On 'Being Forced to Be Free'. Between Republican and Liberal Freedom  

Oleh:

Shnayderman, Ronen

Jenis: Article from Journal - ilmiah internasional
Dalam koleksi: Ethical Perspectives: Journal of the European Ethics Network vol. 22 no. 2 (Jun. 2015), page 247-270.
Topik: Freedom; non-interference; non-domination; republicanism; liberalism; Philip Pettit

Ketersediaan

Perpustakaan Pusat (Semanggi) Nomor Panggil: EE45 Non-tandon: 1 (dapat dipinjam: 0) Tandon: tidak ada

Lihat Detail Induk

Isi artikel

The most recent literature on the idea of freedom focuses on the liberal-republican debate regarding the question whether freedom should be defined as non-interference or non-domination. One of the main issues within this debate is whether the liberal concept of freedom as non-interference can properly account for the freedom-restrictive nature of domination. In a recent article, however, Michael Harbour argues that, as a matter of fact, neither the liberal concept of freedom as non-interference nor the republican concept of freedom as non-domination is able to properly account for the loss of freedom one suffers under domination. He thus concludes by suggesting that none of the concepts of freedom prominent in the literature can properly account for the freedom-restrictive nature of domination. The present article seeks to refute Harbour’s disturbing argument. By doing so it also sheds further light on the ideas of freedom as non-domination and freedom as noninterference and particularly on the precise manner in which domination is inimical to freedom.

Opini Anda

Klik untuk menuliskan opini Anda tentang koleksi ini!

Kembali