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.
KeywordsCompatibilism Free will Initial design arguments Manipulation arguments Alfred Mele Moral responsibility Derk Pereboom Patrick Todd Zygote argument
- Cyr, T. forthcoming. The parallel manipulation argument. Ethics.Google Scholar
- Cyr, T. ms. Manipulation arguments and libertarian accounts of free will. University of California, Riverside, Department of Philosophy.Google Scholar
- Clarke, R. 2012. How to manipulate an incompatibilistically free agent. American Philosophical Quarterly 49: 139–149.Google Scholar
- Dennett, D. 1984. Elbow room: The varieties of free will worth wanting. Cambridge: Bradford Books.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Watson, G. 1999. Soft libertarianism and hard compatibilism. The Journal of Ethics 3: 353–368; reprinted in Watson, 2004: 197–218.Google Scholar