Freedom, Preference and Autonomy

Philosophers have advocated different kinds of freedom, but each has value and none should be neglected in a complete theory of freedom and responsibility. There are three kinds of freedom of preference and action that should be distinguished. A person S may fully prefer to do A at every level, and that is one kind of freedom. A person S may autonomously prefer to do A when S has the preference structure concerning doing A because S prefers to have that very preference structure, and that is a second kind of freedom. A person S may prefer to do A when S could have preferred otherwise, and that is a third kind of freedom. These forms of freedom may be combined, but they are valuable and essentially independent. They all involve the metamental ascendence of preference over desire, but it is autonomous preference that makes a person the author of his or her preference. The responsibility a person has for what he or she does out of a preference for doing it depends on the kinds of freedom of preference the person has and must be ranked in terms of them.     

Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Autonomy

The libertarian view of freedom has attracted considerable attention in the past three decades. It has also been subjected to numerous criticisms regarding its nature and effects on society. G. A. Cohen's recent book, Self-Ownership, Freedom and Equality, continues this attack by linking libertarian views on freedom to their view of self-ownership. This paper formulates and evaluates Cohen's major arguments against libertarian freedom and self-ownership. It contends that his arguments against the libertarian rights definition of freedom are inadequate and need modification. Similarly, Cohen's defense of restrictions on self-ownership on behalf of autonomy are also found wanting. Finally, I argue that the thesis of self-ownership (whether in its full or partial version) ought to be rejected.     

Manipulated suicide

To accept a notion of rational suicide, as many contemporary bioethicists now urge, first makes possible certain kinds of manipulation into suicide which do not occur in suicide-impermissive societies. This paper describes the two principal mechanisms by which an individual can be manipulated into choosing to kill himself or herself, though that individual would not have done so otherwise, and identifies circumstantial and ideological changes in contemporary society which may be associated with such manipulation now and in the future. However, the author holds that this prospect is not grounds for rejecting the notion of rational suicide;it must be accepted on other moral grounds, but with a clear view of the risks it will bring.     

作为自由的法则：康德与“自律”观念的演绎

作为与纯然实践理性相结合的意志能力,康德的自律观念不仅具有独立于感性偏好的消极意旨,而且更强调确立普遍法则保障平等自由的积极取向,从而展现出独特的思想内涵。同时,在其具有普遍性、形式性特征的定言命令表述中,康德亦基于自律及其表征的人性目的使其呈现出规范性的价值旨趣,此阐释方式乃是回应相关论证以及指责的重要思想资源。此外,该方式还促使自律观念在行动中与道德法则相互契合一致,并通过其对自由的绝对价值以及道德人格理想的彰显,使定言命令论证的有效性得以可能。     

Manipulated flow reduces downstream defensiveness

Flow is a psychological state people experience when performing highly challenging tasks with a high degree of skill. It is related to happiness, creativity, and productivity. In three experiments, we developed a manipulation of flow and assessed its effects on subsequent defensive behavior. In all three experiments, participants who played a game with more features of flow (e.g. engagement, match of challenge and skill, performance feedback) reported more feelings of flow (e.g. enjoyment, concentration and interest) and less downstream defensiveness. The results suggest that we developed a flexible, reliable manipulation of flow, and that inducing people to experience flow may reduce their subsequent defensive behavior.     

Welfare,Autonomy, and the Autonomy Fallacy

In this article, I subject the claim that autonomous choice is an intrinsic welfare benefit to critical scrutiny. My argument begins by discussing perhaps the most influential argument in favor of the intrinsic value of autonomy: the argument from deference. In response, I hold that this argument displays what I call the ‘Autonomy Fallacy’: the argument from deference has no power to support the intrinsic value of autonomy in comparison to the important evaluative significance of bare self‐direction (autonomous or not) or what I call ‘self‐direction tout court’. I defend the claim that the Autonomy Fallacy really is a fallacy, and show that my examination of the argument from deference has wider reverberations. Once we clearly distinguish between autonomy and self‐direction tout court, it becomes much less plausible to say that autonomy of itself is an intrinsic welfare benefit.     

