The Illusion of Neutrality: Abortion and the Foundations of Justice
In: University of Cambridge Faculty of Law Research Paper No. 9/2017
62 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: University of Cambridge Faculty of Law Research Paper No. 9/2017
SSRN
Working paper
In: University of Cambridge Faculty of Law Research Paper No. 22/2016
SSRN
Working paper
In: University of Cambridge Faculty of Law Research Paper No. 12/2015
SSRN
Working paper
In: University of Cambridge Faculty of Law Research Paper No. 13/2015
SSRN
Working paper
In: University of Cambridge Faculty of Law Research Paper No. 2/2015
SSRN
Working paper
In: Oxford Handbook of Classics in Political Theory, Forthcoming
SSRN
Working paper
In: University of Cambridge Faculty of Law Research Paper No. 15/2013
SSRN
Working paper
In: University of Cambridge Faculty of Law Research Paper No. 46/2013
SSRN
Working paper
In: University of Cambridge Faculty of Law Research Paper No. 18/2012
SSRN
Working paper
In: Ratio Juris, Band 25, Heft 4, S. 472-495
SSRN
In: University of Cambridge Faculty of Law Research Paper No. 26-2012
SSRN
Working paper
In: The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory, S. 179-190
In: Inquiry: an interdisciplinary journal of philosophy and the social sciences, Band 48, Heft 4, S. 307-355
ISSN: 1502-3923
In: Journal of Theoretical Politics, Band 15, Heft 4, S. 445-471
ISSN: 0000-0000
In: Politics, philosophy & economics: ppe, Band 2, Heft 1, S. 63-92
ISSN: 1741-3060
This article explores some implications of the counterfactual aspect of freedom and unfreedom. Because actions can be unprevented even if they are not undertaken, and conversely because actions can be prevented even if they are not attempted and are thus not overtly thwarted, any adequate account of negative liberty must ponder numerous counterfactual chains of events. Each person's freedom or unfreedom is affected not only by what others in fact do, but also by what they are disposed to do. Their dispositions play a key role in determining whether the abilities and inabilities of each person would continue as such if the person's conduct or situation were altered in various respects. Until one knows whether people would or would not have acted in certain ways if a given person had sought to do something, one cannot know whether that person was free to do that thing. Nor can one know whether the person was free to perform that action in combination with manifold subsequent actions. Thus, whether tacit or explicit, counterfactual scenarios are indispensable for any enquiry into a person's liberty. By relying (albeit perhaps only implicitly) on such scenarios, which trace how people are disposed to act vis-a-vis one another, one takes account of the central role of unmanifested dispositions in setting the bounds of people's sociopolitical freedom. Among the principal theorists whose work is critically examined in this article are Hillel Steiner, Ian Carter, and G.A. Cohen.