2017•Oxford University Press eBooksRequires access

Selective Hard Compatibilism

Paul Russell

Open publisher page 1 citations

Abstract

This chapter takes up a well-known objection to the compatibilist position, which is “the manipulation argument” and related arguments based on covert control. It is argued that we should reject soft compatibilist responses to cases of this kind that rely on considerations of “history” to exclude manipulated or covertly controlled agents from responsible agency. Instead a modified form of hard compatibilism is defended, one that grants something problematic about cases of this kind but rejects the claim that agents in these conditions are not responsible. The relevant issue is not that these agents are not responsible but that their manipulators or covert controllers are not entitled to hold them responsible. Selective hard compatibilism maintains that what is compromised in these circumstances is not the moral responsibility of the agent (where robust compatibilist conditions of a relevant kind are satisfied) but the participant stance or moral standing of their manipulators.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

This chapter takes up a well-known objection to the compatibilist position, which is “the manipulation argument” and related arguments based on covert control. It is argued that we should reject soft compatibilist responses to cases of this kind that rely on considerations of “history” to exclude manipulated or covertly controlled agents from responsible agency. Instead a modified form of hard compatibilism is defended, one that grants something problematic about cases of this kind but rejects the claim that agents in these conditions are not responsible. The relevant issue is not that these agents are not responsible but that their manipulators or covert controllers are not entitled to hold them responsible. Selective hard compatibilism maintains that what is compromised in these circumstances is not the moral responsibility of the agent (where robust compatibilist conditions of a relevant kind are satisfied) but the participant stance or moral standing of their manipulators.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 1 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

This chapter takes up a well-known objection to the compatibilist position, which is “the manipulation argument” and related arguments based on covert control. It is argued that we should reject soft compatibilist responses to cases of this kind that rely on considerations of “history” to exclude manipulated or covertly controlled agents from responsible agency. Instead a modified form of hard compatibilism is defended, one that grants something problematic about cases of this kind but rejects the claim that agents in these conditions are not responsible. The relevant issue is not that these agents are not responsible but that their manipulators or covert controllers are not entitled to hold them responsible. Selective hard compatibilism maintains that what is compromised in these circumstances is not the moral responsibility of the agent (where robust compatibilist conditions of a relevant kind are satisfied) but the participant stance or moral standing of their manipulators.

Key concepts: Compatibilism, Incompatibilism, Argument (complex analysis), Covert, Epistemology, Agency (philosophy), Moral responsibility, Free will

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Selective Hard Compatibilism — Research Paper | ScholarLens