ABSTRACT
This chapter begins by explaining Robert Kane’s use of manipulation arguments to criticize the compatibilist approach to understanding free will. Consideration is given to three different ways in which it has been argued that Kane’s own libertarian theory can be undermined by manipulation arguments. Here the manipulation-based arguments of Ishtiyaque Haji and Stefaan Cuypers, Derk Pereboom, and Roger Clarke are given consideration and answered in defense of the Kanean view. In the later stages of the chapter, it is argued that compatibilist views of free will continue to be plagued with problems concerning manipulation. The argument here engages in significant ways with the work of Michael McKenna as well as others. It is argued that the aspects of Kane’s libertarianism which make it immune to problems of manipulation help us see why manipulation arguments continue to challenge the compatibilist view.
