Content area
Full text
Philos Stud (2013) 165:753763
DOI 10.1007/s11098-012-9974-8
Hannah Tierney
Published online: 30 June 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012
Abstract In the recent article A new approach to manipulation arguments, Patrick Todd seeks to reframe a common incompatibilist form of argument often leveraged against compatibilist theories of moral responsibility. Known as manipulation arguments, these objections rely on cases in which agents, though they have met standard compatibilist conditions for responsibility, have been manipulated in such a way that they fail to be blameworthy for their behavior. Traditionally, in order to get a manipulation argument off the ground, an incompatibilist must illustrate that a manipulated agent is not at all responsible for her behavior. Todd argues that this is an unnecessarily heavy burdenthe incompatibilist need only show that the presence of manipulation mitigates ascriptions of responsibility. Though innovative, Todd fails to present his modied manipulation argument in a way that poses a true threat to the compatibilist. In fact, by introducing a scalar conception of moral responsibility, Todd gives the compatibilist the tools necessary to better handle the incompatibilists original manipulation argument.
Keywords Free will Manipulation Derk Pereboom Patrick Todd
Compatibilism Incompatibilism
1 Introduction
In his recent article A new approach to manipulation arguments, Patrick Todd seeks to reframe a common incompatibilist form of argument often directed against compatibilist theories of moral responsibility. Known as manipulation arguments, these objections rely on cases in which agents, though they have met standard
H. Tierney (&)
Philosophy Department, University of Arizona, 213 Social Sciences Bldg, P.O. Box 210027, Tucson, AZ 85721-0027, USAe-mail: [email protected]
A maneuver around the modied manipulation argument
123
754 H. Tierney
compatibilist sufcient conditions for moral responsibility, have been manipulated in such a way that they fail to be morally responsible for their behavior (typically these cases involve putative blameworthiness). Traditionally, in order to get a manipulation argument off the ground, an incompatibilist must bring forth the intuition that a manipulated agent is not at all responsible for her behavior. Todd argues that this is an unnecessarily heavy burdenthe incompatibilist need only produce the intuition that the presence of manipulation mitigates ascriptions of responsibility. Though innovative, Todd fails to present his modied manipulation argument (MMA) in a way that poses a true threat to the compatibilist....