DOCSLIB.ORG

Download File

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Download File Human Responsibilities: A Relational Account of Human Rights Christine Susienka Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 2017 © 2017 Christine Susienka All rights reserved ABSTRACT Human Responsibilities: A Relational Account of Human Rights Christine Susienka What is and should be the scope of our appeals to human rights? To what desiderata should our theory of human rights adhere? On my proposal, human rights (i) are inherently relational, and (ii) play an important background role in our broader normative practices. Human rights derive from a foundational community relationship that human beings stand in with one another qua human beings. They are not, as naturalistic conceptions have it, grounded in the possession of any specific capacities such as high levels of rationality. They are also not, as political or practical conceptions claim, grounded in more specific relationships such as those between state and citizen. Unlike the current approaches, my relational approach offers both a non-derivative justification for recognizing all living human beings as human rights bearers and all human agents as duty bearers. Rights holder status and duty bearer status both have their source in this basic relationship shared by human beings. As such, neither precedes the other. The relationship gives rise to both. As an upshot, the view accounts for a variety of cases where we ordinarily do not invoke human rights even when their content is relevant, such as in cases of violent crimes or in interpersonal relationships. In turning to these examples, I consider not merely under what conditions human rights exist, but also under what conditions they ought to be invoked. Thus while they have a universal scope, we need not always appeal to them as human rights in order to fulfill them. My inquiry into the grounds of human rights begins with a paradox that emerges for both naturalistic and political conceptions of human rights. Namely, even though human rights have their place in social and political relations, they are often conceived in ways that are blind to the basic role that these relations play in constituting them. While they inhere in individual human beings, the function and content of human rights is largely dependent on facts about human relationships. This paradox is particularly striking in the case of anti-discrimination rights, which many naturalistic views struggle to include as these rights derive not from any particular capacity, but from a comparative egalitarian premise. Instead, a relational view can point directly toward the damaging effects of severely unequal social attitudes–of failures to recognize one another as fellow human beings. Despite these differences, there are ‘natural’ and ‘political’ elements to my proposal as well, though both notions get reinterpreted. The natural, insofar as it figures in my account, is the relational framework in which individual human beings live their lives. The political consists in these overlapping networks of social relations. Thus the natural and the political coincide, and in effect my approach falls in neither of the two traditional camps. Instead, by focusing on the relationship between all human beings and conceiving of this relationship as both natural and social/political, I aim to formulate a genuinely new account of human rights. TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER 1: 10 A Relational Approach to Human Rights CHAPTER 2: 46 The Human Community CHAPTER 3: 79 Valuing Our Humanity CHAPTER 4: 115 Invoking Rights and Communicating Wrongs CONCLUSION: 146 Human Rights Fulfillment BIBLIOGRAPHY 161 i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I have been fortunate to work with amazing people over the last several years. With their feedback, guidance, and support, I have come out of my dissertation with a much stronger sense of who I am as a philosopher, as an educator, and as a human being. First of all, thank you to Katja Vogt, my advisor, who has consistently gone above and beyond, offering extensive feedback on multiple drafts of every chapter, pushing me to refine my arguments, and for standing by my project from the beginning. I have learned so much from her critical engagement with my work and her attention to both the big picture and the details of my particular arguments. Through discussion with Katja, I have come to appreciate the various ways of framing my project and to develop a deeper sense of my philosophical identity. I could not have asked for a better advisor. Thank you, too, to my dissertation and defense committees for taking the time to read my dissertation and for offering such insightful comments and discussion. The final product is far better as a result. To Carol Rovane, for consistently pressing me to further flesh out what is distinctive about rights. To Matthew Liao, for encouraging me to give greater attention to the motivation for and force of the capacities view. My understanding and appreciation for the nuances in the human rights literature is far stronger as a result of Matthew’s influence. To Robert-Gooding Williams, for challenging me to think in greater depth about what it means to value one’s membership in a community. To Michele Moody-Adams, whose questions always encourage me to see my arguments in new ways, and who has inspired me to consider the value of positive social attitudes such as hope and trust in the context of human rights fulfillment. I have learned so much from each of you. ii Over the last few years, I have had the opportunity to present my work at a variety of conferences and have received invaluable feedback. I am especially indebted to those who participated in The Future of Human Dignity Conference at Utrecht University, the