Two Kinds of Principle of Alternative Possibilities

Abstract

It is taken to be self-evident that freedom requires being able to do otherwise, by most incompatibilists, and some compatibilists; however, there are more than one way to interpret the meaning of “being able to do otherwise.” In this paper, two different versions of principle of alternative possibilities (PAP) are discussed: One of these PAPs is related to determinacy, and the other is related to supervenience. I defend that PAP which is about determinacy and, which is widely being used by incompatibilist has nothing to do with freedom, and the other PAP cannot be satisfied in a physicalistic world.

Keywords

• Compatibilism,Determinism,Free Will,Freedom,Incompatibilism,Indeterminism,Principle of Alternative Possibilities

References

1. INWAGEN, Peter van (1978) “Ability and Responsibility,” The Philosophical Review, vol. 87, iss. 2 (April, 1978), pp. 201-24.
2. GINET, Carl (1996) “In Defense of the Principle of Alternative Possibilities: Why I Don't Find Frankfurt's Argument Convincing,” Philosophical Perspectives, vol. 30 (1996), pp. 403-17.
3. KANE, Robert (1989) “Two Kinds of Incompatibilism,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, vol. 50, iss. 2, (December 1989) , pp. 219-54.
4. KANE, Robert (1996) The Significance of Free Will, New York: Oxford University Press.
5. KANE, Robert (1999) “Responsibility, Luck, and Chance: Reflections on Free Will and Indeterminism,” The Journal of Philosophy, vol. 96, iss. 5, (May, 1999), pp. 217-40.
6. HUME, David (1975) An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, ed. L. A. Selby-Bigge, third edition revised by P. H. Nidditch, New York: Oxford.
7. MOORE, G. E. (1912) Ethics, chap. 6, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
8. MCINTYRE, Alison (1994) “Compatibilists Could Have Done Otherwise: Responsibility and Negative Agency,” The Philosophical Review, vol. 103, iss. 3 (July, 1994), pp. 453-88.