based argument in “Autonomy, toleration, and the harm principle. excluding it is one of the goals of Joseph Raz’s autonomy-based argument in “Autonomy. Joseph Raz aligns practices with harms in a different way w person who fails to See “Autonomy, Toleration, and the Harm Principle,” in Issue. Philosophy, ed. First, it is essential for the concept of toleration that the tolerated beliefs .. Raz, J. , , “Autonomy, Toleration, and the Harm Principle,” in S.
|Published (Last):||2 January 2004|
|PDF File Size:||19.92 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||16.71 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
As for the first, there does not seem to be any basis for thinking that reasons cannot be adduced for this rule that could be presented publicly, combined with the claim that they are reasons all autonomj share.
Justifying Toleration Many of the systematic arguments for toleration—be they religious, pragmatic, moral or epistemological—can be used as a justification for more than one of the conceptions of toleration mentioned above section 2. I will later come to another strand of thinking about the limits of the law: Perfectionism and the harm principle are consistent with one another because the recommended type of perfectionism abjures coercion, focusing instead on maintaining the framework conditions that are conducive for pluralism and autonomy.
This shows that there are cases in which tolerance is not the solution to intolerance.
The Limits of Law (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy/Spring Edition)
Tolerayion declared utility to be the ultimate appeal toeration all ethical questions. I believe it would be wrong to subject the possession and use of tobacco where it does not foul the air for others to serious criminal penalties, because of the evils of coercion and punishment. Take the last mentioned example of the previous paragraph: This, then, is the argument. A major worry here is that this has not advanced us at all.
States in general should acknowledge the importance of such liberty of action and should limit their law accordingly.
Freedom and Autonomy – Oxford Scholarship
It will need to show it can avoid ruling out too little to become a live option. After citing with approval the Kantian imperative that persons must be treated as ends and not merely as means, Dan-Cohen continues:. Thinkers of the French Enlightenment argued for toleration on various grounds and, as in Bodin, there was a difference between a focus on political stability and a focus on religious coexistence.
Different from this, the third conception of toleration—the respect conception —is one in which the tolerating parties respect one another in a more reciprocal sense cf. The question of peaceful coexistence of different faiths—Christian, Jewish and Muslim—was much discussed in the Middle Ages, especially in the 12 th century. In all the examples mentioned above the aims sought may not materialize.
Coerce where you have adequate reason! But the assumed justice of the conviction can be explained satisfactorily neither by recourse to the principle of autonomy as the victim consented to the beatingsnor to the principle of welfare if this really was the best way to end the blight that alcoholism had become on Mrs Brown’s life it would arguably enhance her welfare.
On this argument even if the seemingly very strong concession in 1 is made to the legal moralist, the issue is very far from concluded. Similarly, fining is an extremely common form of criminal penalty. Many of the systematic arguments for toleration—be they religious, pginciple, moral or epistemological—can be used as a justification for more than one of the conceptions of toleration aufonomy above section 2.
And it is no objection to say that the view is a minority one.
Freedom and Autonomy
Property owners, rather than forking out for legally mandated improvements to their rental property, may simply take their properties off the market, resulting in fewer affordable properties available for rental and fewer needs met. Reference QuongJ. What is special about religious as opposed to other cultural identities Laborde and Bardon ? Please, subscribe or login to access full text content. Competitive value pluralism will, if unchecked, lead to intolerance and suppression, thereby reducing the number of valuable forms of life available, possibly to the extent that there is an inadequate range from which individuals can choose.
Recently he has stressed the Kantian imperative against treating people as a means only Nagel The most important toledation far-reaching justification of toleration, however, is the principle credere non potest nisi volenswhich holds that only faith based on inner conviction is pleasing to God, and that such faith has to develop from within, without external compulsion. The argument depends on a particular understanding of harm as autonomy.
I shall suggest that the central tension is over the recourse that a state should prunciple to moral premises for which truth is claimed.
The harm principle permits us to use coercion to prevent harm. As Rawls has argued, it is not reasonable to think that moral disagreement will disappear in the medium- or even the long-term.
Another problem, on which I will focus more, is what I will call the problem of discrimination.