Talk:Frankfurt cases

message: In his paper, he says that someone else came up with them first. I believe he says that Robert Nozick first had the idea; developed independently, as well, I think. ImpIn | (t - c) 00:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note that Frankfurt counterexamples were not thought up by Frankfurt first 

message: The article seems to me to have been overhauled and improved to such an extent as to render the tag unnecessary, but feel free to reinstate it if you disagree.  Crusoe (talk) 00:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tag removal 

message: needs to be added
http://graphe.wordpress.com/2006/11/14/libertarianism-compatibilism-and-moral-responsiblity-a-philosophical-introduction-to-available-models-part-3/
1Z (talk) 10:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flicker of freedom objection

message: The example given seems not to prove Frankfurt's thesis, as the time during which moral responsibility exists necessariy precedes the moment at which the device might be activated and that moral responsibility removed.  
Either Donald is free not to vote Democrat or he is not free not to vote Democrat.  If the device is not activated, for whatever reason, then Donald has been free not to vote Democrat, whether or not he votes Democrat.   At the moment that this freedom is removed, whether done so "reasonably" or not i.e removed whether or not it was known at the time of activation that Donald was not going to vote Democrat,  then he is no longer free and therefore no longer morally responsible.  
Frankfurt's example (if it is actually his that is being quoted and it is being quoted here accurately) has it both that Donald is free and that he is not free.  In fact he is only not free to vote whichever way he chooses after the moment arises at which he (may have) decided to exercise it to not vote Democrat and has the ability to do so removed.   At the moment his ability to choose is removed he is no longer morally responsible.
If he votes Democrat without the device having been activated he was morally responsible.  If he voted after the device was activated he was not morally responsible.   
In addition to this logical flaw in the argument, in any complex system, such as a human being casting their vote, it is not possible to predict an outcome with certainty, only with a degree of probability.   To apply a probability based judgement to an individual i.e "you would have done that because most people have done that", is merely injust.
The example demonstrates nothing.    
LookingGlass (talk) 11:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  For real?! 

message: In the example given in the article, the significant factor is belief in free choice, not actual free choice. ---Dagme (talk) 01:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belief in free choice suffices 

message: Toward the end of the criticism section, the text suddenly starts referring to the “computer device” with no previous reference to the term. Prior to that, only the hypothetical person “Black” has been mentioned as the one that will prevent Jones from doing otherwise. 
(I lack the knowledge to edit it correctly myself) 118.208.206.20 (talk) 04:18, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section changes analogies  part way through.