The recent debates about the nature of social freedom, understood in a broadly negative way, have generated three main views of the topic: these represent freedom respectively as non-limitation, non-interference and non-domination. The participants in these debates often go different ways, however, because they address different topics under common names, not because they hold different intuitions on common topics. Social freedom is sometimes understood as option-freedom, sometimes as agency-freedom and the different directions taken by the theories can often be explained by their addressing freedom in one sense, then in another. The non-limitation approach focuses primarily on option-freedom, the non-domination approach on agencyfreedom, whereas the representation of freedom as non-interference seems to spring from a failure to resolve the focus decisively on one target or another.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Similar books and articles
Republican Freedom and the Rule of Law.Christian List - 2006 - Politics, Philosophy and Economics 5 (2):201-220.
A Note on List's Modal Logic of Republican Freedom.Boudewijn de Bruin - 2008 - Politics, Philosophy and Economics 7 (3):341-349.
Republican Freedom, Rights, and the Coalition Problem.K. Dowding - 2011 - Politics, Philosophy and Economics 10 (3):301-322.
Involuntary Antipsychotic Medication and Freedom of Thought.Mari Stenlund - 2011 - Dialogues in Philosophy, Mental and Neuro Sciences 4 (2):31-33.
Belief and Freedom of Mind.Christopher Hookway - 2009 - Philosophical Explorations 12 (2):195 – 204.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads120 ( #41,137 of 2,177,828 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #166,559 of 2,177,828 )
How can I increase my downloads?