Graduate studies at Western
Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 85 (3):563-593 (2012)
|Abstract||Incompatibilists and compatibilists (mostly) agree that there is a strong intuition that a manipulated agent, i.e., an agent who is the victim of methods such as indoctrination or brainwashing, is unfree. They differ however on why exactly this intuition arises. Incompatibilists claim our intuitions in these cases are sensitive to the manipulated agent’s lack of ultimate control over her actions, while many compatibilists argue that our intuitions respond to damage inflicted by manipulation on the agent’s psychological and volitional capacities. Much hangs on this issue because manipulation-based arguments are among the most important for defending incompatibilist views of free will. In this paper, I investigate this issue from a experimental perspective, using a set of statistical methods well suited for identifying the features of hypothetical cases people’s intuitions are responding to. Results strongly support the compatibilist view—subjects’ tendency to judge that a manipulated agent is unfree was found to depend on their judgments that the agent suffers impairments to certain psychological/volitional capacities that compatibilists say are the basis for free will. I discuss the significance of these results for the use of manipulation cases in the philosophical debate about free will|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Roger Clarke (2012). How to Manipulate an Incompatibilistically Free Agent. American Philosophical Quarterly 49 (2):139-49.
Ned Markosian (2012). Agent Causation as the Solution to All the Compatibilist's Problems. Philosophical Studies 157 (3):383 - 398.
Ishtiyaque Haji & Stefaan E. Cuypers (2006). Hard- and Soft-Line Responses to Pereboom's Four-Case Manipulation Argument. Acta Analytica 21 (4):19 - 35.
Ishtiyaque Haji & Stefaan E. Cuypers (2004). Moral Responsibility and the Problem of Manipulation Reconsidered. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 12 (4):439 – 464.
Patrick 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 (2013). A Maneuver Around the Modified Manipulation Argument. Philosophical Studies 165 (3):753-763.
Gary Watson (1975). Free Agency. Journal of Philosophy 72 (April):205-20.
Gerald K. Harrison (2008). Modest Libertarianism and Clandestine Control. Dialectica 62 (4):495-507.
Ishtiyaque Haji (1996). Moral Responsibility and the Problem of Induced Pro-Attitudes. Dialogue 35 (04):703-.
Andrew C. Khoury (2013). Synchronic and Diachronic Responsibility. Philosophical Studies 165 (3):735-752.
Chandra Sripada & Sara Konrath (2011). Telling More Than We Can Know About Intentional Action. Mind and Language 26 (3):353-380.
Matthew Talbert (2009). Implanted Desires, Self-Formation and Blame. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 3:1-18.
Patrick Todd (2012). Manipulation and Moral Standing: An Argument for Incompatibilism. Philosophers' Imprint 12 (7).
Added to index2011-10-25
Total downloads187 ( #2,016 of 739,336 )
Recent downloads (6 months)75 ( #470 of 739,336 )
How can I increase my downloads?