THE THREAT FROM MANIPULATION ARGUMENTS.

Most seem to presume that what is threatening about manipulation arguments is the "no difference" premise--that is, the claim that there are no responsibility-relevant differences between a manipulated agent and her merely causally determined counterpart. This presumption underlies three recent replies to manipulation arguments. These replies, however, fail to appreciate the true threat from manipulation arguments--namely, the manipulation cases that are allegedly counterexamples to the leading compatibilist conditions on moral responsibility. This paper argues that if there is a counterexample to all the leading compatibilist conditions on moral responsibility, then this is sufficient to undermine compatibilism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]