被自由误导的自由

本文主要分析了自由以及表现为权利自由的政治哲学问题,其中着重批评了伯林的两种自由模式,试图论证,不自由切割为两种,将导致对自由的各种误解。所谓消极自由和积极自由只是同一种自由的两面,但伯林问题可以转换为消极权利和积极权利问题,这样就可以消除混乱。     

Autonomy and Nondefensiveness

Three experimental studies tested whether a priming procedure intended to activate an autonomy orientation would lead to nondefensiveness and enhanced performance, whether activated control orientation would lead to higher defense and impaired performance, and whether activated impersonal orientation would lead to the greatest defense and worst performance. Study 1 showed that autonomy-primed participants report lower desire for escape compared to control-primed, and that impersonally-primed showed most desire to escape. In Study 2, autonomy-primed participants showed the least self-serving bias, control-primed were in the middle, and impersonally-primed participants showed the most. In Study 3, rowers autonomy-primed showed the least self-handicapping and best performance, control-primed showed moderate levels, and impersonally-primed showed the most self-handicapping and worst performance. Results are discussed in terms of motivation orientation, defensiveness, and performance.

Evidence-Responsiveness and Autonomy

It is plausible to think that part of what it is to be an autonomous agent is to adequately respond to important changes in one’s circumstances. The agent who has set her own course in life, but is unable to recognize and respond appropriately when evidence arises indicating the need to reconsider and perhaps adjust her plan, lacks an important form of personal autonomy. However, this “evidence-responsiveness” aspect of autonomy has not yet been adequately analyzed. Most autonomy theorists ignore it altogether and the few who have addressed it have failed to give a satisfactory account. In this paper, I first examine an evidence-responsiveness condition proposed by Arneson. I argue there that while Arneson’s condition provides a valuable framework in which to examine evidence-responsiveness, there are several crucial issues that it either fails to address at all or else fails to adequately resolve. That condition is therefore in need of further elaboration and refinement. I then examine a recent article in this journal by Blöser, Schöpf, and Willaschek which develops an account of autonomy that I argue can usefully be understood as employing and elaborating upon the general framework offered by Arneson. I argue that while the elaboration Blöser and her co-authors provide Arneson’s condition is instructive, it is inadequate in several important ways which indicate the form a more satisfactory evidence-responsiveness condition will take. I go on to develop such a condition and conclude by highlighting the advantages to be gained by including that condition in a complete theory of autonomy.     

Autonomy and Akrasia

Abstract

Strict akratic actions, by definition, are performed freely. However, agents may seem not to be selfgoverned with respect to such actions and therefore not to perform them autonomously. If appearance matches reality here, freedom and autonomy part company in this sphere. Do they? That is this article's guiding question. To make things manageable, it is assumed that there are free actions, including strict akratic actions. Two theses are defended. First, the combination of (i) an intentional action's being uncompelled and (ii) its being - or executing - in appropriate informational circumstances, a sane decision that, as the agent recognizes, is for a course of action that she believes to be inferior to an alternative course of action open to her is sufficient for the action's being freely performed. (Condition (i) provides elbow room allegedly needed for free action, and (ii) encompasses freedom-level psychological sophistication.) Second, the same combination is sufficient for an intentional action's being autonomously performed.     

Intimacy and Autonomy

No abstract available for this article.     

法律与自由

本文主要从法哲学的角度探讨了法律与自由的关系问题。本文认为,传统的有关积极自由与消极自由的二分法已经不能准确厘清自由与法律之关系,需要在综合的方法下审视自由观念所包含的法律价值意义。为此,本文系统地考察了禁止论、意志论和规则论三种法律下的自由观,并对作为一项基本的政治与法律权利的自由权利给予了具体的分析,文章认为我们既要保有自由诸权利不受侵犯,更需要为这些自由权利而作为,建设一个法治的宪政制度,则是所有个人自由的基础。