David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophia 38 (3):555-568 (2010)
Cases involving certain kinds of manipulation seem to challenge compatibilism about responsibility-grounding free will. To deal with such cases many compatibilists give what has become known as a âsoft lineâ reply. In this paper I present a challenge to the soft line reply. I argue that any relevant case involving manipulationâand to which a compatibilist might wish to give a soft line replyâcan be transformed into one supporting a degree of moral responsibility through the addition of libertarian elements (such as alternative possibilities of a kind unavailable under determinism and executive control of the sort commonly associated with agent-causation). From a compatibilistâs perspective the subtraction of libertarian elements should make no difference to any assessment of the agentâs responsibility. The compatibilist should therefore judge the agent morally responsible after the removal of the libertarian elements. Yet removal of the libertarian elements returns the case to its original form and thus what started out as a soft line has now collapsed into a hard line reply. Various ways of resisting my argument are considered, but each is shown to carry important burdens
|Keywords||Free Will Responsibility Control Soft Line Compatibilism Hard Line Incompatibilism Libertarianism Manipulation|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Bernard Berofsky (2002). Ifs, Cans, and Free Will: The Issues. In Robert H. Kane (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Free Will. Oxford University Press.
Randolph Clarke (2003). Libertarian Accounts of Free Will. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
John Martin Fischer (2006). My Way: Essays on Moral Responsibility. Oxford University Press.
John Martin Fischer & Mark Ravizza (1998). Responsibility and Control: A Theory of Moral Responsibility. Cambridge University Press.
Harry G. Frankfurt (2002). Reply to TM Scanlon. In Sarah Buss & Lee Overton (eds.), Contours of Agency: Essays on Themes From Harry Frankfurt. Mit Press, Bradford Books. 184--188.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Kristin Mickelson (2010). The Soft-Line Solution to Pereboom's Four-Case Argument. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 88 (4):595-617.
Ishtiyaque Haji & Stefaan E. Cuypers (2004). Moral Responsibility and the Problem of Manipulation Reconsidered. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 12 (4):439 – 464.
Richard Arneson (2007). The Smart Theory of Moral Responsibility and Desert. In Serena Olsaretti (ed.), Desert and Justice. Clarendon Press.
Patrick Todd (2011). A New Approach to Manipulation Arguments. Philosophical Studies 152 (1):127-133.
Christopher Evan Franklin (2006). Plausibility, Manipulation, and Fischer and Ravizza. Southern Journal of Philosophy 44 (2):173-192.
Gerald K. Harrison (2008). Modest Libertarianism and Clandestine Control. Dialectica 62 (4):495-507.
Roger Clarke (2012). How to Manipulate an Incompatibilistically Free Agent. American Philosophical Quarterly 49 (2):139-49.
Daniel Haas (2013). In Defense of Hard-Line Replies to the Multiple-Case Manipulation Argument. Philosophical Studies 163 (3):797-811.
Ishtiyaque Haji & Stefaan E. Cuypers (2006). Hard- and Soft-Line Responses to Pereboom's Four-Case Manipulation Argument. Acta Analytica 21 (4):19 - 35.
Added to index2009-08-08
Total downloads47 ( #33,086 of 1,096,515 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #45,639 of 1,096,515 )
How can I increase my downloads?