Advertisement

Philosophia

, Volume 43, Issue 2, pp 291–307 | Cite as

The Manipulation Argument, At the Very Least, Undermines Classical Compatibilism

  • Yishai CohenEmail author
Article

Abstract

The compatibility of determinism and the ability to do otherwise has been implicitly assumed by many to be irrelevant to the viability of compatibilist responses to the manipulation argument for incompatibilism. I argue that this assumption is mistaken. The manipulation argument may be unsound. But even so, the manipulation argument, at the very least, undermines classical compatibilism, the view that free will requires the ability to do otherwise, and having that ability is compatible with determinism. This is because classical compatibilism, in conjunction with any type of reply to the manipulation argument, has counterintuitive implications. In order to avoid such implications, we need not hold that determinism is incompatible with moral responsibility. But we must hold that determinism is incompatible with the ability to do otherwise.

Keywords

Manipulation Determinism Compatibilism Alternative possibilities Responsibility Frankfurt-style cases Derk Pereboom Kadri Vihvelin 

Notes

Acknowledgments

An early version of this paper was presented at the “Free Will and Moral Responsibility” summer school, hosted by the Moscow Center for Consciousness Studies; thanks to all participants in this group for helpful comments. Additionally, for helpful comments and discussion, I am grateful to Lorenza D’Angelo, John Fischer, Mark Heller, Sofia Jeppsson, Simon Kittle, Benjamin Matheson, Dan Miller, Matthew Talbert, Travis Timmerman, and an anonymous referee.

