Abstract
Freedom is often analysed in terms of the absence of intentionally imposed constraints. I defend the alternative view on which the relevant constraints are those for which some agent can be held morally responsible. I argue that this best captures the relation between freedom and respect. Berlin (1969) correctly points out that intentional restrictions exhibit ill will and hence are disrespectful. However, the same holds, I argue, for restrictions that are due to indifference. Berlin also observed that it would be counterintuitive if an agent could increase her freedom by changing her preferences. I criticize the argument that Dowding and Van Hees (2007, 2008) present according to which this observation counts in favour of explicating freedom in terms of intentionality.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 25-41 |
Number of pages | 17 |
Journal | Economics and Philosophy |
Volume | 33 |
Issue number | 1 |
Early online date | 7-Apr-2016 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - Mar-2017 |
Keywords
- freedom
- indifference
- intentional action
- moral responsibility
- COUNTERFACTUAL SUCCESS
- MORAL WORTH
- JUDGMENTS