David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
In Matthew H. Kramer (ed.), The Legacy of H.L.A. Hart: Legal, Political, and Moral Philosophy. Oxford University Press (2008)
We have two ways of talking about liberty or freedom, one in the singular, the other in the plural. We concern ourselves in the singular mode with how far someone is free to do or not to do certain things, or with how far someone is a free person or not a free person. But, equally, we concern ourselves with the plural question as to how far the person enjoys the liberties that we take to be important or basic. What are those plural liberties, however? What does it take for something to count as a basic liberty? e usual approach to this question is to give a list of some presumptive basic liberties — say, those of thought, speech, and association — and then to add a gestural ‘and so on’. My aim in this paper is to do a little better in elaborating a conception of the sorts of liberties at which the ‘and so on’ gestures. I argue that the basic liberties can be usefully identifi ed as the liberties required for living the life of a free person or citizen and I spell out that requirement in three constraints, which I describe as feasible extension, personal signifi cance and equal co-enjoyment. ere are many candidate sets of basic liberties that might be proposed for protection, whether in general or for a particular society. e claim that I defend is that in order to count as a set of basic liberties, the types of choice protected under any proposal should be capable of being equally enjoyed at the same time by everyone (equal co-enj oyment), should be important in the life of normal human beings (personal signifi cance), and should not be unnecessarily restricted: they should be as extensive as the other constraints allow (feasible extension). e aim of the paper being quite limited, I abstract from many important issues. I do not provide an argument for why it is important that some set of basic liberties be protected, nor do I rate the importance of such protection against other social goals. I say nothing on how far it should be a requirement of democracy that certain sorts of liberties are entrenched—whether constitutionally or otherwise—and how far democratic process should be allowed to vary the specifi - cation and protection of basic liberties..
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Meghan Benton (2014). The Problem of Denizenship: A Non-Domination Framework. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 17 (1):49-69.
Morten Ebbe Juul Nielsen & Xavier Landes (2016). Fighting Status Inequalities: Non-Domination Vs Non-Interference. Public Health Ethics 9 (2):155-163.
M. Victoria Costa (2009). Rawls on Liberty and Domination. Res Publica 15 (4):397--413.
M. Victoria Costa (2009). Rawls on Liberty and Domination. Res Publica 15 (4):397-413.
Similar books and articles
W. J. (1998). Why Basic Liberties Are Bilateral. Law and Philosophy 17 (s 5-6):627-634.
William Glod (2010). Political Liberalism, Basic Liberties, and Legal Paternalism. Southern Journal of Philosophy 48 (2):177-196.
Jason Brennan & John Tomasi (2012). Classical Liberalism. In David Estlund (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Philosophy. Oxford University Press, Usa 115.
Joseph Chan (2002). Moral Autonomy, Civil Liberties, and Confucianism. Philosophy East and West 52 (3):281-310.
Jason Brennan (2012). Political Liberty: Who Needs It? Social Philosophy and Policy 29 (1):1-27.
Russell Hardin (2004). Civil Liberties in the Era of Mass Terrorism. Journal of Ethics 8 (1):77-95.
Frank Michelman (1990). From Dialogue Rights to Property Rights: Reply to Shearmur. Critical Review 4 (1-2):133-143.
Robert S. Taylor (2003). Rawls’s Defense of the Priority of Liberty: A Kantian Reconstruction. Philosophy and Public Affairs 31 (3):246–271.
Benjamin Sachs (2008). The Liberty Principle and Universal Health Care. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 18 (2):pp. 149-172.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads47 ( #94,151 of 1,934,424 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #195,835 of 1,934,424 )
How can I increase my downloads?