By giving the 4 examples of Jones1, Jones2, Jones3, and Jones4 and Black, Frankfurt shows that PAP is false as the examples show exceptions to the PAP. With PAP2, Frankfurt attempts to explain the instances in which one chooses to do something that s/he was forced to do, but intended to do before the coercion. As he realizes PAP2 is flawed, he proposes his final PAP, PAP3: "A person is not morally responsible for what he has done if he did it only because he could not have done otherwise. " (Frankfurt, 412-3). With this he makes clear his belief that to be free from moral responsibility, one must have no other cause to commit the act apart from the coercion.
While Ayer and Frankfurt talk about moral responsibility and the factors that make one morally responsible, Thomas Nagel talks about the occurrence of factors that are beyond our control, which can be summed up as Moral Luck. Nagel's moral luck consists of the following: luck in the consequences of one's actions, constitutive luck, luck in the circumstances one is in, and luck in how one is determined by antecedent conditions. Luck in the consequences of one's actions is the luck that determines the outcome of one's actions. An example of this would be, if persons A and B both threw stone out the window without looking, and one stone hits a person while the other does not. It can be said that it was up to luck that one's stone injured someone while the other caused no harm. Constitutive luck is the luck that decides one's characteristics hence can be seen in one's upbringing, education, environment, etc. Luck in the circumstances one is in would be the luck that determines the situation/environment in which one can possibly encounter a situation in which we may be forced or driven to make morally questionable decisions. An example Nagel gave was of the Germans that stayed in Germany during the Nazi regime. Some left, while those that remained were placed in situations in which they committed crimes that they would never have thought of doing before.
