Abstract
Abstract
A standard argument for one-boxing in Newcomb’s Problem is ‘Why Ain’cha Rich?’, which emphasizes that one-boxers typically make a million dollars compared to the thousand dollars that two-boxers can expect. A standard reply is the ‘opportunity defence’: the two-boxers who made a thousand never had an opportunity to make more. The paper argues that the opportunity defence is unavailable to anyone who grants that in another case—a Frankfurt case—the agent is deprived of opportunities in the way that advocates of Frankfurt cases typically claim.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference32 articles.
1. Dennett, D. (2015). Elbow room: The varieties of free will worth wanting (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2. Edgington, D. (2004). Counterfactuals and the benefit of hindsight. In P. Dowe & P. Noordhof (Eds.), Cause and chance: Causation in an indeterministic world (pp. 12–27). London: Routledge.
3. Elga, A. (2004). Infinitesimal chances and laws of nature. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 82, 67–76.
4. Fischer, J. M. (2010). The Frankfurt cases: The moral of the stories. Philosophical Review, 119, 315–336.
5. Frankfurt, H. (1969). Alternate possibilities and moral responsibility. Journal of Philosophy 66:829–839. In G. Watson (Ed.), Free will (Vol. Second, pp. 167–177). Oxford: OUP 2003.