The Journal of Ethics

, Volume 20, Issue 1–3, pp 47–67 | Cite as

How Do Manipulation Arguments Work?



Alfred Mele has presented the Zygote Argument as a challenge to compatibilism. In previous work I have offered a critique of Mele’s first premise. Patrick Todd, Neal Tognazzini, and Derk Pereboom have offered an alternative interpretation of the argument, substituting (1*) for (1). Here I offer a critical evaluation of this strategy, and in the process I seek to understand the deep structure of the Zygote Argument.


Compatibilism Free will Initial design arguments Manipulation arguments Alfred Mele Moral responsibility Derk Pereboom Patrick Todd Zygote argument 


  1. Capes, J. 2013. Mitigating soft compatibilism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 87: 640–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cyr, T. forthcoming. The parallel manipulation argument. Ethics.Google Scholar
  3. Cyr, T. ms. Manipulation arguments and libertarian accounts of free will. University of California, Riverside, Department of Philosophy.Google Scholar
  4. Clarke, R. 2012. How to manipulate an incompatibilistically free agent. American Philosophical Quarterly 49: 139–149.Google Scholar
  5. Dennett, D. 1984. Elbow room: The varieties of free will worth wanting. Cambridge: Bradford Books.Google Scholar
  6. Fischer, J.M., and M. Ravizza. 1998. Responsibility and control: A theory of moral responsibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fischer, J.M., and N. Tognazzini. 2007. Exploring evil and philosophical failure: A critical notice of Peter van Inwagen’s The problem of evil. Faith and Philosophy 24: 458–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fischer, J.M. 2011. The zygote argument remixed. Analysis 71: 267–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fischer, J.M. 2014. Review of Free will, agency, and meaning in life, by Derk Pereboom. Science, Religion, and Culture 1: 202–208.Google Scholar
  10. Haji, I., and S. Cuypers. 2001. Free will and CNC manipulation. Dialectica 55: 221–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kearns, S. 2011. Aborting the zygote argument. Philosophical Studies 160: 379–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. King, M. 2013. The problem with manipulation. Ethics 124: 63–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mele, A. 2006. Free will and luck. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mele, A. 2013. Manipulation, moral responsibility, and bullet biting. The Journal of Ethics 17: 167–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Nahmias, E. 2011. Intuitions about free will, determinism, and bypassing. In The Oxford handbook of free will, 2nd ed, ed. R. Kane, 555–576. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Nahmias, E., and D. Murray. 2010. Experimental philosophy and free will: An error theory for incompatibilist intuitions. In New waves in philosophy of action, ed. J. Aguilar, A. Buckareff, and K. Franksh, 189–215. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  17. Pereboom, D. 2001. Living without free will. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pereboom, D. 2014. Free will, agency, and meaning in life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Todd, P. 2011. A new approach to manipulation arguments. Philosophical Studies 152: 127–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Todd, P. 2013. Defending (a modified version of) the zygote argument. Philosophical Studies 164: 189–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tognazzini, N. 2014. The structure of a manipulation argument. Ethics 124: 358–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Van Inwagen, P. 2006. The problem of evil. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Watson, G. 1999. Soft libertarianism and hard compatibilism. The Journal of Ethics 3: 353–368; reprinted in Watson, 2004: 197–218.Google Scholar
  24. Watson, G. 2004. Agency and answerability: Selected essays. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht (outside the USA)  2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of CaliforniaRiversideUSA

Personalised recommendations