Analysis reveals challenges to compatibilism regarding manipulation, indicating deeper implications for moral responsibility.
A key challenge to compatibilism comes from manipulation arguments. These argue that agents whose actions are manipulated are not morally responsible and that manipulation is not relevantly different from determinism. One common response from compatibilists is to claim that there is a relevant difference between manipulation and ordinary determinism. Cases of eternally recurrent manipulation challenge that response.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
James Andow (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: