当前位置: X-MOL 学术Social Philosophy and Policy › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
ROBUST FLICKERS OF FREEDOM
Social Philosophy and Policy ( IF 0.264 ) Pub Date : 2019-09-03 , DOI: 10.1017/s0265052519000244
Michael Robinson

: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.

中文翻译:

强大的自由闪烁

:这篇文章提出了另一种可能性原则(PAP)的自由辩护的一个版本,并表明它不受其他版本的这种辩护所面临的主要反对意见的影响。闪烁辩护的支持者认为,法兰克福式的案件未能破坏人民行动党,因为这些案件中的代理人继续拥有替代的可能性。闪烁策略的批评者认为,在这些情况下,仍然对代理人开放的替代方案无法以它们不够稳健(即,在道德上具有重大意义的方式,可以作为道德责任归属的基础)为由拒绝法兰克福式的攻击。 . 一旦我们看到遗漏能够构成强有力的替代方案,即使它们不是故意的,很明显,这些案例中的代理人确实拥有强大的替代可能性——这类案例无法消除的替代方案。结果是法兰克福式的案例在理论上无法为我们提供拒绝人民行动党的充分理由。
更新日期:2019-09-03
down
wechat
bug