choices are the consequences.

Frankfurt however believes that “the principle of alternate possibilities” is false. Frankfurt then goes on to say that “a person may well be morally responsible for what he has done even though he could not have done otherwise”. He then attempts to persuade the audience to see how the first principle is incorrect and that people are not to be held responsible for their actions in the following circumstances involving a man named Jones. Frankfurt uses this to defend moral obligation in situations where there are no alternative possibilities. Frankfurt then presents the cases of Jones1, Jones2, Jones3 and Jones4.

We have all made bad decisions without thinking first about the consequences that it will have on others an example of one is when we agreed to the atomic bombing of Japan.We have a moral duty to consider all options before making a big decision about ours and others futures so that we are not hated based on one bad choice.

The incompatibilists argue that one is morally responsible for what she has done given that she could have done otherwise. Further, they think that if determinism is true then one could not have done otherwise, so if determinism is true, one is not morally responsible for things she has done. In debates surrounding the issue of free will, philosophers have focused on discussing whether determinism is true or false. Harry Frankfurt thinks even though the requirement of alternative possibilities in order to be held morally responsible for our actions seems intuitively plausible, it is a questionable premise in the argument provided by incompatibilists. Frankfurt calls the premise that “a person is morally responsible for what he has done only if he could have done otherwise” the principle of alternative possibilities or PAP (Frankfurt, 829). He argues that PAP is false and a person can be held morally responsible even if she could not have done otherwise.

David Harold Fink once said “You don’t have to do anything you don’t want to do”. However, in some cases Fink is wrong. Sometimes people don’t have an option to not do what they don’t want to do. They are impotent to take place when deciding. This usually happens in chronical situations, but when chronical situations happen many opinions pop out. Society is then divided into two groups. The group that believes people should be held accountable for their actions in life or death situations, and the opposing group that exclaims that people shouldn’t be held accountable for their actions in life or death situations. The truth is, people shouldn’t be held accountable for their measures in life or death situations because natural disasters and unexpected

An ethical dilemma is an incident that causes us to question how we should react based on our beliefs. A decision needs to be made between right and wrong. I have experienced many ethical dilemmas in my lifetime, so I know that there is no such thing as an ethical dilemma that only affects one person. I also know that some ethical dilemmas are easier to resolve than others are. The easy ones are the ones in which we can make decisions on the spot. For example, if a cashier gives me too much change, I can immediately make a decision to either return the money or keep it. Based on Kant’s, categorical imperative there are two criteria for determining moral right and wrong. First, there is universalizability, which states, “the person’s

Making consistently ethical decisions is difficult. Most decisions have to be made in the context of economic, professional and social pressures, which can sometimes challenge our ethical goals and conceal or confuse the moral issues. In addition, making ethical choices is complex because in many situations there are a multitude of competing interests and values. Other times, crucial facts are unknown or ambiguous. Since many actions are likely to benefit some people at the expense of others, the decision maker must prioritize competing moral claims and must be proficient at predicting the likely consequences of various choices. An ethical person often chooses to do more than the law requires and less than the law allows.

From the reading, I understand that people think and act differently when faced with ethical issues. For one to make a rational decision, an extensive process of judgment is required (Bandura, Caprara, & Zsolnai, 2000). For an individual to be responsible, he or she should put into consideration the magnitude of the consequences of the actions, social