Phil 411 March 11!

! Term Paper Monday at Ofce 1:00 PM! ! Fischer Reason's Responsiveness Theory of Moral Responsibility ! ! Incompatabilists: no difference between manipulation and causal determinism. ! ! General Expression of the Manipulation Argument:! ! ! !

1. There is no principled relevant difference between a case in which a person is manipulated into doing A (A'ing), and a person's doing A as a result of causal Determinism, (doing A because causal determinism is true)! 2. If (1), then compatibilism is false! 3. C: Compatibilism is false. MOral responsibility is compatable with determinism.! challenge to Compatabilist: show us the difference between causal determined and manipulated. Attack P1. (Long). Michael McKenna (attack P2). ! Compatabilists: Some manipulation rules out moral responsibility. Theory to rule out, and rule in which cases of manipulation.!

! Fischer and Revisa: ! !

Moral Responsibility requires guidance control (Guidance control in Frankfurt type examples). Guidance Control: turn steering wheel int he car. Suppose it was broken, could guide to the left, not to the right. Partly working, partly not working. Can control the car by turning it to the left. don't need alternative possibilities to be morally responsible. Frankfurt type similarities. Regulatory COntrol would requrie the ability to steer left!

2. One can excercise guidance control in doing A without beign praisworthy/ blameworthy for doing A! ! Fischer: the teacher demonstrates, is responsible for raising his hand. Can be morally responsible without being praiseworthy or blameworthy. Long: if morally permissible, then morally praisworthy, (mere thought that you did somethign morally permissible.) Distinction between!

! !

Long: satisfy conditions of many theories of Free Will, and if knew if satised conditions, still wouldn't know if praiseworthy or blameworthy. Additional epistemic conditions on praiseworthy/blameworthy. But if praise/blameworthy, then must be morally responsible. Widely held view (Long's assumed view.) (Fischer's Assumed View.) ! Did have a reason for thinking raising his hand was morally responsible. Thief Child. can be morally responsible without being blameworthy. Maybe deserve praise for doing morally bad thing (Long's view).!

3. Praise/Blame: guidance control! 4. praise/blame: need additional facts. !

! Long doubts morally neutral behavior.! ! !

MOderate Reasons Responsiveness: MRR: ! S is moderate resons responisive! (i) some psych mech K in S that led to S's doing A! (ii) K is regularly receptive to reasons ! (i) no $1001 ticket, internally consistent rationality, etc. ! (iii) K is weakly reactive to reasons! (i) psych mech. such that various inputs yield different outputs. not only one output! (iv) K is the agant's own. source of behavior. is an agent. ! (i) source of behavior! (ii) believes she is an apt candidate for reactive attitudes! (iii) views herself as an agent based on evidence for the beliefs mentioned in a and b!

! !

Frankfurt: Jones has a "practical reasoning mechanism" that takes various inputs, works on the inputs and produces a decision/action, based on the inputs.! F and R's Distinction Thesis: the mech that operates in every alcuat sequence is differen fro the mech that operates in any alternative-sequence.! Actual: Jones' reasons for voting, through his way of thinking of things, and he votes Romney. In actual case, Black doesn't do anything to exhert causal power over what Jones decides to do. Jones is MR because he is acting normally.!

Alternative: Black interveens, doing somehting to Jones, that bypasses mech, doing somthing that causeddJones ot vote Romney, bto a mech that Jones takes responsibility for. There is a mech, but not Jones' mech. ! Black moves Jones' hand, Black changes Jones' reasoning mech. ! In actual: uses own mech, in alt cases, then the Mech is bypasses, altered by Black. When Black manipulates Jones to vote for Romney, then Jones is not MR for his vote for Romney.!

! Why believe the distinction Thesis? Manipulation From Black = Different Mechanims! !
MAN Manipulation PRinciple: if person S performs action A at time tn only becsaus another agent B, acting completely ubbeknownst to S, has direcctly manipulated S's brain earlier at T1, then S is not morally responsiblt for performing A.! Black is doing somethign to Jones' brain!

! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>! ! !

Why Long thinks this (MAN) is False? !

! ! !

