A paradox concerning Frankfurt examples

Ishtiyaque Haji

pp. 87-103

in: Synthese 196 (1), 2019.

Abstrakt

The set with the following members is inconsistent: F-Lesson: A person can be blameworthy for performing an action even though she cannot refrain from performing it. Equivalence: "Ought not' is equivalent to "impermissible.' OIC: "Ought' implies "can' and "ought not' implies "can refrain from.' BRI: Necessarily, one is morally blameworthy for doing something only if it is overall morally impermissible for one to do it. Since Equivalence seems unassailable, one can escape the inconsistency by renouncing any one of the other members. I first argue against BRI and then motivate a replacement for it that ties blameworthiness to belief in impermissibility.