The Argument from Autonomy
The Argument from Autonomy
This chapter argues that Joseph Raz's autonomy-based version of the harm principle suffers from two serious problems. First, Raz's argument fails to yield a principled commitment to liberal toleration — it is instead contingent on certain empirical assumptions that should be irrelevant to a theory of liberal toleration. Second, the chapter shows that Raz's argument for the harm principle does not provide us with reasons to treat non-coercive state perfectionism differently than coercive perfectionism. Thus, if his harm principle precludes paternalistic coercion, it must also preclude the kinds of non-coercive perfectionist policies liberal perfectionists advocate. If successful, the objections in this chapter indicate that the value of autonomy cannot provide the foundation for liberal perfectionism in the way many contemporary perfectionists have assumed.
Keywords: autonomy, coercion, comprehensive liberalism, harm principle, liberal perfectionism, manipulation, Raz, subsidies
Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.
To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .
