In “Alternative Possibilities and Moral Responsibility,” Harry Frankfurt attempts to falsify the principle of alternative possibilities. The principle of alternative possibilities is the principle that a person is morally responsible for what he or she has done only if he or she could have done otherwise. A person would be morally responsible for their actions if done alone. If someone else had forced that person to perform the action, then the person performing the action is not morally responsible. Frankfurt does not believe that this is true and that the person doing the action is morally responsible. The Frankfurt objections to the Principle of Alternative Possibilities show the refutation of natural intuition and place moral responsibility on those who deserve it. Frankfurt's “Black and Jones” example is an apt explanation of how the Principle of Alternative Possibilities works. Black holds a gun to Jones' head and tells him to perform action A. According to the Principle of Alternative Possibilities, this will play out in three ways. If Jones were not a reasonable man and was “enthusiastic,” without concern for consequences or costs, then he should not be morally responsible for such an action. If Jones were afraid of what Black would do with the gun and decided to change his decision to take any other action to action A, then he would be morally responsible only for the decision made previously and not for the action. If Jones is not affected by Nero's actions, but considers those actions in planning his next move while still following his original decision, then he is morally responsible for all actions and decisions. (Frankfurt; Watson, 169-170) What Frankfurt considers this to be a counterexample to the principle of possible alternatives...... middle of paper ......ow moral responsibility. It is necessary to will other alternative possibilities, knowing that there is no moral responsibility for them, to demonstrate that the original will has moral responsibility. It's like placing a white stone on a pile of black stones to emphasize the fact that that stone is a white stone. This shows the need for alternative possibilities and strengthens Frankfurt's argument. In conclusion, the Frankfurt argument against the Principle of Alternative Possibilities showed that people under coercion had moral responsibility for their actions. Copp attributes the value of moral responsibility to the ability to know how to do one's own will and Pereboom supports Frankfurt's thesis by placing the condition of robustness on alternative possibilities. This shows that we still need to think more and brainstorm about who has moral responsibility.