ABSTRACT
Harry Frankfurt offered an ingenious thought-experiment. This chapter aims to show that a seemingly devastating way of attacking Frankfurt-style examples fails to undermine the general style of attempted counterexample to principle of alternate possibilities (PAP). It concentrates on detailed objections raised by Robert Kane and by David Widerker. Those who took arguments of the sort offered by Widerker and Kane to show that incompatibilists can safely dismiss all Frankfurt-style cases should start worrying again. A Frankturt-style case will succeed in falsifying PAP only if it includes circumstances of this kind; but, Widerker argues, no Frankfurt-style case includes such circumstances. Unlike Kane, Widerker pays special attention to the idea that the Frankfurt-style counterfactual controller (Black) uses a sign as a basis for deciding whether to intervene. The scenario is immune to Kane's and Widerker's objections to Frankfurt-style cases. Kane contends, "the simple fact of indeterminacy right up to the moment of choice" or decision undermines Frankfurt's challenge to incompatibilists.