The Schmidt Case: Schmidt early though that Adolf was a good guy. Before the vote, develops doubts about moral character.! Block wants Schmidt to vote for Hitler: Frankfurt Type Case. No matter what happens, Schmidt will vote for Hitler.! 1. Weakness of Will! 1. very surprising, because has high moral wisdom, knows hitler is a bad guy, yet still votes for hitler. (position of power possibility, etc.) ! 2. weakness of will: choose but know the choice (at the time choice is made) is wrong. He knows his morality shoudl win out, and does it anyway. ! 3. Fischer and Long agree.!

Alternative Sequence! 1. Block bypasses Schmidt's normal deliberative mech, by doing something directly to Schmidt' nervous system that causes Schmidt to vote for Hitler; thus, the mechanism is not Schmidt's practical reasoning mechanism. (Fischer and Long agree)! 2. Sequence 2: Block adds reasons (inputs) to Schmidt's normal deliberative mechanism. Schmidt deliberates in the normal way. By impeccable reasoning, Schmidt decides to vote for Hitler and votes for Hitler. Block give Schmidt good reasons to vote for Hitler, or reasons to mitigate/explain the reasons not to vote for Hitler.! 1. Fischer: Schmidt is not MR, becaue Block's manipulation ! 2. Long: Block adds Inputs. The Mech is Schmidt's own MRR mech. ! 1. Satises all MRR, plus Aristotlian conditions. MRR, and guidance control wihout Block bypassing the mech. ! 2. Schmidt's morally responsible.! 3. Long: Block removes inputs. Schmidt's memories that Hitler is a bad guy. Schmidt's reasons that Hitler is a great guy. ! 1. All conditions of MRR are satisec, all guidance control are satised. ! 2. MR for voting for Hitler! 4. ~MR behavior, or MR: deny ______Thesis. ! 1. Long: this is a case of MR behavior, gets the case right, Schmidt is MR, but not blameworthy, becuase he had good reasons to believe that Hitler was a great guy. Schmidt does what the most morally upsatnding person would do. If Schmidt had the reasons he had and didn't do it, there would be something wrong with him. Deserves praise for the action, and is morally Responsible, even if he did something bad (vote for Hitler) Block deserves blame, but Schmidt doesn't. ! 2. Fischer: manipulation change the mechanism.! Fischer: raising the hand, puts him the ballpark for getting praise/blame. ! Long's theory of MR: could satisfy conditions for FW and MR, and still won't necessarily know praise/blameworthy, need to add additional epistemic (Long's Second Paper).!

Long: must admit that Schmidt is MR for voting for Hitler! If issue is a lack of control over inputs, what about lack of control over inputs in political reporting, etc....!

Fischer: No fair opportunity for agent to subject input to normative responsibility, the MR, input changes the mechanism. If open to agent to scrutanize the new input, then compatable with MR, ordinary mech is intact.! Normative Orientation: ONe's standing dispositions, values and preferences.! Long: Schmidt has this opportunity. The timing issue is irrelevant. So long as he doesn't get new info for 24 hours, 24 days, 10 seconds, etc. He has no bad reasons for voting for Hitler, so the timing objection is no good.! Long: not explicit that ltering inputs through normative orientation: let the example.!

Long: not MR, MAN is false. IF he is MR, the MAN is true. !

! Satisfy all MMR and Guidance Control. '! ! ! !

! Which manipulation theory Does Long Accept"! !

LONG:! If the manipulation controls either the mechanism or both the inputs and the mechanism, then the agent is not morally responsible, MR.! If the manipulation controls only the inputs, then the manipulation does not preclude MR on the part of the agent.! Michael McKenna: even if the mech is manipulated, can be MR. Hard Line Response to manipulation argument. Attacks P2: even if no P1, it doesn't follow that compatabilism is false. !

Long rejects this. We can distinguish between manipulation in which inputs alone are controlled, and in which way of reasoning is controlled. Variety of ways to be manipulated (the way one thinks about things, "MR).!

! ! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>! ! !

Long on Manipulation!

! Enact family policy: ! ! !

Inconsistant with general version of the manipulation principle. If hadn't been manipulated by fake police ofcer, would not have enacted family policy. Manipulated, but does not preclued one being responsible. The inputs to ordinary way of thinking about family policies are manipulated, but mechanism is not manipulated. ! Steadman: no falsehood: if act on basis of false information, then one is not responsible. !

! No-Information Control:! !

epistemic claim: Fischer's objection: no fair opportunity to lter inputs through normative. Lack info in Family Policy (with real police ofcer)