Nondomination and normativity

Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 88 (3):319-327 (2007)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In an earlier paper, “The Indeterminacy of Republican Policy,” I argued that in an important class of cases, republican political theory, as formulated by Philip Pettit, does not have determinate implications for policy. Pettit has replied that my argument was based on a conception of freedom as nondomination that is not his own. In the present paper, I explore the two ways of understanding republican freedom. I first suggest that they may not, in the end, be very different. I then note that if a sharp difference is restored, my conception may have some desirable features.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 101,139

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-11-22

Downloads
32 (#708,450)

6 months
10 (#413,587)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Christopher McMahon
University of California at Santa Barbara

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

The Indeterminacy of Republican Policy.Christopher Mcmahon - 2004 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 33 (1):67-93.
Republicanism and democratic injustice.Henry S. Richardson - 2006 - Politics, Philosophy and Economics 5 (2):175-200.

Add more references