I definately distinguish between unfreedoms and constraints. A constraint is what I call something physical - like a wall, or how fast you can run. Being unable to win the Olympic sprint doesn't make you unfree - it's just another aspect of reality that constrains your options beyond mere imagination.
Unfreedom is what I call the reduction in ones options that occurs because of the will of another person. If you would like to speak your mind, but someone doesn't let you, then you don't have any freedom.
The example above is, to me, fairly clear. The man is not free to leave the room. He is free to stay in the room. Thus, if he chooses to stay in the room, then the consequences are his responsibility. If he tries to leave the room, but cannot, then the consequences are the responsibility of the interlocutor.
-Tennessee

The only way a person can be a slave is through allowing their will to be enslaved
There are too many absolute statements. Just because the door was locked does not mean he could not have left the room. The only way a person can be made a slave is through their own will, which allows itself to be coerced. The slave allows himself to be a slave through their own will. Hegel stated that ?As a living thing man may be coerced, i.e. his body or anything else external about him may be brought under the power of others; but the free will cannot be coerced at all, except in so far as it fails to withdraw itself out of the external object in which it is held fast, or rather out of its idea of that object. Only the will which allows itself to be coerced can in any way be coerced (Hegel-Philosophy of Right).? The man could have altered the form of the door or walls through various means and tools present in the room. When describing that the room was locked, and he could not have left the room, you are taking an absolute position similar to God-but only God would know that the man absolutely cannot get out/there is no other wise. You have not even described the room, or how what the locking mechanism is, and yet you jumped to the fact that he can?t get out. All physical doors are finite, that means there is a way to get out; it has a flaw in its being finite. Locke was made fairly good contributions to epistemology, but they were greatly superceded by those that came after.
For further a further explanation on how the man could be able to get out of the room through Possession of the lock consult Hegel?s Philosophy of Right.
?Based on his own Reasons he decided to stay in the Room?
Most people before deciding they want to stay in the room would want to find out if they could get out. Kant wanted to know if there are limits to Reason, concerning such question as God, Immortality of Soul, and Freedom.

?Those are all nice and great, but for the sake of argument suppose that there REALLY is NO way to get out of that room. Suppose that it is absolutely impossible, there is no way in hell that he's getting out until someone else outside of the room unlocks the door (from the outside, let's say).?
Let?s say this abstract problem really exists in the real world. Lets say that I one of us plays the role of God-which is completely absurd, a person cannot infinitely imagine the being God or that which moves all of nature. Let?s say clouds are really marshmallows. Lets say that we listen to someone?s theology which creates a God, and this problem is included in his Summa Theologica, so clearly the man should stay in the room because he can?t get out/follow the rules.
You are giving into another person?s absolute ideas to easily. The person who wrote this problem knows how to use words as chains. Now if this is just a game that is OK, but if you plan to build some kind of morality and ethics out of this Logic, it is absurd. You say that ?until someone else outside of the room unlocks the door,? then that guy has an option of convincing the guy to open the door for him-therefore he has a way to get out.
There is no such thing as an inescapable room in the real world. If there is a Lock, there is always someone who knows how to pick it. You are always in control of your Will, and just because you can?t think of an alternative does not mean that it does not exist. That is why you constantly need to increase your Education (collection of principles) and sharpen your judgment, so that you can perceive and use alternatives. Anyone who tells you that there are no alternatives is seeking to manipulate you into their slave.
What about the whole idea of making ?no choice? is a choice within itself? I choose not to choose.

I think that the "Locke/Frankfurt Examples" provide us with intuitions that the Principle of Alternative Possibilities (which itself is supposed to be intuitive) may too strong or even completely wrong. I think that PAP comes from our intuition that when someone is forced to do something against their will then they can't be held responsible for it. It seems that this sort of intuition was the basis for PAP, which in my opinion completely misinterpreted that intuition. It seems that responsibility becomes an issue of will not choice, therefore making alternate possibilities irrelevant.

?I think that PAP comes from our intuition that when someone is forced to do something against their will then they can't be held responsible for it. It seems that this sort of intuition was the basis for PAP, which in my opinion completely misinterpreted that intuition. It seems that responsibility becomes an issue of will not choice, therefore making alternate possibilities irrelevant,? said Jamie.
You mean like when a person (X) is holding a gun to another person?s (Y) head and forces him to do something? In that case I might agree that there is no alternative for (Y) and that person (Y) cannot be held accountable for what they do, since their life is being immediately threatened. But I will not submit to the abstract problem by Locke. His abstract problem will not hold in the real world, it is too absolute and requires that one player take the role of God. If you want to create a morality or ethics from your logic (such as this problem) it must be applicable to the real world. Sure we can play abstract games (filled with empty concepts) and then create some abstract morality out of that, but the end is superfluous. Suppose, Assume, and other words like that are wastes of time. We are looking for Truth. Stop playing with empty concepts, and start using concepts agree with the conditions of experience.

Nick,
The fact that we are unaware doesn't seem to limit our responsibility. If that was the case then ignorance would negate responsibility. For example, If I am driving down the road and am unaware (or even ignorant) of the speed limit signs (which are in plain sight), then according to your statement I am not responsible for speeding when I get pulled over. Or perhaps I am unaware of the child playing the street and I hit him with my SUV. Is it the case that I not responsible for hitting the child and possibly killing him.
Homer,
I am curious to the statement about one of the players playing the role of God. I don't see this as the case. There is a person in a locked room and ultimately all the needs to be is one player. What if the person in Locke's example voluntarily walked into a room and shut the door himself, unbenounced to him however once the door was shut it was impossible to open it. In this case there is only one person involved in the example. There is no one playing the role of god in this instance is there?
How are terms like suppose, assume,... wastes of time? These types of words help us to come to an understanding that makes the truth more meaningful. Is Einstein theory of Special Relativity a waste of time because its assumptions about gravity? In logic, when arguing reductio ad absurdum, we assume the opposite of what we think the conclusion is in order to show that the truth of the matter is that the assumption is not the case (hopefully).

In third sentence of the second paragraph it should say "ultimately all THERE needs to be ..." sorry

To Nick,
?Where Negligence Exists=X?
Clearly teenagers, people under the age of 18, should not be held as responsible as people over 18. That is why 17 year olds can?t buy automobiles. The ?Where Negligence Exists=X? would either have to be (X=a), or (a>X>n). This could be used to judge people without disability. Now the question is where would a ?mentally disabled? person be on the scale? And how do assign responsibility to them? Do mentally disabled people drive cars legally?
Clearly X is not something as high as Kant's categorical imperative. Are you trying to construct something universal, or a standard based on the "every man?" How are you trying to construct this standard? What would you use Nick?
Jamie: Ignorance is no excuse, and it is not bliss.

I think I understand the premise of this hypothetical well enough: according to Locke, the man was not free in his action, yet he ought to be held morally responsible for his decision to stay in the room. Putting the issue of the man's freedom aside for a moment, it seems to me that Locke?s version of the ?Frankfurt-type example? is terribly incomplete. Here are my concerns:
First, what exactly are the repercussions of the man?s actions? Why is he being held morally responsible for choosing to stay in the room? This isn?t explained, yet it seems vital to the example.
More importantly: If I understand the example, the man simply awakes in a room, mulls things over, and decides to stay ? at which point he becomes morally responsible for his actions. How can we reasonably hold him morally responsible? Shouldn't he have been notified beforehand of the consequences his actions held? At what point does moral responsibility enter into the equation?