I think the following is right:
The contemporary debate seems be
tracking more toward offering something like rival accounts of what it takes to be
responsible in the desert-entailing sense. There also appears to be a general sentiment that if
incompatibilist theories worked otherwise, they would easily secure
desert-entailing responsibility, whereas, even if compatibilist
theories work, they still bear a special burden of explaining just why
satisfying those compatibilist conditions is sufficient for the agent
to deserve, say, blame and praise.
At least, the above is my impression. But apart from some comments on
the Garden, (and a few remarks in personal correspondence), I'm not sure of any concrete instances which support the
observation. That is, I think there is this general presumption that
incompatibilist theories have at least this advantage: if they worked
they'd secure desert-entailing MR. But this is a general impression I
have - not something I could cite examples of.
So I thought I'd solicit The Garden, both to check to see if the above seems like an apt observation, and in the hopes of some pointers to better evidence of the above than my rough impressions.
