Harry frankfurt argues that an agent can be held morally responsible for performing an action even if the agent could not have chosen otherwise. why is this a controversial claim, and how does frankfurt argue for it? what is the significance of frankfurt’s argument for the free will debate?

Not to have choices is not the same as being forced to do something

Explanation:

Not to have choices is not the same as being forced to do something. This is the claim (non literal) from which Harry Frankfurt defend´s his free will theory. In action-type debates the best explanation are the examples. My favourite is this one:

Example: Imagine you are in your house and you want to buy something in the market, so you decide to take your car and drive. From your house to the market you must make 4 left consecutive turns in the corners (so you, in fact do it). After you finish buying your groceries you get on your car and try to go home: to do so now you have to turn right 4 consecutive times, but when you try to do so, you realize your car has a mechanical problem and it wont steer right.

You now realize you never had the choice to steer right but (according to Frankfurt) there is no reason to think you were not free: you thought you were free and the four turns to the left were, in fact, free actions.

Not to have choices is not the same as being forced to do something.

i r r e l e v a n t

im sorry i wish i can but try google