Principle Of Alternate Possibility Analysis

The basic premise of Harry G. Frankfurt’s, Alternate Possibilities and Morality argues against the idea of the Principle of Alternate Possibilities, which states, that a person is only morally responsible for his or her said action if they could have done otherwise. Although many can agree that this constitutes for an astounding contradiction to the development of morality and choice, I do not believe that Frankfurt’s response constitutes as a genuine counterexample to the Principle of Alternate Possibilities. According to the Principle of Alternate Possibilities the issues that arise is whether there is a presence of freewill and the effect that freewill plays on morality. This idea of the Principle of Alternate Possibilities complements the definition because according to Webster’s dictionary the definition states, ‘freewill is the freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention.’ According to this definition and the Principle of Alternate Possibilities it is agreed upon that freewill is a factor that must be taken into consideration when discussing the value of the actions committed by the individual. Human actions are the primary motives for wanting this concept of free will, and determining its validity as part of the issue of values and the morality of the individual. These motives are the all-important questions of life's meaning and of personal responsibility. Without freewill, we ultimately have no control over our individual goals and choices. If all of our actions were simply the inevitable operation of forces outside of ourselves and freewill is some kind of illusion then to many of us life would seem bleak. However, formulating the concept and proving its validity a...

... middle of paper ...

...-than reliable conclusion to his own opinions on the Principle of Alternate Possibilities. Last in his argument he reject the presence of freewill. Freewill is a powerful internal idea that can prove to lead us as individuals in different direction. And when we are forced into doing an action that we cannot otherwise choose differently I believe that a person should not be morally held responsible to that said action. It is important to not only weigh the value of the action but also the mind of the individual preforming the act. If they are forced into doing an act that they genuine did not act upon then he or she should not be held responsible. Ultimately, although his conclusion to the Principle of Alternative Possibilities can be viable in some case, it does not manage to completely shadow the idea of morality state in the Principle and is thus rendered false.