Frankfurt Example

[Bono]

Suppose a mad scientist engineers a device that, when a person is faced with the chance to steal a wallet with low risk of being caught, will prevent the person from choosing not to steal it--that is, if the person chooses not to steal it, the device is activated and the choice will be overidden. Now, the person into whom this device is implanted practices several 'snatchings'. But the kicker is, the device was never activated, that is, the person never chose to not steal it. Was this person free in decicing to steal the wallets, and should he be held morally responsible?

[afleitch]

What do you mean by 'practices' snatchings? Is he made aware of the experiment before hand, is he guided in anyway by the scientist giving tips to his test subject?

[Bono]

I don't see why it matters, but no to both questions if it'll get someone to answer.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

No/Yes.

I'll write an explanation later.

[Gustaf]

This is a rejection of Kant's "ought implies can," I gather?

[opebo]

no/no.  Individual responsiblity is always a myth.

[Јas]

If I understand it correctly, yes/yes.

[Bono]

No/Yes.

I'll write an explanation later.

Waiting.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

No/Yes.

I'll write an explanation later.

Waiting.

*sigh* I'll give a brief (and thus probably flawed) one:

Obviously such an issue depends on how you define nebulous concepts such as "freedom" but anyway:

Freedom for me at least depends on knowledge, at least a certain awareness of one's surroundings to which one can make informed decisions; It also means a belief in the individual to make his own decisions. And thus comes in the dreaded 'responibility'. Anyways the idea of such a device is to override the rational instinct I described and thus force the individual to act within a certain manner regardless of his ability to think or reason about it. The idea that he had the device installed for 'immoral' purposes or that it was off is irrelevant as 1) he can not judge his reasoning only his actions, 2) the perception of the device was to override rationality (I assuming consent, right?) and to give complete power to 'outside' external forces, the opposite of individual freedom imo. and 3) he was not given the correct data anyway to make a rational decision as he believed the device to be off.

As for responibility - he had already consented to have the device installed and thus knew any potential actions that could happen due to it. As he was still a rational actor when he consented, he is responisible.

[minionofmidas]

What a strange thought, but I said Yes/Yes.  If the "device" was never activated, and the person chose to steal....then I'm not really seeing how this could be different?

Aw. Blast from the Past. Welcome back!