In this paper I examine the contemporary debate over Derk Pereboom’s Manipulation Argument for the incompatibility of free will and determinism. After considering the argument in its entirety, I entertain a Hard-Line compatibilist reply given by Michael McKenna, based on an improved reworking of Pereboom’s cases. In evaluating McKenna’s reply I begin with several objections raised by Ishiyaque Haji and Stephan Cuypers before arguing that the reworking of cases is unsuccessful due to a lack of freedom-undermining manipulation. I redefine the conditions for what satisfies as freedom-undermining manipulation based on a revised understanding of the process whereby agents come to evaluate their desires independently. In conclusion, I maintain that Pereboom’s argument succeeds only insofar as it satisfies an evaluative account of manipulation. However, upon doing so, Pereboom’s strategy of accounting for all desired CAS conditions fails, given that authentic evaluation cannot be manipulatively accounted for. As a result, the Manipulation Argument fails to prove the incompatibility of free will and determinism.

Research suggests that intuitions about thought experiments are vulnerable to a wide array of seemingly irrelevant factors. I argue that when arguments hinge on the use of intuitions about thought experiments, research on the subtle factors that affect intuitions must be taken seriously. To demonstrate how failing to consider such psychological influences can undermine an argument, I discuss Pereboom’s four-case manipulation argument. I argue that by failing to consider the impact of subtle psychological influences such as order effects, Pereboom likely mis-identifies what really leads us to have the intuitions that we have about his cases, and this in turn undermines his argument for incompatibilism. Last, I consider objections and discuss how to empirically test my hypothesis.

No description available.

The author has attempted a dubbleedged purpose, as indicated by the title. The author firstly deals with Pereboom; begining with his so-called ‘wild coincidence’-argument, by which Pereboom claims agent-causation to be unlikely. The author argues that this argument lacks both scope and strenght. The author then deals with the question of compatiblity between physics and agent-causation as related to Pereboom’s basic problematization; whether agent-causation would or would not diverge from what is expected (from any other event) given our best physical theories. This results in a strong criticism against Pereboom’s whole position, and a positive argument for agent-causation. After the first purpose is achieved, the author turns to the purpose indicated by the subtitle. The author presents a general criticism against the field of metaethics concerning the question of free will. The author also makes suggestions for a possible solution. / Författaren har, som titeln indikerar, tagit på sig ett tveeggat problem. Först hanterar författaren Pereboom; och börjar med hans så kallade ‘wild coincidence’-argument, med vilket Pereboom hävdar att agentkausalitet är osannlik. Författaren menar att detta argument saknar både omfång och styrka. Författaren hanterar sedan frågan om kompatibilitet mellan fysik och agentkausalitet, så som den är relaterad till Perebooms grundläggande problematisering; huruvida agentkausalitet skulle eller inte skulle avvika från vad som vi förväntar oss (givet någon annan händelse) från våra bästa fysiska teorier. Detta resulterar i en stark kritik mot Perebooms hela position, och ett positivt argument för agentkausalitet. Efter att det första syftet är avklarat, så vänder sig författaren till undertitelns syfte. Författaren presenterar en generell kritik mot fältet metaetik avseende frågan om fri vilja. Författaren föreslår även en möjlig lösning på problemet.