Rescuing the Zygote Argument
In a recent paper, Kristin Mickelson argues that Alfred Mele’s Zygote Argument, a popular argument for the claim that the truth of determinism would preclude free action or moral responsibility, is not valid. This sort of objection is meant to generalize to various manipulation arguments. According...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal article |
| Published: |
Springer
2015
|
| _version_ | 1797092876586319872 |
|---|---|
| author | De Marco, G |
| author_facet | De Marco, G |
| author_sort | De Marco, G |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | In a recent paper, Kristin Mickelson argues that Alfred Mele’s Zygote Argument, a popular argument for the claim that the truth of determinism would preclude free action or moral responsibility, is not valid. This sort of objection is meant to generalize to various manipulation arguments. According to Mickelson, the only way to make such arguments valid is to supplement them with an argument that is an inference to the best explanation. In this paper, I argue that there are two other ways in which the proponent of such manipulation arguments can modify their argument, neither of which requires an inference to the best explanation. I then briefly consider and respond to a worry with one of these proposed solutions. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-07T03:52:17Z |
| format | Journal article |
| id | oxford-uuid:c1acb6c6-ad0a-419f-975d-6b521bb3f92b |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-07T03:52:17Z |
| publishDate | 2015 |
| publisher | Springer |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:c1acb6c6-ad0a-419f-975d-6b521bb3f92b2022-03-27T06:03:18ZRescuing the Zygote ArgumentJournal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:c1acb6c6-ad0a-419f-975d-6b521bb3f92bSymplectic Elements at OxfordSpringer2015De Marco, GIn a recent paper, Kristin Mickelson argues that Alfred Mele’s Zygote Argument, a popular argument for the claim that the truth of determinism would preclude free action or moral responsibility, is not valid. This sort of objection is meant to generalize to various manipulation arguments. According to Mickelson, the only way to make such arguments valid is to supplement them with an argument that is an inference to the best explanation. In this paper, I argue that there are two other ways in which the proponent of such manipulation arguments can modify their argument, neither of which requires an inference to the best explanation. I then briefly consider and respond to a worry with one of these proposed solutions. |
| spellingShingle | De Marco, G Rescuing the Zygote Argument |
| title | Rescuing the Zygote Argument |
| title_full | Rescuing the Zygote Argument |
| title_fullStr | Rescuing the Zygote Argument |
| title_full_unstemmed | Rescuing the Zygote Argument |
| title_short | Rescuing the Zygote Argument |
| title_sort | rescuing the zygote argument |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT demarcog rescuingthezygoteargument |