|previous article in this issue
|next article in this issue
Document Details :
Title: On 'Being Forced to Be Free'
Subtitle: Between Republican and Liberal Freedom
Author(s): SHNAYDERMAN, Ronen
Journal: Ethical Perspectives
Volume: 22 Issue: 2 Date: 2015
The most recent literature on the idea of freedom focuses on the liberal-republican debate regarding the question whether freedom should be defined as non-interference or non-domination. One of the main issues within this debate is whether the liberal concept of freedom as non-interference can properly account for the freedom-restrictive nature of domination. In a recent article, however, Michael Harbour argues that, as a matter of fact, neither the liberal concept of freedom as non-interference nor the republican concept of freedom as non-domination is able to properly account for the loss of freedom one suffers under domination. He thus concludes by suggesting that none of the concepts of freedom prominent in the literature can properly account for the freedom-restrictive nature of domination. The present article seeks to refute Harbour’s disturbing argument. By doing so it also sheds further light on the ideas of freedom as non-domination and freedom as noninterference and particularly on the precise manner in which domination is inimical to freedom.