Abstract

In my “Molinist Frankfurt-Style Counterexamples and the Free Will Defense” (Faith and Philosophy 2002) I argued that if we help ourselves to Molinism, we can give a counterexample—one avoiding the usual difficulties—to the Principle of Alternate Possibilities: PAP. A person is morally responsible for performing a given act only if she could have acted otherwise. In his “On Behalf of the PAP-ists: A Reply to Bergmann” (Faith and Philosophy 2002) Thomas Flint proposes three objections to my counterexample. In what follows, I respond to each.