Premium
A Hard‐line Reply to Pereboom’s Four‐Case Manipulation Argument 1
Author(s) -
MCKENNA MICHAEL
Publication year - 2008
Publication title -
philosophy and phenomenological research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.7
H-Index - 39
eISSN - 1933-1592
pISSN - 0031-8205
DOI - 10.1111/j.1933-1592.2008.00179.x
Subject(s) - citation , argument (complex analysis) , state (computer science) , philosophy , computer science , library science , algorithm , medicine
Recently there has been a heightened interest in the free will debate about the soundness of the incompatibilist's Manipulation Argument. The argument has a respectable history. Impressive contemporary versions of it can be found in Robert Kane's work (1996), as well as Richard Taylor's (1974). The most recent is Derk Pereboom's provocative version (2001, pp.1 10-17). In what follows, I will argue that Pereboom's argument is not adequate to unseat the compatibilist. My reply will differ from other recent attempts in that I will adopt (as explained below) a hard-line reply. Others adopt a soft-line reply (e.g., Fischer, 2004). I believe a soft-line reply to Pereboom is ultimately ineffective.