Yanılsamanın Akla Yatkınlığı: Alternatif Olanaklar İlkesi, Özgür İrade ve Ahlaki Sorumluluk

Year 2021, Volume: 4 Issue: 1, 31 - 51, 30.06.2021

Kadir Kütükoğlu

https://doi.org/10.51404/metazihin.898110

Abstract

Alternatif olanaklar ilkesi (–ki “PAP” olarak da adlandırılabilmektedir), genellikle bağdaşmazcı özgür irade ve başka türlü yapma olanağı kavrayışlarını tanıtlamak amacıyla çekirdek bir argüman içerisinde birinci öncül olarak kullanılır. Bu ilke, “Kişi ancak başka türlü yapabilseydi eyleminden ahlaki anlamda sorumlu olurdu” anlamına gelir. Söz konusu bağdaşmazcı çekirdek argümana karşı-cevap üretmek için Harry Frankfurt, 1969’da bir makale yayınladı. Onun çıkarımlarını ortaya koyma biçimi birtakım karşı-olgusal düşünce deneylerine dayanıyordu. Bu sayede alternatif olanaklar ilkesinin nasıl çürütülebilir olduğunu gösterecekti. Söz konusu makale, sırasıyla şu dikkat çekici düşünceleri içeriyordu: (1) Özgür irade alternatif olanakları gerektirmez. (2) Kişi başka türlü yapma olanağından mahrum olsa bile eyleminden ahlaki anlamda sorumlu olabilir. (3) Zorlama ahlaki sorumluluğu dışlamaz. Bu çalışma ilkin, “PAP”ye ilişkin bir çözümleme sağlarken sonrasında Frankfurt’un taraf tuttuğu konum nezdinde bağdaşırcılığın gözden geçirilmiş bir tanımı gerektirdiği önerisinde bulunmaktadır.

Keywords

Harry Frankfurt, alternatif olanaklar ilkesi, özgür irade, başka türlü yapma olanağı, nedensel belirlenimcilik, bağdaşırcılık, bağdaşmazcılık, ahlaki sorumluluk

The Plausibility of Illusion: The Principle of Alternate Possibilities, Free Will, and Moral Responsibility

Abstract

The principle of alternate possibilities (it may also be called the “PAP”) is often used as the first premise in a core argument to prove that the incompatibilist accounts of free will and the ability to do otherwise. And what that means is that “An agent is morally responsible for what he/she has done, only if he/she could have done otherwise.” In counter-response to this argument, Harry Frankfurt has issued an article in 1969. The way he came up with his conclusions were based on various counterfactual thought experiments. In this way, he was going to show how the principle of alternate possibilities can be falsified. The paper in question contained the following striking thoughts: (1) Free will does not entail (imply) alternate possibilities. (2) An agent can be morally responsible for what he/she has done even though he/she could not have done otherwise. (3) Coercion does not exclude moral responsibility. This study first gives an analysis of the “PAP,” then proposes that the version of compatibilism which Frankfurt defends requires a revised description.

Keywords

Harry Frankfurt, the principle of alternate possibilities, free will, the ability to do otherwise, causal determinism, compatibilism, incompatibilism, moral responsibility, coercion

