Either

• a person does something but it is impossible for him to do otherwise

• or a person does something because he was compelled by an inner impulse

???

“In seeking illustrations of the principle of alternate possibilities, it is most natural to think of situations in which the same circumstances both bring it about that a person does something and make it impossible for him to avoid doing it” (Frankfurt, 1969, p. 830) (pdf)

“or in which some inner compulsion drives him to do what he does.” (Frankfurt, 1969, p. 830) (pdf)

“A person may do something in circumstances that leave him no alternative to doing it, without these circumstances actually moving him or leading him to do it-without them playing any role, indeed, in bringing it about that he does what he does.” (Frankfurt, 1969, p. 830) (pdf)

---

Does he do it because he is unable to do otherwise?

• a person does something but it was impossible for him to do otherwise

• but his inability had no role in explaining why he did it

???

“I propose to develop some examples of this kind in the context of a discussion of coercion and to suggest that our moral intuitions concerning these examples tend to disconfirm the principle of alternate possibilitie” (Frankfurt, 1969, p. 830) (pdf)

---

What is the doctrine of coercion?

1. doctrine of coercion == pap ???

What do we mean by being coerced? It seems that if I offer you an undetermined amount of money to rob a bank, then I am not necessarily coercing you?

What about if I offer you a million dollars to rob the bank? Is this sufficient coercion?

What if you need a million dollars to save your dying child? Now it seems that we are getting closer to something that looks like coercion.

---

Therefore, the question is, what constitutes coercion in the sense used by Frankfurt.

???

One answer is that pap, the inability to do otherwise is a form of coercion. If I leave you no other choice but to rob the bank, then pap == doc.

Therefore, if you have no other choice but to rob the bank, then you are free of moral culpability, you deserve blame, criticism, approbation, etc.

However, is the lack of moral responsibility entailed by being unable to do otherwise?

“The fact that a person was coerced to act as he did may entail both that he could not have done otherwise and that he bears no moral responsibility for his action” (Frankfurt, 1969, p. 831) (pdf)

---

However

“But his lack of moral responsibility is not entailed by his having been unable to do otherwise.” (Frankfurt, 1969, p. 831) (pdf)

Strong sense

Weak sense

---

1. Doctrine that coercion excludes moral responsibility

---

2. principle of alternate possibilities

???

Jones 3 is unable to resist the threat, but this does not mean that he cannot do otherwise.

---

“Jones decides for reasons of his own to do something, then someone threatens him with a very harsh penalty (so harsh that any reasonable person would submit to the threat) unless he does precisely that, and Jones does it” (Frankfurt, 1969, p. 831) (pdf)

---

“One possibility is that Jones, is not a reasonable man: he is, rather, a man who does what he has once decided to do no matter what happens next and no matter what the cost.” (Frankfurt, 1969, p. 831) (pdf)

–

“In that case, the threat actually exerted no effective force upon him” (Frankfurt, 1969, p. 831) (pdf)

---

1. “if his earlier decision had been to do something else, the threat would not have deterred him in the slightest.” (Frankfurt, 1969, p. 831) (pdf)

2. “Another possibility is that Jones2 was stampeded by the threat. Given that threat, he would have performed that action regardless of what decision he had already made.” (Frankfurt, 1969, p. 832) (pdf)

---

“In this case, it is not relevant to his having performed the action that he had already decided on his own to perform it.” (Frankfurt, 1969, p. 832) (pdf)

???

“and fear alone led him to act” (Frankfurt, 1969, p. 832) (pdf)

---

“. The fact that at an earlier time Jones2 had decided for his own reasons to act in just that way may be relevant to an evaluation of his character; he may bear full moral responsibility for having made that decision.” (Frankfurt, 1969, p. 832) (pdf)

???

“For he performed the action simply as a result of the coercion to which he was subjected” (Frankfurt, 1969, p. 832) (pdf)

---

    3. “Jones3 was neither stampeded by the threat nor indifferent to it. The threat impressed him, as it would impress any reasonable man, and he would have submitted to it wholeheartedly if he had not already made a decision that coincided with the one demanded of him.” (Frankfurt, 1969, p. 832) (pdf)

???

“When he acted, he was not actually motivated by the threat but solely by the considerations that had originally commended the action to him.” (Frankfurt, 1969, p. 832) (pdf)

---

Coercion?

“Can we say of Jones3 that he was coerced to do something, when he had already decided on his own to do it and when he did it entirely on the basis of that decision? Or would it be more correct to say that Jones3 was not coerced to do what he did, even though he himself recognized that there was an irresistible force at work in virtue of which he had to do it” (Frankfurt, 1969, p. 833) (pdf)

---