Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Manipulation arguments succeed even when the manipulated agent satisfies historical compatibilist conditions for free agency

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The intuitive force of Manipulation arguments depends only on the fact that the agent's actions are ultimately caused by factors outside the agent's control
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A manipulated agent's actions can be ultimately caused by factors outside the agent's control even if the agent satisfies historical compatibilist conditions
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Satisfying historical compatibilist conditions does not eliminate ultimate causal dependence on external factors
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Fischer and Ravizza's historical conditions require reasons-responsiveness mechanisms to be the agent's 'own', but manipulation undermines ownership at the ground level.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A mechanism implanted by a neuroscientist can be reasons-responsive and historically operative yet still fail the ownership condition because the agent never authentically endorsed it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.This shows manipulation defeats historical compatibilism not by bypassing its conditions but by exposing that those conditions are insufficient to ground genuine ownership.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Derk Pereboom's four-case argument demonstrates that parity reasoning forces compatibilists to either accept the manipulated agent is free or deny freedom to the ordinary determined agent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Any historical condition satisfied by the ordinary determined agent can be replicated in the manipulation case by stipulation, collapsing the asymmetry compatibilists require.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Since our intuition that the manipulated agent lacks freedom is stronger than any theoretical commitment to compatibilism, the manipulation case constitutes a successful reductio.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.