Integrative Studies 250 Philosophy of Human Nature Fall Quarter 2001   Andrew Mills'  Homepage Course Resources Homepage  Dept. of Religion and Philosophy

An Argument

Frankfurt claims that many people use the following argument to defend the view that someone who is coerced into doing something is not morally responsible for that act.

1.  A person is morally responsible for what he has done only if he could have done otherwise (This is the Principle of Alternate Possibilities)

2. If a person has been coerced into doing something, then he could not have done otherwise.

3. So (this conclusion follows from (1) and (2)) if a person has been coerced into doing something, then he is not morally responsible for what he has done. (Frankfurt calls this the principle that coercion excludes moral responsibility).

The Cases of the Many Jones

Let's use the following example for each of the Joneses: On Monday, each Jones decides to go to law school.  The next day, thugs show up and make the following threat: either go to law school, or we will break your legs.
 

	Does Jones go to law school?	Would Jone have gone to law school if the thugs had demanded he go to medical school instead?	Was Jones coerced into going to law school?	Is Jones morally responsible for going to law school?	Could Jones have done otherwise than go to law school?
Jones-1	YES	NO	NO	YES	NO
Jones-2	YES	YES	YES	NO	NO
Jones-3	YES	YES	??	YES	NO (?)

If Frankfurt is right about Jones-3 (and, even more, about Jones-4) then we have an example of someone who is morally responsible for what they do, but could not have done otherwise. And, if this is right, we have a counterexample to the Principle of Alternate Possibilites. So, (1) in the above argument is false.

The Upshot

If the Principle of Alternate Possibilities is false, then this is a point in favor of the compatibilist. Do you see why? Think about it.