Read the paragraph below and answer the subsequent question.
Imagine there’s a man named Jones who wants to assassinate a prime minister. Jones has already made plans to assassinate the prime minister on June 17 at noon by shooting the prime minister from a rooftop as he gives a speech, and Jones is prepared to carry out the plans. Now there is also a neurosurgeon named Dr. Green who want the prime minister dead as well. Dr. Green is aware of Jones’ plan, but he is worried that Jones will chicken out at the last second and not follow through with his plan. So, in order to ensure that Jones shoots the prime minister, Dr. Green implants a device in Jones’ head while Jones sleeps the night before. The device will force Jones to decide to shoot the prime minister at noon on June 17 if Jones does anything other than decide to shoot prime minister at noon. Jones is completely unaware that Dr. Green has implanted the device, and he does not even know that Dr. Green exists.
Now, as it just so happens, at noon on June 17 Jones decides to shoot the prime minister on his own and shoots the prime minister. Since Jones decided on his own to shoot the prime minister the device in his head only continued to monitor his brain without every having to activate. The device did not affect Jones at all.
Did Jones freely assassinate the prime minister? Should we blame Jones for assassinating the prime minister?
After considering the Jones case, do you think the very plausible Principle of Alternative Possibilities (PAP) is true? (PAP states: A person is morally responsible for what they have done only if they could have done otherwise.)
Explain why we should either blame Mr. Jones in this case or maintain that PAP is true.
Your discussion post should be at least 150 words.
