Philosophical Studies

, Volume 157, Issue 2, pp 177–194 | Cite as

Modified Frankfurt-type counterexamples and flickers of freedom

  • Michael Robinson


A great deal of attention has been paid recently to the claim that traditional Frankfurt-type counterexamples to the Principle of Alternative Possibilities (PAP), which depend for their success on the presence of a perfectly reliable indicator (or prior sign) of what an agent will freely do if left to act on his own, are guilty of begging the question against incompatibilists, since such indicators seem to presuppose a deterministic relation between an agent’s free action and its causal antecedents. Objections of this sort have given rise to considerable efforts to construct alternative Frankfurt-type counterexamples that do not rely on prior signs of this kind and so do not presuppose determinism in a way that incompatibilists should find objectionable. One consequence of this shift in the way Frankfurt-type counterexamples are formulated is that it provides an opportunity for the forceful resurgence of certain versions of the so-called flicker defense of PAP. In this paper I develop two versions of the flicker defense, indicate their advantages over other versions of this strategy, and defend them against objections. Insofar as either of these is successful, it will show not only that PAP has yet to be falsified by any of the modified Frankfurt-type counterexamples currently on offer but that cases of this sort are in principle incapable of falsifying PAP.


Moral responsibility Alternative possibilities PAP Frankfurt Frankfurt-type counterexamples Flickers of freedom Robust 



For helpful comments on earlier versions of this paper, I wish to thank Al Mele, Michael McKenna, Randy Clarke, Walt Schaller, Sara Chant, Travis Rodgers, and an anonymous referee for this journal. A much earlier version of the first half of this paper was presented at the 2007 Pacific-Mountain Regional Meeting of the Society of Christian Philosophers. I am grateful to the audience there, and especially to Dan Speak, for their feedback.


  1. Fischer, J. M. (1986). Responsibility and control. In J. M. Fischer (Ed.), Moral responsibility (pp. 174–190). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Fischer, J. M. (1994). The metaphysics of free will. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
  3. Fischer, J. M. (1999). Recent work on moral responsibility. Ethics, 110, 93–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Frankfurt, H. (1969). Alternate possibilities and moral responsibility. Journal of Philosophy, 66, 829–839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ginet, C. (1996). In defense of the principle of alternative possibilities: Why i don’t find Frankfurt’s argument convincing. Philosophical Perspectives, 10, 403–417 (Reprinted with an added addendum in Widerker and McKenna, Eds., 2003, pp. 75–90).Google Scholar
  6. Haji, I. (1998). Moral appraisability. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Haji, I., & McKenna, M. (2004). Dialectical delicacies in the debate about freedom and alternative possibilities. Journal of Philosophy, 101, 299–314.Google Scholar
  8. Hunt, D. P. (2000). Moral responsibility and unavoidable action. Philosophical Studies, 97, 195–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kane, R. (1996). The significance of free will. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Locke, J. (1690/1965). An essay concerning human understanding (abridged and Ed. M. Cranston). New York: Collier.Google Scholar
  11. McKenna, M. (2003). Robustness, control, and the demand for morally significant alternatives: Frankfurt examples with oodles and oodles of alternatives. In D. Widerker & M. McKenna (Eds.), Moral responsibility and alternative possibilities (pp. 201–218). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  12. Mele, A. R., & Robb, D. (1998). Rescuing Frankfurt-style cases. The Philosophical Review, 107, 97–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mele, A. R., & Robb, D. (2003). Bbs, magnets and seesaws: The metaphysics of Frankfurt-style cases. In D. Widerker & M. McKenna (Eds.), Moral responsibility and alternative possibilities (pp. 127–138). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  14. Naylor, M. (1984). Frankfurt on the principle of alternate possibilities. Philosophical Studies, 46, 249–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Pereboom, D. (2000). Alternative possibilities and causal histories. Philosophical Perspectives, 14, 119–138.Google Scholar
  16. Shabo, S. (2007). Flickers of freedom and modes of action: A reply to Timpe. Philosophia, 35, 63–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Stump, E. (1996). Libertarian freedom and the principle of alternative possibilities. In D. Howard-Snyder & J. Jordan (Eds.), Faith, freedom and rationality (pp. 73–88). Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  18. Timpe, K. (2006). A critique of Frankfurt-libertarianism. Philosophia, 34, 189–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. van Inwagen, Peter. (1978). Ability and moral responsibility. Philosophical Review, 87, 201–224 (Reprinted in Moral Responsibility by J. M. Fischer, Ed., 1986, Ithaca: Cornell University Press).Google Scholar
  20. Widerker, D. (1995). Libertarianism and Frankfurt’s attack on the principle of alternative possibilities. Philosophical Review, 104, 247–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyFlorida State UniversityTallahasseeUSA

Personalised recommendations