scholarly journals The manipulation argument and Frankfurt-style compatibilism

2020 ◽  
Vol 63 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-73
Author(s):  
Nedzib Prasevic
Keyword(s):  
Moral Responsibility ◽  
Free Will ◽  
Manipulation Argument ◽  
Tacit Assumptions ◽  
Intense Debate

In the metaphysics of free will, the most intense debate at this time is that between Frankfurt-style compatibilists and proponents of the manipulation argument centred around the appropriate answer to the question of whether a compatibilisticaly defined agents can be morally responsible if they are a victim of manipulation? In this paper, I aim to explain the reasons behind the dispute as well as bring attention to certain tacit assumptions that underpin the concept of the manipulation argument and that Frankfurt-style compatibilists need to reject. For this reason, my conclusions is that Frankfurt-style compatibilists must accept the counter-intuitive possibility that agents can have moral responsibility for their actions despite being a victim of manipulation.

scholarly journals “It was all a cruel angel’s thesis from the start”: Folk intuitions about Zygote cases do not support the Zygote argument

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Florian Cova
Keyword(s):  
Moral Responsibility ◽  
Free Will ◽  
Moral Value ◽  
Manipulation Argument ◽  
Zygote Argument ◽  
Manipulation Arguments ◽  
Folk Intuitions ◽  
Special Case ◽  
The Zygote Argument ◽  
Do So

Manipulation arguments that start from the intuition that manipulated agents are neither free nor morally responsible then conclude to that free will and moral responsibility are incompatible with determinism. The Zygote argument is a special case of Manipulation argument in which the manipulation intervenes at the very conception of the agent. In this paper, I argue that the Zygote argument fails because (i) very few people share the basic intuitions the argument rests on, and (ii) even those who share this intuition do so for reasons that are unrelated to determinism. Rather, I argue that intuitions about the Zygote argument (and Manipulation arguments in general) are driven by people's intuitions about the deep self, as shown by the fact that intuitions about manipulated agents depend on the moral value of the agent's behavior.

Introduction

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Evan Franklin
Keyword(s):  
Moral Responsibility ◽  
Free Will ◽  
Human Agency ◽  
Causal Role ◽  
Central Question ◽  
Agent Causation ◽  
The Right

This chapter lays out the book’s central question: Assuming agency reductionism—that is, the thesis that the causal role of the agent in all agential activities is reducible to the causal role of states and events involving the agent—is it possible to construct a defensible model of libertarianism? It is explained that most think the answer is negative and this is because they think libertarians must embrace some form of agent-causation in order to address the problems of luck and enhanced control. The thesis of the book is that these philosophers are mistaken: it is possible to construct a libertarian model of free will and moral responsibility within an agency reductionist framework that silences that central objections to libertarianism by simply taking the best compatibilist model of freedom and adding indeterminism in the right junctures of human agency. A brief summary of the chapters to follow is given.

Reactive Attitudes Revisited: A Modest Revision

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Deigh
Keyword(s):  
Moral Responsibility ◽  
Free Will ◽  
Reactive Attitudes

The essay offers an interpretation of P. F. Strawson’s “Freedom and Resentment” on which attributions of moral responsibility presuppose a practice of holding people morally responsible for their actions, and what explains the practice is our liability to such reactive attitudes as resentment and indignation. The interpretation is offered to correct a common misinterpretation of Strawson’s essay. On this common misinterpretation, attributions of moral responsibility are implicit in the reactive attitudes of resentment and indignation, and consequently our liability to these attitudes cannot explain these attributions. The reason this is a misinterpretation of Strawson’s essay is that Strawson’s compatibilist solution to the free will problem requires that our liability to the reactive attitudes be conceptually prior to our attributions of moral responsibility.

scholarly journals Free will and neurosurgical resections of the supplementary motor area: a critical review

2021 ◽  
Vol 163 (5) ◽  
pp. 1229-1237 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rickard L Sjöberg
Keyword(s):  
Executive Function ◽  
Free Will ◽  
Corticospinal Tract ◽  
Supplementary Motor Area ◽  
Personal Responsibility ◽  
Motor Area ◽  
Simple Motor ◽  
Motor Actions ◽  
Intense Debate

Abstract Background Research suggests that unconscious activity in the supplementary motor area (SMA) precedes not only certain simple motor actions but also the point at which we become aware of our intention to perform such actions. The extent to which these findings have implications for our understanding of the concepts of free will and personal responsibility has been subject of intense debate during the latest four decades. Methods This research is discussed in relation to effects of neurosurgical removal of the SMA in a narrative review. Results Removal of the SMA typically causes a transient inability to perform non-stimulus-driven, voluntary actions. This condition, known as the SMA syndrome, does not appear to be associated with a loss of sense of volition but with a profound disruption of executive function/cognitive control. Conclusions The role of the SMA may be to serve as a gateway between the corticospinal tract and systems for executive function. Such systems are typically seen as tools for conscious decisions. What is known about effects of SMA resections would thus seem to suggest a view that is compatible with concepts of personal responsibility. However, the philosophical question whether free will exists cannot be definitely resolved on the basis of these observations.

Compatibilist Alternatives

2005 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 387-406 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph Keim Campbell
Keyword(s):  
Moral Responsibility ◽  
Free Will ◽  
Alternative Possibilities ◽  
Traditional Theory ◽  
Van Inwagen ◽  
Source Theory

This paper is a defense of traditional compatibilism. Traditional compatibilism is, roughly, the view that (a) free will is essential to moral responsibility, (b) free will requires alternative possibilities of action, or alternatives for short, and (c) moral responsibility is compatible with determinism. Traditional compatibilism is a version of the traditional theory of free will. According to the traditional theory, a person S performed an action a freely only if S could have done otherwise, that is, only if S had alternatives. The traditional theory is often contrasted with the source theory: S performed a freely only if S was the source of a (McKenna 2001; Pereboom 2003). One may adopt a combined view of free will that sanctions both the traditional and source theories (Kane 1996, 72-3; van Inwagen 1983). As I use the terms ‘source theorist’ and ‘traditional theorist,’ the former refers to folks who accept the source theory and reject the traditional theory; the latter refers to folks who accept the traditional theory whether or not they accept the source theory.

Why C-luck really is a problem for compatibilism

2019 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 48-69
Author(s):  
S. B. Schoonover ◽  
Ivan Guajardo
Keyword(s):  
Moral Responsibility ◽  
Free Will ◽  
Fundamental Challenge

AbstractSome philosophers have recently argued that luck at the time of decision is a problem for compatibilists and libertarians alike. But conceptual ambiguity regarding deterministic luck at the time of decision – henceforth C-luck – has obscured recognition of the problem C-luck poses to compatibilism. This paper clarifies C-luck and distinguishes it from present luck, showing that the former arises from contingent factors at the time of decision instead of presupposed free will requirements. We then argue that empirical findings confirm the existence of C-luck thereby raising a fundamental challenge to compatibilist accounts of moral responsibility.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document