St. Andrews International Political Theory Conference on Political Responsibility, the SWIP Analytic Women in Philosophy Conference at the CUNY Graduate Center, the Columbia University Work in Progress Workshop in Contemporary and Ancient Ethics, and the Sorbonne/Columbia Values and Agency Workshop. The questions and comments that I received at these presentations elevated the quality of the project, especially Chapters Two and Four. To my fellow graduate students in the Columbia University Philosophy Department for countless discussions over the years, and for reading many works in progress. Special thanks to Katherine McIntyre, Zack Al-Witri, Jorge Morales, Rush Stewart, Usha Nathan, and Alison Fernandes. Learning more about all of your work and discussing mine has been an invaluable part of the process. To Maudemarie Clark, for cultivating my love of philosophy back in my undergraduate days and for offering me guidance in the years since. I am extremely grateful. To the Mellon Foundation, for workspace, the opportunity to present works in progress to a multidisciplinary audience, and for monetary support for conferences. In particular, thank you to William McAllister, Audrey Augenbraum and the 2014-2016 Mellon INCITE Fellows, especially Abigail Coplin, Maria John, Elizabeth Marcus, Yumi Kim, Elizabeth Sperber, and Emily Yao. I have a better appreciation for challenges to human rights stemming from a variety of fields, and I am eager to pursue multidisciplinary collaboration moving forward. I have a deeper understanding of my own field as a result of our conversations. To the Columbia Writing Center, and especially to Sue Mendelsohn, Jason Ueda, Matthew Rossi, and Linh An. I have iii learned so much about my writing process through discussion with each of you. This project is far clearer, richer, and complete as a result of your ongoing support. Last, but certainly not least, to the family and friends who have provided me with a constant support system and in doing so taught me what it means to value my relationships. To Susan and Joseph Susienka, my parents, for always encouraging me to make my own path and for being there for me throughout this process. To my grandparents, Stacia Susienka, Joseph Susienka, Eugenia Pierce, and Leonard Pierce, for inspiring me. To Ian Maron-Kolitch, Dara Mitchell, Cori Schattner, and Charley Burkly, for reminding me that there is life outside of academia. To Glenda Chao, with whom I went through every stage of the Ph.D. process, and from whom I have learned a great deal. To Joshua Batts, who was by my side even as I made my final revisions, and who offered stalwart support each step of the way. This final product would not have been possible without what each of you brought to it. Thank you. iv INTRODUCTION Human rights are often described as claims that we hold against one another in virtue of our shared humanity. Since the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948, and especially since the 1970s, they have become a prominent part of our political, legal, and moral discourse.1 This way of framing human rights conjures up the image of human beings standing in opposition to one another, making demands on each other, and especially doing so in the context of international law. This image helpfully brings out the degree to which human rights are inherently tied to action. We recognize them; we claim them; we fulfill them. Human rights require us to take action, and they require us to regard one another as equal bearers of rights. Beyond our actions, their fulfillment makes demands upon our attitudes; we have a responsibility to regard our fellow human beings as equals worthy of dignity and respect. What this image obscures is the degree to which human rights have a relational component. They need not be overly individualistic, as the antagonistic phrasing ‘holding against’ suggests. The common depiction of human rights in the international legal context does not alleviate this impression.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Moral Pluralism
    Moral Pluralism Time: Friday 3pm to 5:30pm Location: online (Zoom link will be available on Canvas) Instructor: Julia Netter julia [email protected] http://julianetter.de/pols0920e Moral pluralism is an unmistakable characteristic of modern liberal societies. Even though the dire conflicts of religion which fuelled wars and civil unrest appear to be a thing of the past, fundamental moral disagreements are still plentiful today. Now as then, these disagreements expose tensions among the core of ideas upon which liberal societies are built. This course explores moral pluralism through the lens of classic and contemporary works in political philosophy and engages with questions such as: should the state be neutral in relation to different religious and moral convictions? Are there some values which we can expect all citizens to share despite their deep disagreements? How should citizens engage with each other when they debate controversial moral questions in the public forum? Approach and Objectives This course explores the challenges of moral pluralism in liberal societies through the lens of analytical political philosophy. Over the course of the semester, we will engage with a range of key texts and debates relating to liberalism and pluralism. The aim of this course is to equip you with the knowledge and skills to delve deeper into these topics and connect them to each other, as well as to political debates beyond the classroom. More specifically, this course will help you learn to think philosophically about these topics. You will develop the skills necessary for constructing critical arguments in political philosophy, and will apply them both orally and in writing.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is the Rule of Recognition in the United States?
