Manipulation Cases in Free Will and Moral Responsibility, Part 3: Bypassing Responses

ABSTRACT In this paper—the last of the series—I discuss the second of the two main types of soft‐line responses to manipulation cases, which I refer to as bypassing views. These views hold that a large part of the reason that Victim lacks responsibility is because the action issues from attitudes acquired in a way that bypassed Victim's capacities for control over their mental life. After offering a quick gloss, I explain how such views are able to avoid various challenges faced by manipulator‐focused views—the subject of part 2—including natural force cases and parallel cases. I then introduce the particular views in more detail. This is followed by discussion of various objections raised against these views, as well as responses given by proponents of bypassing views, and responses they might give. The paper concludes with a general discussion of how the two types of views compare overall, and some of the difficulties in making the overall comparison.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Philosophy Compass
Published
2025-03-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.70029
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Free Will and Agency
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.86

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Manipulation Cases in Free Will and Moral Responsibility, Part 3: Bypassing Responses

Gabriel De Marco
2 citations
Philosophy Compass
Free Will and Agency
2.86
article

Manipulation Cases in Free Will and Moral Responsibility, Part 3: Bypassing Responses

Gabriel De Marco
article en
2 citations

Abstract

ABSTRACT In this paper—the last of the series—I discuss the second of the two main types of soft‐line responses to manipulation cases, which I refer to as bypassing views. These views hold that a large part of the reason that Victim lacks responsibility is because the action issues from attitudes acquired in a way that bypassed Victim's capacities for control over their mental life. After offering a quick gloss, I explain how such views are able to avoid various challenges faced by manipulator‐focused views—the subject of part 2—including natural force cases and parallel cases. I then introduce the particular views in more detail. This is followed by discussion of various objections raised against these views, as well as responses given by proponents of bypassing views, and responses they might give. The paper concludes with a general discussion of how the two types of views compare overall, and some of the difficulties in making the overall comparison.

Philosophy CompassVol. 20(4)
University of Oxford (GB)
H2020 European Research Council
Openalex Percentile: Top 11%
Free Will and Agency
2.86
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.