Authenticity and the third-person perspective

In this paper, I argue for two claims: first, that authenticity is a property possessed only by those preferences and commitments whose satisfaction contributes to our lives going well; and secondly, that our preferences are authentic just in case they do not have covert explanations, which is to say when the true third-personal explanation of our preferences is necessarily hidden from our first-person perspective

Disadvantage, Autononomy, and the Continuity Test

The Continuity Test is the principle that a proposed distribution of resources is wrong if it treats someone as disadvantaged when they don’t see it that way themselves, for example by offering compensation for features that they do not themselves regard as handicaps. This principle – which is most prominently developed in Ronald Dworkin’s defence of his theory of distributive justice – is an attractive one for a liberal to endorse as part of her theory of distributive justice and disadvantage. In this paper, I play out some of its implications, and show that in its basic form the Continuity Test is inconsistent. It relies on a tacit commitment to the protection of autonomy, understood to consist in an agent deciding for herself what is valuable and living her life in accordance with that decision. A contradiction arises when we consider factors which are putatively disadvantaging by dint of threatening individual autonomy construed in this way. I argue that the problem can be resolved by embracing a more explicit commitment to the protection (and perhaps promotion) of individual autonomy. This implies a constrained version of the Continuity Test, thereby salvaging most of the intuitions which lead people to endorse the Test. It also gives us the wherewithal to sketch an interesting and novel theory of distributive justice, with individual autonomy at its core

Forbidden ways of life

I examine an objection against autonomy-minded liberalism sometimes made by philosophers such as John Rawls and William Galston, that it rules out ways of life which do not themselves value freedom or autonomy. This objection is incorrect, because one need not value autonomy in order to live an autonomous life. Hence autonomy-minded liberalism need not rule out such ways of life. I suggest a modified objection which does work, namely that autonomy-minded liberalism must rule out ways of life that could not develop under an autonomy-promoting education. I conclude by suggesting some reasons why autonomy-minded liberals should bite the bullet and accept this

Debate: The Concept of Voluntariness

IN her work on the distinction between freedom and voluntariness, Serena Olsaretti suggests the following definition of voluntary action: an action is voluntary if it is not non-voluntary, and non-voluntary if it is performed because there are no acceptable alternatives, where ‘acceptable’ means conforming to some objective standard (which Olsaretti suggests might be well-being). Olsaretti suggests that ascriptions of responsibility are underwritten by judgments of voluntariness, rather than freedom. Also, Olsaretti notes that a concern for voluntary choice might be grounded in respect for autonomy. So, two important questions in political philosophy – when an agent is responsible for her actions and what we must do if we want agents to live autonomous lives – hang upon whether Olsaretti's account of voluntariness is correct once it has been developed in detail. This article is a contribution to that development. I show that well-informedness about our options is crucial to whether we act voluntarily or not, and I argue that we should restrict the scope of what we consider relevantly unacceptable to include only things which involve serious prudential harm. Inevitably there are some questions left unanswered, but what follows indicates what I take to be the strongest form of Olsaretti's theory, and one which can play the role described for it above

Responsibility and school choice in education

Consider the following argument for school choice, based on an appeal to the virtues of the market: allowing parents some measure of choice over their particular children’s education ultimately serves the interests of all children, because creating a market mechanism in state education will produce improvements through the same pressures that lead to greater efficiency and quality when markets are deployed in more familiar contexts. The argument fails, because it is committed to a principle of equal concern, which (after analysis) implies that a market in education is acceptable only if it is right to hold children disadvantaged by their parents’ poor market choices substantively responsible for the fact. Since that claim is untenable, the market-based argument for school choice not only fails, but also turns out to rely on principles which in fact condemn the very policy it was supposed to support

Autonomy and adaptive preferences

Adaptive preference formation is the unconscious altering of our preferences in light of the options we have available. Jon Elster has argued that this is bad because it undermines our autonomy. I agree, but think that Elster’s explanation of why is lacking. So, I draw on a richer account of autonomy to give the following answer. Preferences formed through adaptation are characterised by covert influence (that is, explanations of which an agent herself is necessarily unaware), and covert influence undermines our autonomy because it undermines the extent to which an agent’s preferences are ones that she has decided upon for herself. This answer fills the lacuna in Elster’s argument. It also allows us to draw a principled distinction between adaptive preference formation and the closely related – but potentially autonomy-enhancing – phenomenon of character planning

Autonomy, voluntariness, and assisted dying

Ethical arguments about assisted dying often focus on whether or not respect for an individual’s autonomy gives a reason to offer them an assisted death if they want it. In this paper, I present an argument for legalising assisted dying which appeals to the autonomy of people who don’t want to die. Adding that option can transform the nature of someone’s choice set, enabling them to pursue other options voluntarily where that would otherwise be harder or impossible. This does not contradict the more familiar arguments for legalising assisted dying based on the autonomy of those who seek to die. But it does suggest that a wider constituency of support for that legislative change might be created by emphasising that one need not be in that position to be benefited by the change

Disability-based arguments against assisted dying laws

Some of the most common arguments against legalizing assisted dying are based on appealing to the rights of people with disabilities. This article identifies and responds to those arguments, including that people with disabilities univocally oppose assisted dying laws; that those laws harm people with disabilities, or show disrespect; and that those laws undermine other vital aspects of healthcare. Drawing on philosophical argument, as well as on evidence from jurisdictions where assisted dying is legal, the article concludes that considerations of disability do not in fact generate good arguments against assisted dying laws. In fact, the opposite is true. There are nevertheless important lessons that proponents and defenders of such laws can learn in conversation with people with disabilities, including about safeguards on assisted dying to protect their well-being and autonomy