    _________________ COMMENT _________________ WHAT IS THE RULE OF RECOGNITION IN THE UNITED STATES? † STEPHEN V. CAREY INTRODUCTION....................................................................................1162 I. HART,DWORKIN, AND INCLUSIVE POSITIVISM: THE DEBATE IN THE BACKGROUND .............................................1165 A. Hart and the Rule of Recognition.........................................1165 B. Dworkin’s Critique ..............................................................1168 C. Inclusive Positivism: The Positivist Answer to the Problem of Morality........................................................1170 II. PREVIOUS ACCOUNTS OF THE U.S. RULE OF RECOGNITION: GREENAWALT AND HIMMA...........................................................1175 A. Kent Greenawalt’s The Rule of Recognition and the Constitution...............................................................1176 B. Kenneth Einar Himma’s U.S. Rule of Recognition ................1180 C. Objections to Himma’s Rule.................................................1183 1. Empirical Objections ............................................1184 2. Philosophical Objections......................................1188 III. THE RULE OF RECOGNITION FOR THE UNITED STATES: APROPOSAL AND DEFENSE ..........................................................1192 CONCLUSION........................................................................................1197 † J.D. Candidate, 2009, University of Pennsylvania Law School; B.A., 2001, Boston College. I would like to
    [Show full text]
  • Foundations of Political Philosophy: Citizenship and Rights Jurisprudence & Social Policy (JSP) Program, U.C
    Law 215.5: Foundations of Political Philosophy: Citizenship and Rights Jurisprudence & Social Policy (JSP) Program, U.C. Berkeley Law School (Spring 2014) Prof. Sarah Song [email protected] Mondays 2:10-5:00, Selznick Seminar Room, 2240 Piedmont Ave. Office hours: Wednesdays 3:00-4:00 and by appointment (office location: 422 North Addition) Course Description: This course aims to introduce students to some central topics and approaches in political philosophy through close reading of texts and with some attention to developing a toolkit for normative analysis of law and legal institutions. We will focus on the concepts of citizenship and rights as well as explore connections between the two. Some of the questions we will pursue include: How should we conceive of citizenship – as a formal political and legal status; entitlement to a set of rights; active participation in self-governance; an identity; or something else entirely? How have racial, ethnic, gender, and class identities and hierarchies shaped people’s access to rights? Which rights and protections have historically been attached to citizenship status? What difference should citizenship status make for the rights one is entitled to? Are there any human rights, and how might they be justified? Do we have special obligations to our fellow citizens to protect certain rights that we don’t have to the rest of humanity? What does it mean to have a right in the first place? Most of our readings are by political and legal theorists and philosophers; we will also read some work by historians, political scientists, and sociologists for historical context and background.
    [Show full text]
  • 95Th Annual Honors Convocation
    95TH ANNUAL HONORS CONVOCATION MARCH 18, 2018 2:00 P.M. HILL AUDITORIUM This year marks the 95th Honors Convocation held at the University of Michigan since the first was instituted on May 13, 1924, by President Marion LeRoy Burton. On these occasions, the University publicly recognizes and commends the undergraduate students in its schools and colleges who have earned distinguished academic records or have excelled as leaders in the community. It is with great pride that the University honors those students who have most clearly and effectively demonstrated academic excellence, dynamic leadership, and inspirational volunteerism. The Honors Convocation ranks with the Commencement Exercises as among the most important ceremonies of the University year. The names of the students who are honored for outstanding achievement this year appear in this program. They include all students who have earned University Honors in both Winter 2017 and Fall 2017, plus all seniors who have earned University Honors in either Winter 2017 or Fall 2017. The William J. Branstrom Freshman Prize recipients are listed, as well—recognizing first year undergraduate students whose academic achievement during their first semester on campus place them in the upper five percent of their school or college class. James B. Angell Scholars—students who receive all “A” grades over consecutive terms—are given a special place in the program. In addition, the student speaker is recognized individually for exemplary contributions to the University community. To all honored students, and to their parents, the University extends its hearty congratulations. Martin A. Philbert • Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs Honored Students Honored Faculty Faculty Colleagues and Friends of the University It is a pleasure to welcome you to the 95th University of Michigan Honors Convocation.
