Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T04:29:47.186Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Defending Historical Autonomy: A Reply to Professor Mele

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

John Christman
John Christman*
Affiliation:
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, 24061-0126, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Reply
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , June 1993 , pp. 281 - 289
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 ‘History and Personal Autonomy,’ Canadian Journal of Philosophy 23 (1993) 271-80

2 I realize now that the narrow focus on ‘desires’ as the locus of autonomy is too inflexible, even in the ‘local’ sense of autonomy I wish to defend. A person is autonomous relative to desires, values, character traits, tendencies, and many other cognitive and psychological states. Hopefully, the model being discussed can apply to all of these.

3 Moreover, even if a purely internal specification can be made of motivational defects, this seems closer to what usually comes under the rubric of positive freedom insofar as the latter describes an agent’s power to put her desires to good effect.

4 I have made other slight changes in phrasing for the purposes of clarity.

5 Of the problems that remain, I might mention two: the model still contains an important hypothetical test for autonomy (the agent would not have rejected her development had she reflected), and hypothetical conditions are notoriously problematic. The counterfactual situation could be affected by any number of irrelevant and accidental factors. Second, the judgment a person makes concerning a habit or desire she has may well diverge significantly from the attitude she has toward the nature of its development. I might love being able to play the piano but hate the techniques my crotchety old teacher subjected me to. An adequate defense of the view against such charges would take us well outside the scope of this reply, however.