Jones could have done something otherwise and so while the decision may have been changed by this device, it does not challenge in any way the possibilities in advance of the outcome that was determined by an earlier event - implanting this device. Moral responsibility cannot be abandoned because free will and alternate possibilities still exist — TimeLine
And that is why I struggled with understanding how Robert Kane could describe Frankfurt-style cases as an ongoing problem...Since 1969!
Moral responsibility cannot be abandoned because free will and alternate possibilities still exist. This leads back to the problem between responsibility and moral responsibility. — TimeLine
I'm having trouble distinguishing the difference between responsibility and moral responsibility, but at risk of going off-topic, I will continue without mentioning both unless someone can explain the distinctions.
I would be keen to see your examples and maybe we can flesh them out together. — TimeLine
Going back to the Jones and Black scenario, Jones is standing in front a table, and on this table are two voting machines, which tally the counts electronically. Each vote is recorded by simply pressing a button located on the top of each machine. Still undecided, Jones rests his left hand on the left machine button (Vote A) and places his right hand on the right machine button (Vote B). Now of course we all know that Black wants Jones to vote for A but is not sure about the method with which use to ensure this happens. The two options available to Black are:
1) reactive approach - Black waits for a sign of what Jones is going to do before intervening.
2) proactive approach - Without waiting for Jones to act, Black can reprogram the electronic tally machines so that no matter which button Jones selects, the electronic signal will be routed to the left machine. In other words, vote A will always count.
My reason for this example is that we need something in which timing does not complicate the matter. Having Jones' hands resting on each button severely reduces the time between the beginning of the act and the end of the act, which almost completely removes the possibility of an objection like "well, Black waits for Jones hand to begin moving towards a particular box and THEN he intervenes". My point is that once Jones takes action, the action is, for all practical purposes, completed. With that said, I don't think this condition reduces the force of my example, because one while one cannot appeal to the action as evidence, one can always appeal to prior evidence that the action will occur. Further, prior evidence is what I think Frankfurt was getting at when he said "Jones is about to make up his mind" and "Jones is going to do something other than what he [Black] wants him to do"
Now let's say Jones deliberates about the decision and let us call this decision process PL or PR ( decision to press left button/decision to press right button) . This decision process, however long it takes, begins and ends at time T1, so PL/PR occurs at T1. Immediately following T1, Jones takes action by pressing one of the buttons LB or RB (left button/right button). This button pressing process begins and ends at time T2, so LB/RB occurs at T2. From a chronological perspective:
PL or PR --> LB or RB
T1 -----------> T2
Using the reactive approach, Only after PR at T1 will Black intervene at T2 with LB, rendering PAP true(Jones holds no responsibility). Black will not intervene after PL at T1, rendering PAP true(Jones is responsible).
Using the proactive approach, Jones will carry responsibility either LB or RB, because while the result of voting for A at T2 was the same due to the reprogramming, his decision making process or PL or PR at T1 was not coerced. His deliberation process had alternate possibilities, and, therefore Jones is responsible for what he intended to do.