Precis 3 - ࡱ>

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: ࡱ> -/,a :jbjbA]A] '+?+?jjjjjjj8V b  zzzzzzzzK M M M M M M ,v R y jzzzzzy jjzz zjzjzK ~$jjjjzK # jjK n !; K 0 C ttK jdFrankfurts Jones Variation Examples Harry Frankfurt attempts to provide good evidence and examples to what may be wrong with the principle of alternative possibilities. This principle asserts that if an individual chooses one option over another and performs such action, then this individual is morally responsible. Frankfurt provides four examples in an attempt to prove this principle false. Frankfurt expresses his examples through four variations of Jones. Jones 1, in Frankfurts first variation of Jones, acts in a way that he has already previously decided. Jones 1 does as he wants, and whether any threats have been made against him, the outcome of his actions will remain the same. Basically, whether coercion or an absence of coercion, Jones 1 will do what he wants and the outcome of his actions will remain the same, unaltered or influenced by an outside source of threat. Jones 2, the second variation of Jones by Frankfurt, is threatened before making a decision and chooses in the way of the threat. Although Jones 2 may have already made a decision before the threat, Jones 2 gives into the threat. Jones 2 in essence forgets about any decision he might have made and automatically accepts the option offered by the threat and does it. Jones 2 seems a bit too persuaded and needs to express his opinion more aloud. Jones 3, the third variation made by Frankfurt seems to act in fairly similar ways that Jones 1 does. Jones 3 is said to make a decision, a threat is then made to alter his decision, but Jones 3 is so unaffected by the threat, that the final decision made is just as if the threat was never made. The way I look at this is expressed in the following example. On Thursday I have a test. I have decided that I will study on Wednesday night, but a threat made by an outside source says that I have to study not only on Wednesday night, but also Tuesday night. I disregard the threat, and ultimately study only on Wednesday night. So the outcome is the same, regardless of any threat that might have been made. Jones 4, the final variation by Frankfurt, is influenced by an outside source. This source is not necessarily a threat, but definitely seems to be an absence of freedom. The following example better exemplifies this case. I have decided that I want to eat a meal that is very unhealthy. An outside source that wants me to eat something healthy does not agree with this decision, hoping I would make the right one. So this source convinces me in a very indirect way that this decision is the wrong one, and I must eat something healthy. Basically, I am allowed to make a choice/decision, but if it not thought to be the right decision by an outside source, then this source will direct me towards the choice the source wish and wanted me to make. Ultimately, I have made the choice somewhat by myself, but there was no way that I could have made a choice that the outside source disagreed with. I believe that Jones 4 seems to be the only example that has no free will. Although he is allowed to make his own decisions, the final outcome is not always what the individual initially wanted. But then again, I think of it as a guide, or someone that consults you in making decision. So I suppose I take that back. The Jones 4 example is very much like someone who is looking for guidance or leadership after thinking they might know the right way to perform something. Ultimately, I see this outside source as a possible bad situation or possibly a great situation. If this source is guiding you in the right way, then you will become great, but if this source is in no way good, then you will become worse off. I suppose I have a taking to this philosophy somewhat differently than Frankfurt, but ultimately I understand the principles he has underlined through these examples. Alex Sandlin March 2, 2008 $:h RhZm$% G )789:$a$gd Rdgd R $da$gd R 9%0:p R/ =!"#$%ZVRZ^NsVg9  [wwwwwwwwwswwwwwwDZ^cRRVR^Ns^cRg9RVkZ^NskZVZ^VZV^g9BkZJRZVkZkZNsc^ZNsJR^ZZg9RVZkZ^kZ^ZRg9g9R^g9JR^VNsVZ^Z   ?wo{wwwwwwww=Zg9ZV^Zg9Z^NsRVRZg9ZZ^kZZ^VZ^ZVZV^^ZNsZRZkZ^ZZRRZZo{VRVNsRkZ^VkZJRZ  Qwo{wwwwwo{wsswwwNsV^Z^wg9R^g9R^ZkZVkZNs^ZVNskZVZ^Rg9g9kZV RkZg9Z^F1kZZg9ZVcg9NsNso{kZg9Zo{Ns^NskZVRg9Zg9RVg9  wwwwo{wwwwwwwwwwHg9ZV^ZkZZZ^Zg9ZV^Z^o{ZZNsZg9ZNskZVV^VZ^cRo{ZVRg9RkZ^Vg9Rg9R^VNskZVJRg9F1ZRRRZ^cRo{ZVwR^g9   wo{ sswwwwwwswwwsww;g9ZV^Z^o{ZZJRVVkZRcRZRg9g9R^g9RkZ^JRwJRVg9g9R^kZNsVkZZ^cRRVNsNsZ^o{Zo{^NsVZo{kZg9RkZ^VNsRZ  _wkZwwwwwwwswwwo{kZwwwwIV^kZ^kZNsNsZ^kZR^VRg9kZkZZZVVg9g9RRo{Z^kZZkZ^ZZ^RVJR^RkZRVwNscRVNskZZRcNskZR^kZZZVg9kZRVkZ^V   mwwwwwwwwwwo{wwwwwwwwwJRZg9kZRVkZ^Z^cR^ZJRVg9kZVkZkZRg9^Zg9ZVckZ^ZV^ZZJRVZRg9wR^g9VJRkZ^Vg9NsNsZ^Rg9VZ^Nso{Z^ZZ^kZc^  ewwww wo{wwwwwwkZwwwwwwGZJRZJRVg9kZRVkZ^g9ZZRZg9VZg9ZVZF1ckZ^ZJRZZVg9Vo{cRcR^g9VRZkZ^^ZZVg9Vo{cRg9kZZRkZ^cVkZNsR^                  ՜.+,0 `hpx  'L $Frankfurts Jones Variation Examples Title  !"#%&'()*+.Root Entry FN}01TableWordDocument'SummaryInformation(4DocumentSummaryInformation8$CompObjXObjectPoolN}N} FMicrosoft Word DocumentNB6WWord.Document.8...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 05/03/2008 for the course PHIL 1000 taught by Professor Heathwood, during the Spring '07 term at Colorado.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online