{"title":"法兰克福案例和交替道义范畴","authors":"S. Kahn","doi":"10.1017/s0012217323000112","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n In Harry Frankfurt’s seminal “Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility,” he advances an argument against the Principle of Alternate Possibilities: if an agent is responsible for performing some action, then she is able to do otherwise. However, almost all of the Frankfurt cases in this literature involve impermissible actions. In this article, I argue that the failure to consider other deontic categories exposes a deep problem, one that threatens either to upend much current moral theorizing or to upend the relevance of Frankfurt cases.","PeriodicalId":84592,"journal":{"name":"Diarrhoea Dialogue","volume":"31 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Frankfurt Cases and Alternate Deontic Categories\",\"authors\":\"S. Kahn\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s0012217323000112\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n In Harry Frankfurt’s seminal “Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility,” he advances an argument against the Principle of Alternate Possibilities: if an agent is responsible for performing some action, then she is able to do otherwise. However, almost all of the Frankfurt cases in this literature involve impermissible actions. In this article, I argue that the failure to consider other deontic categories exposes a deep problem, one that threatens either to upend much current moral theorizing or to upend the relevance of Frankfurt cases.\",\"PeriodicalId\":84592,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Diarrhoea Dialogue\",\"volume\":\"31 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Diarrhoea Dialogue\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0012217323000112\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diarrhoea Dialogue","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0012217323000112","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
在Harry Frankfurt的开创性著作《替代可能性和道德责任》(alternative Possibilities and Moral Responsibility)中,他提出了一个反对替代可能性原则(Principle of alternative Possibilities)的论点:如果一个行为人负责执行某些行为,那么她就可以做其他事情。然而,本文献中几乎所有的法兰克福案例都涉及不允许的行为。在本文中,我认为未能考虑其他道义范畴暴露了一个深刻的问题,这个问题可能会颠覆当前的许多道德理论化或颠覆法兰克福案例的相关性。
In Harry Frankfurt’s seminal “Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility,” he advances an argument against the Principle of Alternate Possibilities: if an agent is responsible for performing some action, then she is able to do otherwise. However, almost all of the Frankfurt cases in this literature involve impermissible actions. In this article, I argue that the failure to consider other deontic categories exposes a deep problem, one that threatens either to upend much current moral theorizing or to upend the relevance of Frankfurt cases.