Manipulation, Compatibilism, and Moral Responsibility
Journal of Ethics 12 (3/4):263 - 286 (2008)
| Abstract | This article distinguishes among and examines three different kinds of argument for the thesis that moral responsibility and free action are each incompatible with the truth of determinism: straight manipulation arguments; manipulation arguments to the best explanation; and original-design arguments. Structural and methodological matters are the primary focus | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,701 |
| External links |
|
| Through your library | Configure |
Alfred R. Mele (2005). Dennett on Freedom. Metaphilosophy 36 (4):414-426.
Ishtiyaque Haji & Stefaan E. Cuypers (2004). Moral Responsibility and the Problem of Manipulation Reconsidered. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 12 (4):439 – 464.
Tomis Kapitan (2000). Autonomy and Manipulated Freedom. Philosopical Perspectives 14 (s14):81-104.
John Martin Fischer (2004). Responsibility and Manipulation. Journal of Ethics 8 (2):145-177.
Michael S. McKenna (1998). Moral Theory and Modified Compatibilism. Journal of Philosophical Research 23 (January):441-458.
Matthew Talbert (2009). Implanted Desires, Self-Formation and Blame. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 3:1-18.
Roger Clarke (2012). How to Manipulate an Incompatibilistically Free Agent. American Philosophical Quarterly 49 (2):139-49.
Kristin Demetriou (2010). The Soft-Line Solution to Pereboom's Four-Case Argument. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 88 (4):595-617.
Patrick Todd (2011). A New Approach to Manipulation Arguments. Philosophical Studies 152 (1):127-133.
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads82 ( #9,284 of 549,113 )Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #19,263 of 549,113 )How can I increase my downloads? |

