Many manipulation arguments against compatibilism rely on the claim that manipulation is relevantly similar to determinism. But we argue that manipulation is nothing like determinism in one relevant respect. Determinism is a "universal" phenomenon: its scope includes every feature of the universe. But manipulation arguments feature cases where an agent is the only manipulated individual in her universe. Call manipulation whose scope includes at least one but not all agents "existential manipulation." Our responsibility practices are impacted in different ways by universal and existential phenomena. And this is a relevant difference, especially on Strawsonian approaches to moral responsibility, which take facts about our responsibility practices to be deeply connected to the nature of responsibility itself. We argue that Strawsonian accounts of moral responsibility are immune to manipulation arguments, and no attempt to modify the scope of manipulation or determinism featured in these arguments will help incompatibilists secure their desired conclusion.

中文翻译：

---

化解对相容论的存在和普遍威胁——操纵论点的斯特劳森困境

许多反对相容论的操纵论点都依赖于操纵与决定论相似的主张。但我们认为，在一个相关方面，操纵与决定论完全不同。决定论是一种“普遍”现象：它的范围包括宇宙的每一个特征。但是操纵论点的特点是代理人是她的宇宙中唯一被操纵的个体。范围包括至少一个但不是所有代理“存在性操纵”的呼叫操纵。我们的责任实践受到普遍和存在现象的不同影响。这是一个相关的差异，特别是在 Strawsonian 的道德责任方法上，它认为我们的责任实践与责任本身的本质有着深刻的联系。