Manipulating Responsibility
| Abstract | Manipulation arguments have become almost a cottage industry in the moral responsibility literature. These cases are used for a variety of purposes, familiarly to undermine some proffered set of conditions on responsibility, usually compatibilist conditions. The basic idea is to conceive of a case which intuitively includes responsibility-undermining manipulation but which meets the target account’s set of sufficient conditions on responsibility. The manipulation thereby serves as a counterexample to the target theory. More specifically, recent concern with manipulation cases has often been part of an argument for historical conditions on moral responsibility. Exercising control over an action is not necessarily enough to be responsible for it, one must have come to exercise that control in a non-deviant way. Manipulation cases are meant to illustrate how an agent can exercise the supposed sufficient control over an action, and yet intuitively fail to be responsible as a result of some manipulation. The argument concludes that manipulation of this sort must then be ruled out by one’s conditions on responsibility. Accounts that fail to rule out such manipulation are objectionable as a result. Manipulation arguments usually fit a general schema.1 One presents a case intuitively involving responsibility-undermining manipulation, but where all the conditions of the target account are met. Then one argues that there is no relevant difference between that case and ordinary action under the target account. Thus, one can conclude, the target account gets the wrong verdict for manipulation cases. Some variations on this schema seek a slightly grander conclusion. For example, some incompatibilists argue from the manipulation case through a principle that claims there to be no relevant difference between such a case and ordinary action in a deterministic universe. Thus, the conclusion reached is that if determinism is true, all responsibility is undermined. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,875 |
| External links | This entry has no external links. Add one. |
| Through your library | Only published papers are available at libraries |
Similar books and articlesPatrick Todd (2011). A New Approach to Manipulation Arguments. Philosophical Studies 152 (1):127-133.
Andrew C. Khoury (forthcoming). Manipulation and Mitigation. Philosophical Studies:1-12.
Hannah Tierney (forthcoming). A Maneuver Around the Modified Manipulation Argument. Philosophical Studies.
Ishtiyaque Haji & Stefaan E. Cuypers (2004). Moral Responsibility and the Problem of Manipulation Reconsidered. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 12 (4):439 – 464.
Neal Judisch (2005). Responsibility, Manipulation and Ownership: Reflections on the Fischer/Ravizza Program. Philosophical Explorations 8 (2):115-130.
Alfred R. Mele (2008). Manipulation, Compatibilism, and Moral Responsibility. Journal of Ethics 12 (3/4):263 - 286.
Christopher Evan Franklin (2006). Plausibility, Manipulation, and Fischer and Ravizza. Southern Journal of Philosophy 44 (2):173-192.
Ishtiyaque Haji & Stefaan E. Cuypers (2006). Hard- and Soft-Line Responses to Pereboom's Four-Case Manipulation Argument. Acta Analytica 21 (4).
Tomis Kapitan (2000). Autonomy and Manipulated Freedom. Philosopical Perspectives 14 (s14):81-104.
Roger Clarke (2012). How to Manipulate an Incompatibilistically Free Agent. American Philosophical Quarterly 49 (2):139-49.
Andrew C. Khoury (forthcoming). Synchronic and Diachronic Responsibility. Philosophical Studies.
Patrick Todd (2012). Manipulation and Moral Standing: An Argument for Incompatibilism. Philosophers' Imprint 12 (7).
Gerald K. Harrison (2010). A Challenge for Soft Line Replies to Manipulation Cases. Philosophia 38 (3):555-568.
Matthew Talbert (2009). Implanted Desires, Self-Formation and Blame. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 3:1-18.
Daniel Haas (2013). In Defense of Hard-Line Replies to the Multiple-Case Manipulation Argument. Philosophical Studies 163 (3):797-811.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2010-12-22Total downloads36 ( #33,611 of 556,837 )Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #20,489 of 556,837 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
