It is often charged that compatibilists have a problem with manipulation. There are certain cases in which victims of manipulation seem to be not responsible for what they do, despite meeting compatibilist conditions on moral responsibility. This essay argues that these arguments, as a class, fail. Their success is dependent on a particular incompatibilist assumption, one that is dialectically infelicitous in this context. My aim, however, is not to defend compatibilism but only to reject a popular argument for incompatibilism. © 2013 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.
