支配和自由:质量,而不是数量*

Matteo Boccacci
{"title":"支配和自由:质量,而不是数量*","authors":"Matteo Boccacci","doi":"10.1007/s11158-023-09643-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Does domination make us unfree? Republicans argue that it does. Thus, they contend that the liberal conception of freedom is inadequate as it is not (wholly) able to account for domination. I provide a new approach to this controversy. The liberal conception of freedom has the potential to account for domination, but we must adjust the scope of our analysis: claims about domination are best understood not as claims about quantities of liberal freedom, but as claims about the value of liberal freedom. Even if the master is benevolent and indeed does not interfere much with the slave’s choices and actions, the relation of domination affects the quality of the slave’s liberal freedom. To argue for this point, I provide a taxonomy of the value of freedom and then, on this basis, point to several ways in which freedom under domination lacks value.","PeriodicalId":45474,"journal":{"name":"Res Publica-A Journal of Moral Legal and Political Philosophy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Domination and Freedom: Quality, not Quantity*\",\"authors\":\"Matteo Boccacci\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11158-023-09643-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Does domination make us unfree? Republicans argue that it does. Thus, they contend that the liberal conception of freedom is inadequate as it is not (wholly) able to account for domination. I provide a new approach to this controversy. The liberal conception of freedom has the potential to account for domination, but we must adjust the scope of our analysis: claims about domination are best understood not as claims about quantities of liberal freedom, but as claims about the value of liberal freedom. Even if the master is benevolent and indeed does not interfere much with the slave’s choices and actions, the relation of domination affects the quality of the slave’s liberal freedom. To argue for this point, I provide a taxonomy of the value of freedom and then, on this basis, point to several ways in which freedom under domination lacks value.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45474,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Res Publica-A Journal of Moral Legal and Political Philosophy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Res Publica-A Journal of Moral Legal and Political Philosophy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158-023-09643-x\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Res Publica-A Journal of Moral Legal and Political Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158-023-09643-x","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

统治使我们不自由吗?共和党人则认为确实如此。因此,他们认为自由主义的自由概念是不充分的,因为它不能(完全)解释统治。我提供了一种新的方法来解决这个争议。自由主义的自由概念有可能解释支配,但我们必须调整我们的分析范围:关于支配的主张最好不是关于自由自由数量的主张,而是关于自由自由价值的主张。即使主人是仁慈的,确实不会过多干涉奴隶的选择和行为,统治关系也会影响奴隶自由的质量。为了论证这一点,我对自由的价值进行了分类,然后在此基础上,指出了在统治下自由缺乏价值的几种方式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Domination and Freedom: Quality, not Quantity*
Abstract Does domination make us unfree? Republicans argue that it does. Thus, they contend that the liberal conception of freedom is inadequate as it is not (wholly) able to account for domination. I provide a new approach to this controversy. The liberal conception of freedom has the potential to account for domination, but we must adjust the scope of our analysis: claims about domination are best understood not as claims about quantities of liberal freedom, but as claims about the value of liberal freedom. Even if the master is benevolent and indeed does not interfere much with the slave’s choices and actions, the relation of domination affects the quality of the slave’s liberal freedom. To argue for this point, I provide a taxonomy of the value of freedom and then, on this basis, point to several ways in which freedom under domination lacks value.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
32
期刊介绍: Res Publica: a Journal of Legal, Moral and Social Philosophy is an interdisciplinary publication concerned with the philosophical analysis of moral, political, social and legal issues. It provides a forum for discussion of theoretical issues; a public arena for voicing matters of practical concern; and a vehicle for addressing questions of morality, politics, law and society, the interconnections between them and, more generally, the relation of theory to practice. The journal seeks to publish articles and review essays which are both philosophically rigorous and accessible to a wide range of academics and professionals. Replies to articles are welcome. It is the policy of Res Publica to encourage publication by researchers at the beginning of their careers as well as by established scholars; and by those in non-Western countries.
期刊最新文献
The Promise of Representative Democracy: Deliberative Responsiveness Domination and Freedom: Quality, not Quantity* Which Elections? A Dilemma for Proponents of the Duty to Vote Blaming Reasonable Wrongdoers On a Columnar Self: Two Senses of Expressing Partisanship
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1