Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T05:29:50.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Manipulation Arguments and Libertarian Accounts of Free Will

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 March 2020

TAYLOR W. CYR
TAYLOR W. CYR*
Affiliation:
SAMFORD [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In response to the increasingly popular manipulation argument against compatibilism, some have argued that libertarian accounts of free will are vulnerable to parallel manipulation arguments, and thus manipulation is not uniquely problematic for compatibilists. The main aim of this article is to give this point a more detailed development than it has previously received. Prior attempts to make this point have targeted particular libertarian accounts but cannot be generalized. By contrast, I provide an appropriately modified manipulation that targets all libertarian accounts of freedom and responsibility—an especially tricky task given that libertarian accounts are a motley set. I conclude that if manipulation arguments reveal any theoretical cost then it is one borne by all accounts according to which we are free and responsible, not by compatibilism in particular.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the American Philosophical Association , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , Spring 2020 , pp. 57 - 73
Copyright
Copyright © American Philosophical Association 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

For helpful discussion and for comments on previous drafts of this article, I thank the members of my dissertation committee, John Fischer, Dana Nelkin, Michael Nelson, Derk Pereboom, and Eric Schwitzgebel, as well as Dave Beglin, Gabriel De Marco, Matt Flummer, Andrew Law, Meredith McFadden, Jonah Nagashima, and Jeremy Pober. Thanks also to two anonymous reviewers for this journal.

References

Barnes, Eric Christian. (2015) ‘Freedom, Creativity, and Manipulation’. Noûs, 49, 560–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, Randolph. (2003) Libertarian Accounts of Free Will. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, Roger. (2012) ‘How to Manipulate an Incompatibilistically Free Agent’. American Philosophical Quarterly, 49, 139–49.Google Scholar
Cohen, Yishai. (2015) ‘The Manipulation Argument, at the Very Least, Undermines Classical Compatibilism’. Philosophia, 43, 291–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cyr, Taylor W. (2016) ‘The Parallel Manipulation Argument’. Ethics, 126, 1075–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deery, Oisín, and Nahmias, Eddy. (2017) ‘Defeating Manipulation Arguments: Interventionist Causation and Compatibilist Sourcehood’. Philosophical Studies, 174, 1255–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, John Martin. (1994) The Metaphysics of Free Will: An Essay on Control. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Fischer, John Martin. (2006) My Way: Essays on Moral Responsibility. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, John Martin. (2011) ‘The Zygote Argument Remixed’. Analysis, 71, 267–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, John Martin. (2012) Deep Control: Essays on Free Will and Value. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, John Martin, and Ravizza, Mark. (1998) Responsibility and Control: A Theory of Moral Responsibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frankfurt, Harry G. (1969) ‘Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility’. Journal of Philosophy, 66, 829–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginet, Carl. (1990) On Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haji, Ishtiyaque, and Cuypers, Stefaan E. (2001) ‘Libertarian Free Will and CNC Manipulation’. Dialectica, 55, 221–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kane, Robert. (1996) The Significance of Free Will. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kane, Robert. (2011) ‘Rethinking Free Will: New Perspectives on an Ancient Problem’. In Kane, Robert (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Free Will, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press), 381–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kearns, Stephen. (2012) ‘Aborting the Zygote Argument’. Philosophical Studies, 160, 379–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Matt. (2013) ‘The Problem with Manipulation’. Ethics, 124, 65–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matheson, Benjamin. (2018) ‘The Threat from Manipulation Arguments’. American Philosophical Quarterly, 55, 37–50.Google Scholar
McKenna, Michael. (2008) ‘A Hard-line Reply to Pereboom's Four-Case Manipulation Argument’. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 77, 142–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mele, Alfred. (1995) Autonomous Agents: From Self-Control to Autonomy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mele, Alfred. (2005) ‘A Critique of Pereboom's “Four-Case Argument” for Incompatibilism’. Analysis, 65, 75–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mele, Alfred. (2006) Free Will and Luck. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mickelson, Kristin. (2015) ‘The Zygote Argument Is Invalid: Now What?’ Philosophical Studies, 172, 2911–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Connor, Timothy. (2000) Persons and Causes: The Metaphysics of Free Will. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pereboom, Derk. (2001) Living without Free Will. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pereboom, Derk. (2014) Free Will, Agency, and Meaning in Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stump, Eleonore. (1990) ‘Intellect, Will, and the Principle of Alternate Possibilities’. In Beaty, Michael D. (ed.), Christian Theism and the Problems of Philosophy (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press), 254–85.Google Scholar
Todd, Patrick. (2011) ‘A New Approach to Manipulation Arguments’. Philosophical Studies, 152, 127–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Todd, Patrick. (2013) ‘Defending (a Modified Version of) the Zygote Argument’. Philosophical Studies, 164, 189–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Todd, Patrick. (2017) ‘Manipulation Arguments and the Freedom to do Otherwise’. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 95, 395–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tognazzini, Neal A. (2014) ‘The Structure of a Manipulation Argument’. Ethics 124, 358–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vihvelin, Kadri. (2013) Causes, Laws, and Free Will: Why Determinism Doesn't Matter. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waller, Robyn Repko. (2014) ‘The Threat of Effective Intentions to Moral Responsibility in the Zygote Argument’. Philosophia, 42, 209–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, Gary. (1987) ‘Free Action and Free Will’. Mind, 96, 145–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, Gary. (1999) ‘Soft Libertarianism and Hard Compatibilism’. Journal of Ethics, 3, 351–65.Google Scholar