The following text is about philosophy of action.
Frankfurt cases, named for philosopher Harry Frankfurt, challenge the principle that moral responsibility requires the ability to do otherwise. Imagine a neuroscientist secretly monitors your brain and will intervene to ensure you make a certain choice—but only if you were going to choose differently. In fact, you make the choice on your own, without intervention occurring. Were you responsible? Many say yes—it was your choice—even though you could not have done otherwise (the neuroscientist would have intervened). This suggests responsibility may depend on the actual causal history of an action, not on alternative possibilities.
What do Frankfurt cases suggest about moral responsibility?
Responsibility absolutely requires the ability to choose otherwise
Responsibility may depend on actual causal processes, not on alternative possibilities
Neuroscientists control all human choices
No one is ever responsible for their actions
Correct Answer: B
Choice B is the correct answer. The text suggests "responsibility may depend on the actual causal history of an action, not on alternative possibilities."
- Evidence: Responsible despite inability to do otherwise.
- Reasoning: What matters is how the action actually came about.
- Conclusion: Actual causal process, not alternatives, grounds responsibility.
Choice A is incorrect because Frankfurt cases challenge this principle. Choice C is incorrect because the scenario is hypothetical. Choice D is incorrect because the agent was responsible.