- New
-
Topics
- All Categories
- Metaphysics and Epistemology
- Value Theory
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Logic and Philosophy of Logic
- Philosophy of Biology
- Philosophy of Cognitive Science
- Philosophy of Computing and Information
- Philosophy of Mathematics
- Philosophy of Physical Science
- Philosophy of Social Science
- Philosophy of Probability
- General Philosophy of Science
- Philosophy of Science, Misc
- History of Western Philosophy
- Philosophical Traditions
- Philosophy, Misc
- Other Academic Areas
- Journals
- Submit material
- More
How Do Manipulation Arguments Work?
The Journal of Ethics 20 (1-3):47-67 (2016)
Abstract
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 for. Here I offer a critical evaluation of this strategy, and in the process I seek to understand the deep structure of the Zygote Argument.Author's Profile
Other Versions
No versions found
My notes
Similar books and articles
Manipulation and the Zygote Argument: Another Reply.Markus E. Schlosser - 2015 - The Journal of Ethics 19 (1):73-84.
Initial Design, Manipulation, and Moral Responsibility.John Martin Fischer - 2021 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 15 (2):255-270.
The Threat of Effective Intentions to Moral Responsibility in the Zygote Argument.Robyn Repko Waller - 2014 - Philosophia 42 (1):209-222.
Defending (a modified version of) the Zygote Argument.Patrick Todd - 2013 - Philosophical Studies 164 (1):189-203.
A maneuver around the modified manipulation argument.Hannah Tierney - 2013 - Philosophical Studies 165 (3):753-763.
Manipulation, Compatibilism, and Moral Responsibility.Alfred R. Mele - 2008 - The Journal of Ethics 12 (3-4):263-286.
“It was all a cruel angel’s thesis from the start”: Folk intuitions about Zygote cases do not support the Zygote argument.Florian Cova - 2022 - In Thomas Nadelhoffer & Andrew Monroe, Advances in Experimental Philosophy of Free Will and Responsibility. Advances in Experimental Philo.
Manipulation Arguments, Basic Desert, and Moral Responsibility: Assessing Derk Pereboom’s Free Will, Agency, and Meaning in Life.Michael McKenna - 2017 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 11 (3):575-589.
Analytics
Added to PP
2016-06-14
Downloads
111 (#197,609)
6 months
4 (#866,409)
2016-06-14
Downloads
111 (#197,609)
6 months
4 (#866,409)
Historical graph of downloads
Author's Profile
Citations of this work
On the manipulator-focused response to manipulation cases.Gabriel De Marco & Taylor W. Cyr - 2024 - Philosophical Studies 181 (11):2867-2896.
Responsibility, Autonomy, and the Zygote Argument.John Martin Fischer - 2017 - The Journal of Ethics 21 (3):223-237.
Why the manipulation argument fails: determinism does not entail perfect prediction.Oisin Deery & Eddy Nahmias - 2022 - Philosophical Studies 180 (2):451-471.
Manipulation and Degrees of Blameworthiness.Martin Montminy & Daniel Tinney - 2018 - The Journal of Ethics 22 (3-4):265-281.
Moralna odgovornost i znanstvena slika svijeta.Jelena Mijić - 2020 - Filozofska Istrazivanja 40 (2):313-328.
References found in this work
Responsibility and Control: A Theory of Moral Responsibility.John Fischer & Mark Ravizza - 1998 - Philosophical Quarterly 49 (197):543-545.
My Compatibilist Proposal.Alfred R. Mele - 2006 - In Free Will and Luck. New York, US: Oxford University Press.
Elbow Room: The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting.Daniel C. Dennett - 1986 - Mind 95 (377):127-129.
PhilPapers logo by Andrea Andrews and Meghan Driscoll.
This site uses cookies and Google Analytics (see our terms & conditions for details regarding the privacy implications). Use of this site is subject to terms & conditions.
All rights reserved by The PhilPapers Foundation
Server: philpapers-web-6d47b8f9f5-rmt7r uwo