Are Alternative Possibilities The Necessary Condition For Moral Responsibility?

The principle of alternative possibility(PAP)believes that one of the necessary conditions for ethical responsibility is that the agent has other options when acting.In this case,the agent is responsible for the action.However,the philosopher Harry G Frankfurt challenged the principle of alternative possibility.In his view,there are some situations in which although the actor has no other options,the actor needs to be responsible for it if the action is determined by the actor.We call it "Frankfurt’s Counterexamples".This challenge has also caused great controversy.This article attempts to re-construct counterexamples to clarify the hidden intuition by critically reviewing various examples.First of all,we will introduce the Frankfurt-style counterexamples and other concepts involved.At the same time,this article summarizes the criticism of the counterexamples and the supported perspective.In the second part of the paper,this article will reconstruct the counterexamples and find a important instinct which is neglected.The actor should be responsible for the actions that are determined by himself.Therefore,in the third part of this paper,the concept of self-determined behavior will be interpreted.I will further explain that the focus of the Frankfurt-style counterexample is on the relationship between actors and behavior itself.Finally,Fisher’s analysis of the conditions of control of moral responsibility is further supplemented.