Two weeks have come and gone since the posting of Haji's article, "The Manipulation Argument". It's a wonderful piece and I greatly appreciate the opportunity to present some of my own reactions to it.
In broad strokes, Haji tackles three of the most central issues currently surrounding such arguments:
(A) The proper interpretation of the Manipulation Argument (i.e. the formal structure shared by all manipulation arguments), and the relation between it and particular manipulation arguments.
(B) Michael McKenna’s recent distinction between ‘hard-line’ and ‘soft-line’ response strategies, and the soundness of his argument that every ‘credible’ manipulation argument (including Pereboom’s Four-Case Argument) requires a hard-line reply.
(C) The dialectical role of “ultimate origination” principles in the success of manipulation arguments, especially that of Pereboom’s Principle O in the Four-Case Argument.
My comments are a bit long (sorry), but I hope that they will help kick off a great reading group discussion:
