I have a 3 page paper due...well, yesterday, for my philosophy class. I don't understand any of it though.
The question for my essay is: What is the Principle of Alternate Possibilities (PAP)? Explain the crucial role the Principle has played in traditional thinking about the free will/determinism debate. Present, in detail, Harry Frankfurt's criticism of the PAP. Under what conditions, exactly, does Frankfurt say that the question of moral responsibility does not hinge on the presence of alternate possibilities? Do you think that Frankfurt's argument succeeds in showing that there is something seriously wrong with the PAP? Why or why not?
or.
Discuss the Libertarian point of view, in the debate over determinism and free will. Just what does the libertarian believe? Why do libertarians reject compatibilism? Explain agency theory, and spell out how some libertarians have tried to clarify free human actions by it. Also, briefly discuss Robert Kane's view that our SFA's (self forming actions) help make us into the kinds of persons that we are. Do you think either libertarian theory offers a plausible explanation of human free will? Why or why not?
So, if any of you understand this, which do you think would be easier to really explain?
My professor said that the only thing we should use on this are our notes, but this is all I have.
PAP- S is morally responsible for A only if S could have done something other than A.
Agency Theory: Not every event is caused by another event. You cause the event. Agent causes the event. event-event causation. Agent-event causation. State of mind does not determine choice, you do.
Libertarianism- We are free beings. Incompatilibism. Indeterminism.
I understand what the PAP is but I have no idea what role it's really had in the free will or determinism debate.
And I honestly have no idea what the libertarian point of view is.