Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Republican policies are best defended empirically on the basis of the standard negative ideal of freedom, rather than on the basis of a conceptual challenge to that ideal.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Pettit and Skinner argue republican freedom as non-domination is conceptually distinct from negative freedom, not reducible to it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Non-domination captures unfreedom even when a benevolent master never interferes, which probabilistic negative freedom cannot coherently explain.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Collapsing republican freedom into negative freedom evacuates the normative core that makes republicanism a distinctive political tradition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The probability-of-interference account still treats freedom as fundamentally about actual or counterfactual interference, missing the structural relationship of domination.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A slave with a negligent master scores highly on probabilistic negative freedom yet remains paradigmatically unfree under any republican analysis, exposing a conceptual gap that empirical adjustment cannot close.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The extent of a person's negative freedom is a function not simply of how many single actions are prevented, but of how many different act-combinations are prevented.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.People who can achieve their goals only by bowing and scraping to their masters must be seen as less free, negatively, than people who can achieve those goals unconditionally.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The extent to which people are negatively free depends, in part, on the probability with which they will be constrained from performing future acts or act-combinations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42