 This move shifts the burden back to compatibilists, who need to explain why determinism, in spite of the way it blocks alternatives, doesn’t undermine responsibility. A traditional compatibilist reply points out that determinism—unlike compulsion and other threats to responsibility—does not disrupt the normal operation of our faculties; in that sense, its “invasiveness” is benign (cp.  §3.1).  A more ambitious line defends this point by developing an independently plausible compatibilist account of moral responsibility. Here, briefly, are two such attempts (see entry on  compatibilism  for a detailed treatment of these and other compatibilist options).