References

  1. Baker, L. R. (2006). Moral responsibility without libertarianism. Noûs, 40, 307–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berofsky, B. (2006). Global control and freedom. Philosophical Studies, 131, 419–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berofsky, B. (2012). Nature’s challenge to free will. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Campbell, J. (1997). A compatibilist theory of alternative possibilities. Philosophical Studies, 88, 319–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clarke, R. (2005). On an argument for the impossibility of moral responsibility. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 29, 13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clarke, R. (2009). Dispositions, abilities to act, and free will: the new dispositionalism. Mind, 118, 323–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cushman, F. (2008). Crime and punishment: distinguishing the roles of causal and intentional analyses in moral judgment. Cognition, 108, 353–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Demetriou, K. (2010). The soft-line solution to Pereboom’s four-case argument. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 88, 595–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fara, M. (2008). Masked abilities and compatibilism. Mind, 117, 843–865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fischer, J. M. (2004). Responsibility and manipulation. The Journal of Ethics, 8, 145–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fischer, J. M. (2008). Freedom, foreknowledge, and Frankfurt: a reply to Vihvelin. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 38, 327–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fischer, J. M. (2010). The Frankfurt cases: the moral of the stories. The Philosophical Review, 119, 315–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fischer, J. M., & Ravizza, M. (1998). Responsibility and control: a theory of moral responsibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fischer, J. M., & Tognazzini, N. A. (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
  15. Frankfurt, H. (1969). Alternate possibilities and moral responsibility. The Journal of Philosophy, 66, 829–839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frankfurt, H. (1971). Freedom of the will and the concept of a person. Journal of Philosophy, 68, 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Franklin, C. E. (2011). Masks, abilities, and opportunities: why the new dispositionalism cannot succeed. The Modern Schoolman, 88, 89–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. French, P., & Wettstein, H. K. (Eds.). (2006). Midwest Studies in Philosophy: shared intentions and collective responsibility, vol. 30, issue 1, 1–337.Google Scholar
  19. Ginet, C. (1966). Might we have no choice? In K. Lehrer (Ed.), Freedom and determinism (pp. 87–104). New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  20. Haji, I. (1998). Moral accountability. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Haji, I. (2013). Historicism, non-historicism, or a mix? Journal of Ethics, 17, 185–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Horgan, T. (1979). ‘Could’, possible worlds, and moral responsibility. The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 17, 345–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kapitan, T. (2011). A compatibilist reply to the consequence argument. In R. Kane (Ed.), The oxford handbook of free will (2nd ed., pp. 131–150). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Kittle, S. (2014). Vihvelin and Fischer on ‘Pre-decisional’ Intervention. Philosophia, 42, 987–997.Google Scholar
  25. Lehrer, K. (1968). Cans without ifs. Analysis, 29, 29–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lehrer, K. (1976). ‘Can’ in theory and in practice: a possible worlds analysis. In M. Brand & D. Walton (Eds.), Action Theory. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  27. Levy, N. (2013). Manipulations for manipulation cases. Posted on Flickers of Freedom, June 13, 2013. Accessed on September 6, 2014 from: http://philosophycommons.typepad.com/flickers_of_freedom/2013/06/manipulations-for-manipulation-cases.html.
  28. Lewis, D. (1981). Are we free to break the laws? Theoria, 47, 113–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lewis, D. (1997). Finkish dispositions. Philosophical Quarterly, 47, 143–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lycan, W. G. (1997). Consciousness. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  31. Manley, D., & Wasserman, R. (2008). On linking dispositions and conditionals. Mind, 117, 59–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McKenna, M. (2005). Where Frankfurt and Strawson meet. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 29, 163–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McKenna, M. (2008). A hard-line reply to Pereboom’s four-case argument. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 77, 142–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McKenna, M. (2012). Moral responsibility, manipulation arguments, and history: assessing the resilience of nonhistorical compatibilism. Journal of Ethics, 16, 145–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mele, A. R. (1995). Autonomous agents. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Mele, A. R. (2005). A critique of Pereboom’s ‘four-case’ argument for incompatibilism. Analysis, 65, 75–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mele, A. R. (2006). Free will and luck. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mele, A. R. (2013). Moral responsibility, manipulation, and minutelings. Journal of Ethics, 17, 153–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Murray, D., & Lombrozo, T. (Manuscript). Effects of manipulation on attributions of causation, free will, and moral responsibility.Google Scholar
  40. Nelkin, D. K. (2011). Making sense of freedom and responsibility. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pereboom, D. (2001). Living without free will. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pereboom, D. (2014). Free will, agency, and meaning in life. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Perry, J. (2008). Can’t we all just be compatibilists?: a critical study of John Martin Fischer’s “My Way”. The Journal of Ethics, 12, 157–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Phillips, J., & Shaw, A. (2014). Manipulating morality: third-party intentions alter moral judgments by changing causal reasoning. Cognitive Science, 38, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sartorio, C. (2011). Actuality and responsibility. Mind, 120, 1071–1097.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sartorio, C. (2014). Vihvelin on Frankfurt-style cases and the actual-sequence view. Criminal Law and Philosophy, 1-14.Google Scholar
  47. Saunders, J. T. (1968). The temptation of powerlessness. American Philosophical Quarterly, 5, 100–108.Google Scholar
  48. Shabo, S. (2010). Uncompromising source incompatibilism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 80, 349–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Smith, M. (2003). Rational capacities, or: how to distinguish recklessness, weakness, and compulsion. In Stroud & Tappolet (Eds.), Weakness of Will and Practical Irrationality (pp. 17–38). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Strawson, G. (1994). The impossibility of moral responsibility. Philosophical Studies, 75, 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Van Inwagen, P. (1983). An essay on free will. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Vihvelin, K. (2004). Free will demystified: a dispositional account. Philosophical Topics, 32, 427–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Vihvelin, K. (2013). Causes, laws, and free will: Why determinism doesn’t matter. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wallace, R. J. (1994). Responsibility and the moral sentiments. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Watson, G. (1975). Free agency. The Journal of Philosophy, 83, 517–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wolf, S. (1990). Freedom within reason. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophy DepartmentSyracuse UniversitySyracuseUSA

Personalised recommendations