Substantively Constrained Choice and Deference

Journal of Moral Philosophy 7 (2):180-199 (2010)
Abstract
Substantive accounts of autonomy place value constraints on the objects of autonomous choice. According to such views, not all sober and competent choices can be autonomous: some things simply cannot be autonomously chosen. Such an account is developed and appealed to, by Thomas Hill Jr, in order to explain the intuitively troubling nature of choices for deferential roles. Such choices are not consistent with the value of self-respect, it is claimed. In this paper I argue that Hill's attempt to explain the problem with such a choice, and Marcia Baron's interpretation and defence of his view, fail in this task. The troubling nature of some choices for deference cannot be explained in terms of a substantive self-respect condition for autonomy
Keywords MARCIA BARON   DEFERENCE   AUTONOMY   THOMAS HILL   SUBSTANTIVE
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 9,360
External links
  •   Try with proxy.
  •   Try with proxy.
  •   Try with proxy.
  • Through your library Configure
    References found in this work BETA

    No references found.

    Citations of this work BETA
    Andrea C. Westlund (2013). Deference as a Normative Power. Philosophical Studies 166 (3):455-474.
    Similar books and articles
    Analytics

    Monthly downloads

    Added to index

    2010-08-16

    Total downloads

    27 ( #54,538 of 1,089,057 )

    Recent downloads (6 months)

    2 ( #42,757 of 1,089,057 )

    How can I increase my downloads?

    My notes
    Sign in to use this feature


    Discussion
    Start a new thread
    Order:
    There  are no threads in this forum
    Nothing in this forum yet.