An ongoing debate between ‘procedural’ and ‘substantive’ theorists of personal autonomy addresses the following question: should agents have the final say on their own autonomy or should the objective circumstances in which agents live take prevalence when assessing their autonomy? Proceduralists favour the first strategy and substantive theorists restrict more explicitly the conditions under which autonomy is possible. I focus on forms of heteronomy which derive from oppressive circumstances and accept that substantive theorists are correct in contending that (i) forms (...) of oppression common in contemporary liberal societies (e.g. gender or racial oppression) tend to increase heteronomy; and (ii) the heteronomy which derives from social oppression tends to fly below the radar of procedural accounts. Still, I argue that a revised procedural strategy could limit these forms of heteronomy as long as it avoids the injunctions to ‘authenticity’ common in procedural models. I proceed by reconstructing John Christman’s model which, I argue, constitutes the most promising procedural account to assess autonomy under oppression. Christman’s theory, however, needs to be reinforced to ensure self-problematisation in light of a social perspective. I show that the latter is necessary to experience the forms of alienation which are markers of heteronomy according to Christman. (shrink)

El propósito de este texto es dar razones para defender la posición que advierte sobre los riesgos morales de la compasión. Además del argumento que, para sostener esta posición, apela al valor de la autonomía, hago referencia al debate sobre el contenido cognitivo de actitudes como la humillación. Las referencias a este debate junto con algunos ejemplos de la historia y de la literatura colombianas servirán para trazar el vínculo entre la creencia sobre la inferioridad de algunas personas y el (...) trato paternalista, condescendiente y humillante que puede llegar a ser constitutivo de la compasión. (shrink)

An ongoing debate between ‘procedural’ and ‘substantive’ theorists of personal autonomy addresses the following question: should agents have the final say on their own autonomy or should the object...

Philosophy & Social Criticism, Ahead of Print. An ongoing debate between ‘procedural’ and ‘substantive’ theorists of personal autonomy addresses the following question: should agents have the final say on their own autonomy or should the objective circumstances in which agents live take prevalence when assessing their autonomy? Proceduralists favour the first strategy and substantive theorists restrict more explicitly the conditions under which autonomy is possible. I focus on forms of heteronomy which derive from oppressive circumstances and accept that substantive theorists (...) are correct in contending that forms of oppression common in contemporary liberal societies tend to increase heteronomy; and the heteronomy which derives from social oppression tends to fly below the radar of procedural accounts. Still, I argue that a revised procedural strategy could limit these forms of heteronomy as long as it avoids the injunctions to ‘authenticity’ common in procedural models. I proceed by reconstructing John Christman’s model which, I argue, constitutes the most promising procedural account to assess autonomy under oppression. Christman’s theory, however, needs to be reinforced to ensure self-problematisation in light of a social perspective. I show that the latter is necessary to experience the forms of alienation which are markers of heteronomy according to Christman. (shrink)

Philosophy & Social Criticism, Ahead of Print. An ongoing debate between ‘procedural’ and ‘substantive’ theorists of personal autonomy addresses the following question: should agents have the final say on their own autonomy or should the objective circumstances in which agents live take prevalence when assessing their autonomy? Proceduralists favour the first strategy and substantive theorists restrict more explicitly the conditions under which autonomy is possible. I focus on forms of heteronomy which derive from oppressive circumstances and accept that substantive theorists (...) are correct in contending that forms of oppression common in contemporary liberal societies tend to increase heteronomy; and the heteronomy which derives from social oppression tends to fly below the radar of procedural accounts. Still, I argue that a revised procedural strategy could limit these forms of heteronomy as long as it avoids the injunctions to ‘authenticity’ common in procedural models. I proceed by reconstructing John Christman’s model which, I argue, constitutes the most promising procedural account to assess autonomy under oppression. Christman’s theory, however, needs to be reinforced to ensure self-problematisation in light of a social perspective. I show that the latter is necessary to experience the forms of alienation which are markers of heteronomy according to Christman. (shrink)

This paper examines Young’s conception of power, arguing that it is incomplete, in at least two ways. First, Young tends to equate the term power with the narrower notions of ‘ oppression ’ and ‘domination’. Thus, Young lacks a satisfactory analysis of individual and collective empowerment. Second, as Young herself admits, it is not obvious that her analysis of power can be useful in the context of thinking about transnational justice. Allen concludes by considering one way in which Young’s analysis (...) of power needs to be extended or perhaps modified in order to do justice to questions of transnational justice. (shrink)

In this paper, I examine Iris Marion Young's conception of power, arguing that it is incomplete in at least two ways. First, Young tends to equate the term power with the narrower notions of ‘oppression’ and ‘domination.’ Thus, Young lacks a satisfactory analysis of individual and collective empowerment. Second, as Young herself admits, it is not obvious that her analysis of power can be useful in the context of thinking about transnational justice. I conclude by considering one way in which (...) Young's analysis of power needs to be extended or perhaps modified in order to do justice to questions of transnational justice. (shrink)