    [Show full text]
  • Justice Unconceived: How Posterity Has Rights Aaron-Andrew P
    College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Faculty Publications Faculty and Deans 2002 Justice Unconceived: How Posterity Has Rights Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl William & Mary Law School, [email protected] Repository Citation Bruhl, Aaron-Andrew P., "Justice Unconceived: How Posterity Has Rights" (2002). Faculty Publications. 1780. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs/1780 Copyright c 2002 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs Note Justice Unconceived: How Posterity Has Rights Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl* INTRODUCTION This Note advances a rights-oriented approach to our moral and legal relations with people who will exist long after we die. To under- stand the theoretical hurdles such an account must overcome, it is helpful to begin with an example.' Its facts are stylized, but it is not purely hypothetical. Suppose that we must choose one of two policies, Depletion or * J.D. candidate, Yale Law School; M.Phil., University of Cambridge, 2000. Ross Har- rison and Matthew H. Kramer gave me extremely helpful comments on an earlier version of this project, and the Journal's editors have also provided excellent suggestions. Kramer was especially generous with his time and encouragement, going far beyond what duty required. I bear responsibility for all errors. The reader should note that I typically use "persons" and "people" interchangeably. 1. This example, to which I shall refer a number of times, is adapted from DEREK PARFIT, REASONS AND PERSONS § 123 (1984). Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities [Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • RIGHTS, ROLES, and INTERESTS Robert Mullins
    Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy https://doi.org/10.26556/jesp.v16i2.398 Vol. 16, No. 2 · November 2019 © 2019 Author RIGHTS, ROLES, AND INTERESTS Robert Mullins ccording to the interest theory of rights, rights exist to promote the in- terests of their bearers. The interest theory fits within a tradition in moral A theory that assigns a fundamental role to well-being in the explanation of deontic concepts. In spite of its pedigree, the interest theory has fallen out of favor in recent years. It has been subject to sustained and telling critiques by a number of prominent rights theorists, including Frances Kamm, Leif Wenar, Rowan Cruft, and Gopal Sreenivasan.1 One prominent objection focuses on the rights of role bearers: since many roles are burdensome, and since their justifica- tion hinges on their social value rather than their value to the bearer, it is hard to see how role bearers’ rights exist to promote their interests alone. In this article I aim to defend the interest theory against this particular line of objection. My aim is not to definitively establish the merits of the theory (I doubt that can be done) but to show that it at least offers a reasonable account of the rights of role bearers. I argue that role bearers’ rights are grounded in their interests: under certain conditions, the interests of the individual role bearers provide sufficient reason for existence of the right. After illustrating the problem at greater length, I make my argument in three stages. First, I argue that many of our valuable roles are partly constituted by duties or obligations.
    [Show full text]
  • Freedom As Independence
    Freedom as Independence Christian List and Laura Valentini* (This is a preprint of a paper published in Ethics 126 (July 2016): 1043–1074.) Abstract Much recent philosophical work on social freedom focuses on whether freedom should be understood as non-interference, in the liberal tradition associated with Isaiah Berlin, or as non-domination, in the republican tradition revived by Philip Pettit and Quentin Skinner. We defend a conception of freedom that lies between these two alternatives: freedom as independence. Like republican freedom, it demands the robust absence of relevant constraints on action. Unlike republican, and like liberal freedom, it is not moralized. We showcase the virtues of this conception and offer a novel map of the logical space in which different conceptions of freedom are located. 1. Introduction Freedom is a cherished and rhetorically powerful concept, routinely invoked in political discourse and practice. Whenever a law or policy restricts freedom, we have a prima facie cause for concern. Think of recent controversies surrounding heightened security measures in response to the threat of terrorism, or the age-old complaint that high taxes infringe on individual liberty. Of course, constraints on freedom are sometimes permissible. Society restricts the freedom of convicted criminals, and justifiably so, and taxation at the right level is widely considered justified. But restrictions of freedom are usually thought to “stand in need of justification.” 1 Someone seized by the police and locked into a cell has the right to ask: “On what grounds are you restricting my freedom?” The restriction, in turn, is justified if the answer appeals to the right moral considerations.
