Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that The Principle of Alternative Possibilities (PAP) at most sets forth a necessary condition of acting freely in the libertarian sense, not a sufficient one.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Frankfurt's own cases, the primary challenge to PAP, target the ability-to-do-otherwise condition directly, not PAP's alleged silence on rationality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If PAP survives Frankfurt cases via the flicker-of-freedom response (Fischer, Nozick), then the rationality gap identified in P2 is a feature of the counterexample strategy, not PAP itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Conflating PAP's incompleteness with PAP's inadequacy commits a category error: necessary conditions are not expected to specify sufficient ones.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.PAP's defenders, including van Inwagen, explicitly situate it within broader compatibilist and libertarian frameworks that already presuppose rationality conditions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A necessary condition embedded in a rich theoretical framework inherits the sufficiency constraints of that framework, making the insufficiency objection merely terminological.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.PAP claims that in order to act freely one must be able to do otherwise.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.PAP includes no requirement that a free choice be even minimally rational.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.