References

• Austin, J. L. (1979). “Ifs and Cans.” J. O. Urmson and G. J. Warnock (Der.), Philosophical Papers (3rd Edition) içinde (s. 205-232). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/019283021x.001.0001
• Balaguer, M. (2014). Free Will. Cambridge, MA: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Press. DOI: 10.7551/mitpress/9996.001.0001
• Campbell, J. K. (1997). “A Compatibilist Theory of Alternate Possibilities.” Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition, 88(3): 319-330.
• Campbell, J. K. (2016). “The Consequence Argument.” Kevin Timpe, Meghan Griffith and Neil Levy (Der.), The Routledge Companion to Free Will içinde (s. 151-165). Oxfordshire, OXF: Routledge and Taylor & Francis Group. DOI: 10.4324/9781317422266-27
• Copp, D. (1997). “Defending the Principle of Alternate Possibilities: Blameworthiness and Moral Responsibility.” Noûs, 31(4): 441-456. DOI: 10.1111/0029-4624.00055
• Copp, D. (2006). ”’Ought’ Implies ‘Can’, Blameworthiness, and the Principle of Alternate Possibilities.” David Widerker and Michael McKenna (Der.), Moral Responsibility and Alternative Possibilities: Essays on the Importance of Alternative Possibilities içinde (s. 251-299). Aldershot, HA: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
• Descartes, R. (2013). Meditations on First Philosophy. Der. Andrew Bailey. Çev. Ian Johnston. Peterborough: Broadview Press.
• Fischer, J. M. (2005). “General Introduction.” John Martin Fischer (Der.), Free Will: Critical Concepts in Philosophy: Concepts and Challenges (Vol 1) içinde (s. XXIII-XXX). Oxfordshire, OXF: Routledge and Taylor & Francis Group.
• Fischer, J. M. (2010). “The Frankfurt Cases: The Moral of the Stories.” The Philosophical Review, 119(3): 315-336. DOI: 10.1215/00318108-2010-002
• Fischer, J. M. (2012). “The Frankfurt-Style Cases: Philosophical Lightning Rods.” Reprints and Working Papers of the Centre for Advanced Study in Bioethics, 46: 1-12.
• Frankfurt, H. G. (1969). “Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility.” Wendell T. Bush (Der.), The Journal of Philosophy, 66(23): 829-839. DOI: 10.2307/2023833
• Gettier, E. L. (1963). “Is Justified True Belief Knowledge.” Analysis, 23(6): 121-123. DOI: 10.1093/analys/23.6.121
• Ginet, C. (1996). “In Defense of the Principle of Alternative Possibilities: Why I Don’t Find Frankfurt’s Argument Convincing.” Noûs: Philosophical Perspectives, Metaphysics, 10: 403-417. DOI: 10.2307/2216254
• Goetz, S. (2005). “Frankfurt-Style Counter-examples and Begging the Question.” Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 29: 83-105. DOI: 10.2307/2214275
• Gustafsson, J. E. (2017). “A Strengthening of the Consequence Argument for Incompatibilism.” Chris Daly and David Liggins (Der.), Analysis, 77(4): 705-715. DOI: 10.1093/analys/anx103
• Harrison, G. K. (2006). “Frankfurt-Style Cases and Improbable Alternate Possibilities.” Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition, 130(2): 399-406. DOI: 10.1007/s11098-004-5753-5
• Kane, R. (1985). Free Will and Values. Albany, NY: State University of New York (SUNY) Press.
• Kane, R. (1999). The Significance of Free Will (2nd Edition). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/0195126564.001.0001
• Kenny, A. (1987). Descartes: A Study of His Philosophy (2nd Edition). New York, NY: Garland Publishing, Inc. List, C. (2019). “What’s Wrong with the Consequence Argument: A Compatibilist Libertarian Response.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 119(3): 253-274. DOI: 10.1093/arisoc/aoz018
• Locke, J. (1999). An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. State College, PA: The Pennsylvania State University.
• McKenna, M. (2010). “Whose Argumentative Burden, Which Incompatibilist Arguments? –Getting the Dialectic Right.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 88(3): 429-443. DOI: 10.1080/00048400903233811
• Nietzsche, F. (2007). “Twilight of the Idols.” Çev. Judith Norman. Aaron Ridley and Judith Norman (Der.), The Anti-Christ, Ecce Homo, Twilight of the Idols, and Other Writings (4th Edition) içinde (s. 153-230). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
• Plato (1997). “Apology.” Çev. G. M. A. Grube. John Madison Cooper and Douglas S. Hutchinson (Der.), Plato: Complete Works içinde (s. 17-36). Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.
• Timpe, K. (2013). Free Will: Sourcehood and its Alternatives (2nd Edition). New York, NY: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.
• Van Inwagen, P. (1975). “The Incompatibility of Free Will and Determinism.” Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition, 27(3): 185-199. DOI: 10.1007/bf01624156
• Van Inwagen, P. (1983). An Essay on Free Will. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.2307/2214275
• Van Inwagen, P. (1989). “When is the Will Free?” Noûs: Philosophical Perspectives, Philosophy of Mind and Action Theory, 3: 399-422. DOI: 10.2307/2214275
• Van Inwagen, P. (1999). “Moral Responsibility, Determinism, and the Ability to Do Otherwise.” J. Angelo Corlett (Der.), The Journal of Ethics, 3(4): 341-350.
• Van Inwagen, P. (2000). “Free Will Remains a Mystery.” Noûs: Philosophical Perspectives, Action and Freedom, 14: 1-19. DOI: 10.1111/0029-4624.34.s14.1
• Vihvelin, K. (2013). Causes, Laws, and Free Will: Why Determinism Doesn’t Matter. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/978019975185.001.0001
• Vihvelin, K. (2018). “Arguments for Incompatibilism.” Edward N. Zalta (Der.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2018 Edition) içinde. Alındığı URL: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/incompatibilism-arguments/
• Widerker, D. (1995). “Libertarianism and Frankfurt’s Attack on the Principle of Alternative Possibilities.” The Philosophical Review, 104(2): 247-261. DOI: 10.2307/2185979