    [Show full text]
  • Jurisprudence: Spring 2008
    JURISPRUDENCE: SPRING 2008 Wednesdays, 1:00-2:50 PM (Room ___) Professor Lynda Dodd Room 387 274-4431 ([email protected]) Jurisprudence Tutorials - Wednesdays 3-5pm (by appointment) General Office Hours – Thursday 11am-1pm SYLLABUS AND COURSE INFORMATION Course Materials - All assigned cases or readings will be available via Blackboard. Course Requirements and Grading The primary component of your course grade is your performance on the final examination, a 24 hour take-home, anonymously graded essay exam. As an alternative to the exam, you may write a paper that will fulfill your upper-level writing requirement. Please note that attendance for this class is very important and will be recorded. If you are unable to attend class, please make arrangements with a classmate to obtain notes, new assignment announcements, etc. During class discussion, volunteers are always welcomed and encouraged. In addition, I will also call on students at random, using a “present and prepared” system of participation. Because this is a seminar, your participation is essential, and excellent participation can raise your grade. You will be ineligible for this participation bonus if you are unprepared or absent for two or more classes during the semester. Class Communications My regular office hours will be held on Thursdays from 11am-1pm, and I have scheduled exclusive office hours for Jurisprudence students on Wednesday afternoons, by appointment. I encourage you to come visit me! I will also provide opportunities for informal feedback about the course. On occasion during the semester, I will ask the entire class to fill out anonymous “free write” memos.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 * University Senior Lecturer in Philosophy, University of Cambridge. the Author Would Like to Thank the Organisers and Partici
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Apollo 1 The neutralist dilemma Reasonable disagreement and the neutralist dilemma: Abortion and circumcision in Matthew Kramer’s Liberalism with Excellence Clare Chambers* Faculty of Philosophy University of Cambridge Cambridge, UK Address for correspondence: Jesus College Cambridge CB5 8BL UK Telephone: +44 (0)1223 339494 Email: [email protected] * University Senior Lecturer in Philosophy, University of Cambridge. The author would like to thank the organisers and participants of the Symposium on Matthew Kramer’s Liberalism with Excellence, including Matthew Kramer himself, as well as the participants in the University of Cambridge Workshop in Political Philosophy for their comments on earlier versions of this paper. Address for correspondence: Jesus College, Cambridge CB5 8BL, UK; [email protected] 2 The neutralist dilemma Reasonable disagreement and the neutralist dilemma: Abortion and circumcision in Matthew Kramer’s Liberalism with Excellence Abstract: This paper starts by investigating the idea of reasonable disagreement. It then considers Matthew Kramer’s argument that there is no neutral solution available to the disagreement over abortion. The paper argues that Kramer’s account has wider application, and identifies a neutralist dilemma. The neutralist dilemma applies when, of two policy options available to the state, one is unreasonable. It follows that the state should enact only the reasonable policy. However, in a neutralist dilemma the fact of reasonable disagreement due to the burdens of judgment means that it is not possible for the state to act at all, whether legislating or not, without deviating from neutrality.
    [Show full text]
  • Robin West Curriculum Vita
    CURRICULUM VITAE Robin L. West Frederick Haas Professor of Law and Philosophy Georgetown University Law Center EDUCATION B.A. (1976), University of Maryland, Baltimore County J.D. (1979), University of Maryland Law School J.S.M. (1982), Stanford Law School PERSONAL INFORMATION Home Address: 101 Ridgewood Road Baltimore, Maryland 21210 410-235-0715 Family: Married. Spouse: David Grant Three children, with Robert Green Esq., deceased: Nicholas (b. 1990) Benjamin (b. 1992) Molly (b. 1994) Current Position: Frederick Haas Professor of Law and Philosophy Faculty Director, Georgetown Center for the Study of Law and Humanities Georgetown University Law Center 600 New Jersey Avenue Washington, D.C. 20001 202-662-9315 ACADEMIC EMPLOYMENT HISTORY 1982-1985 Assistant Professor of Law, Cleveland State University 1985-86: Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Stanford University School of Law 1 1986-1991: Assistant Professor of Law and then Professor of Law, University of Maryland Law School 1988-89: Visiting Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School 1991-92: Visiting Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center 1992-Present: Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center 2004-05: John Carroll Research Professor Georgetown University Law Center 2007 to Present: Frederick Haas Professor of Law and Philosophy, Georgetown University Law Center 2008 to 2011: Associate Dean for Research and Academic Programs Georgetown University Law Center 2013-Present Faculty Director, Georgetown Center for the Study of Law and Humanities SCHOLARSHIP Books NARRATIVE, AUTHORITY AND LAW (Mich. Press 1993). PROGRESSIVE CONSTITUTIONALISM (Duke Univ. Press 1994). CARING FOR JUSTICE (N.Y.U. Press 1997). 2 RIGHTS, INTERNATIONAL LIBRARY OF ESSAYS IN LAW AND LEGAL THEORY, SECOND SERIES, editor (Ashgate Press 2001).
    [Show full text]
  • The International Encyclopedia of Ethics
    Dear Contributors to the International Encyclopedia of Ethics, We have now reached an important milestone on the road to completing the International Encyclopedia of Ethics (IEE). We now have authors for all topics! Congratulations to everyone on this achievement, and thanks to you for your participation in this monumental project. Contracts are still in the process of being sent out contributors, but as of now all topics have authors assigned to them. This is by far the biggest and likely most important project I've worked on in my 11 years with Blackwell / Wiley-Blackwell. Attention to the importance of ethics is rapidly on the rise. In a host of professional settings and academic disciplines there are calls for improved awareness of and adherence to ethical standards, and a solid understanding of ethical theory continues to be an increasingly important part of education and professional training. I am very pleased to be involved in the creation of this comprehensive and authoritative resource, and I'm impressed by and grateful to everyone who has committed to bringing this unprecedented project off. We now enter a new phase in the publishing process. Because of the magnitude of this project, the press has to muster the energy of our production, marketing, and sales staffs at least 24 months before the encyclopedia will appear. That requires that we all work within a realistic but firm timetable for submission, review, and revision of entries. Everyone’s effort is required to bring this important work to fruition. So I urge, implore — and even beg — you to deliver your essays on time.
    [Show full text]
  • One Cheer for Autonomy-Centered Perfectionism: an Arm's-Length
    One Cheer for Autonomy-centered Perfectionism: An Arm’s-length Defense of Joseph Raz’s Perfectionism Against an Allegation of Internal Inconsistency Matthew H. Kramer University of Cambridge Abstract In the present article, I will concentrate sustainedly on a central strand of Jona- than Quong’s critique of Joseph Raz’s autonomy-centered liberal perfectionism. Rightly taking Raz to have offered the most elaborate and prominent version of autonomy-centered perfectionism in the contemporary debates over such matters, Quong devotes much of the first half of his book to contesting a number of Raz’s positions. This article will defend Raz against one of Quong’s chief objections, an allegation of internal inconsistency. Keywords: perfectionism, liberalism, Joseph Raz, neutrality, autonomy. Jonathan Quong’s Liberalism without Perfection (2011) is a highly impressive de- fense of Rawlsian anti-perfectionism. In the present article, I will concentrate sustainedly on a central strand of Quong’s critique of Joseph Raz’s autonomy- centered liberal perfectionism. Rightly taking Raz to have offered the most elab- orate and prominent version of autonomy-centered perfectionism in the con- temporary debates over such matters, Quong devotes much of the first half of his book to contesting a number of Raz’s positions. This article will defend Raz against one of Quong’s chief objections, an allegation of internal inconsistency. From the outset, however, the limitedness of my defense of Raz in this arti- cle should be clearly signaled. My ripostes to some of Quong’s indictments are decidedly not aimed at vindicating the soundness of Raz’s overall theory or the soundness of the theories propounded by other autonomy-centered perfection- ists.
    [Show full text]