Plausibility, manipulation, and Fischer and Ravizza

Southern Journal of Philosophy 44 (2):173-192 (2006)
Abstract
The manipulation argument poses a significant challenge for any adequate compatibilist theory of agency. The argument maintains that there is no relevant difference between actions or pro-attitudes that are induced by nefarious neurosurgeons, God, or (and this is the important point) natural causes. Therefore, if manipulation is thought to undermine moral responsibility, then so also ought causal determinism. In this paper, I will attempt to bolster the plausibility of John Martin Fischer and Mark Ravizza’s semicompatibilist theory of moral responsibility by demonstrating how their account provides a distinctive line of response to three important types of manipulation
Keywords Agency  Ethics  Manipulation  Moral Responsibility  Fischer, John Martin  Ravizza, Mark
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/j.2041-6962.2006.tb00097.x
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
Edit this record
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Mark as duplicate
Request removal from index
Revision history
Download options
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 30,798
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total downloads
44 ( #122,395 of 2,202,407 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #300,203 of 2,202,407 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads
My notes
Sign in to use this feature