The debate over encumbered versus unencumbered selves that characterized the dialogue between liberalism and republicanism did not end well. Neither side seemed enlightened by its encounter with the other, as it became increasingly difficult to pin down the differences between the sides, never more so than when Michael Sandel was violently agreeing with Richard Dagger. Drawing on the work of novelist and philosopher Iris Murdoch, this essay argues that Sandel could have made a much stronger argument for his view than he did. Sandel need not have conceded or concluded that encumbered selves are unable to choose freely. Freedom is a more subtle and complicated concept that either Sandel or Dagger recognize
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI doi:10.1057/palgrave.cpt.9300106
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 70,091
External links

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

Political Liberalism.J. Rawls - 1995 - Tijdschrift Voor Filosofie 57 (3):596-598.
Liberalism and the Limits of Justice.Michael J. Sandel - 1998 - Cambridge University Press.

View all 28 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles


Added to PP index

Total views
64 ( #178,630 of 2,506,120 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #416,984 of 2,506,120 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes