Manipulation, Compatibilism, and Moral Responsibility

Journal of Ethics 12 (3/4):263 - 286 (2008)
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 Compatibilism  Free action  Incompatibilism  Manipulation  Moral responsibility  Zygote argument
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.2307/40345382
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
Download options
PhilPapers Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 15,822
External links
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

View all 27 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Stephen Kearns (2012). Aborting the Zygote Argument. Philosophical Studies 160 (3):379-389.
Alfred R. Mele (2009). Moral Responsibility and History Revisited. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 12 (5):463 - 475.

View all 16 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

121 ( #17,820 of 1,724,741 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

10 ( #64,701 of 1,724,741 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

Start a new thread
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.