In his essay entitled “Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility,” Harry Frankfurt refutes the Principle of Alternate Possibilities and creates his own “revised” principle discussing a more logical connection between freedom and responsibility. Utilizing a 1999 episode of SpongeBob Squarepants, I will ultimately prove that Frankfurt is correct.

            According to Frankfurt, the Principle of Alternate Possibilities states that if a person is morally responsible for doing something, then s/he could have done otherwise. This statement conversely entails that if a person could not have done otherwise, then s/he is not morally responsible. However, Frankfurt argues that this principle is not true. He lays out the example of Jones₄, in which Black wants Jones₄ to perform a certain action that Jones₄ is already planning on performing, but Jones₄ does not know about Black’s plan. If Jones₄ decides that he does not want to perform the action, Black will be immediately aware of this (through some twitch that Black observes in Jones₄) and will force Jones₄ to perform the action through some potion or hypnosis. However, Black never has to act because Jones₄ performs the action regardless.[1] In this case, Jones₄ is undoubtedly morally responsible because he chose to act without being forced or coerced. Although he was not aware of it, Jones₄ could not have acted otherwise. Therefore, Frankfurt reasons that a person can be morally responsible for doing something even though s/he could not have done otherwise. He offers a “revised” Principle of Alternate Possibilities, which states that if a person does something only because s/he could not have done otherwise, then s/he is not morally responsible.[2] In other words, a person is not morally responsible if the sole reason for his/her action was that s/he could not have acted otherwise.

            Although created for children, the television show SpongeBob Squarepants offers a valid example of the Principle of Alternate Possibilities. The concept of the series is simple: SpongeBob is a sponge living underwater, where he works at a restaurant named the Krusty Krab, owned by Mr. Krabs (a crab). Mr. Krabs’s competitor, Plankton (a microscopic plankton), owns the Chum Bucket right across the street. The Krusty Krab does exceptionally well while the Chum Bucket is always entirely deserted. In the season one episode entitled “Plankton,” Plankton attempts to steal Mr. Krabs’s secret formula by sneaking into SpongeBob’s home in the middle of the night. Taking advantage of his own small size, Plankton literally crawls into SpongeBob’s head through one of his sponge holes while he is sleeping and reveals a device that plugs into SpongeBob’s brain to control him. Plankton proceeds to control SpongeBob’s body while SpongeBob verbally fights with him. Ultimately, Plankton successfully controls SpongeBob and steals the formula (although his plan is eventually foiled).[3] In this situation, SpongeBob clearly is not morally responsible and could not do otherwise, agreeing with the Principle of Alternate Possibilities.

            However, let us manipulate the episode plot a little. Let us propose that SpongeBob actually feels mistreated at the Krusty Krab and decides that he should work at the Chum Bucket. In order to gain Plankton’s respect and trust, SpongeBob decides to steal the secret formula to bring to Plankton. Meanwhile, Plankton is fully aware of SpongeBob’s plan and sneaks into SpongeBob’s head with the device in case SpongeBob changes his mind. Therefore, if SpongeBob changes his mind and chooses not to steal the formula, Plankton will turn on the device and force SpongeBob to steal it anyway. Let us say that SpongeBob carries out his plan and Plankton never has to intervene. Now, we have an entirely new situation to address.

            Obviously, SpongeBob is morally responsible because he was not coerced or forced to do anything, nor did he know that Plankton would have forced him to act if he changed his mind. However, SpongeBob did not actually have a choice. No matter what, he would have stolen the secret formula, whether by his or Plankton’s doing. This situation is a clear counter-example to the Principle of Alternate Possibilities because SpongeBob is both morally responsible and he could not have done otherwise.

            I ultimately agree with Frankfurt’s view that moral responsibility does not require alternate possibilities. However, I believe that the only way for a situation like this to arise is for SpongeBob (or Jones₄) to believe that he has an alternate possibility available. In my opinion, SpongeBob is clearly morally responsible in this situation; what I doubt is whether or not it matters that SpongeBob himself did not realize that he had no choice. Technically, SpongeBob could not have acted otherwise, but he genuinely believed that he could. It is the belief that he could act otherwise that makes him morally responsible for his action; the fact that he actually had no choice simply proves that the Principle of Alternate Possibilities is not correct and should actually be revised to Frankfurt’s final suggestion: if SpongeBob does something only because he could not do otherwise, he is not morally responsible. Otherwise, SpongeBob had another reason for doing so and must be held morally responsible.

---

[1] Frankfurt, 835-6.

[2] Frankfurt, 838.

[3] “Plankton!” SpongeBob Squarepants, Nickelodeon. Season 1, Episode 7. 31 July 1999.

 

*This paper is written about an essay entitled “Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility,” written by Harry Frankfurt. Read the essay here.