Finking Frankfurt |
| |
Authors: | Daniel Cohen Toby Handfield |
| |
Affiliation: | (1) Philosophy Program, Research School of Social Sciences, The Australian National University, 0200 ACT, Australia;(2) School of Philosophy and Bioethics, Monash University, 3800 Victoria, Australia |
| |
Abstract: | Michael Smith has resisted Harry Frankfurt's claim that moral responsibility does not require the ability to have done otherwise. He does this by claiming that, in Frankfurt cases, the ability to do otherwise is indeed present, but is a disposition that has been `finked' or masked by other factors. We suggest that, while Smith's account appears to work for some classic Frankfurt cases, it does not work for all. In particular, Smith cannot explain cases, such as the Willing Addict, where the Frankfurt devise - e.g. the addiction - is intrinsic to the agent. |
| |
Keywords: | |
本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录! |
|