The Ideal of Moral Autonomy
Abstract
Some elements of the ideal of moral autonomy are discussed in this paper. Such ideal is a key assumption in social practices focused on normative imputation, particularly morality and law. First, a constructivist conception of normativity is introduced, taking reasons as an essential and non-reducible element, and focused on the conceptual features of moral reasons within the normative domain. Then, an idea of moral autonomy based on the self-constitution is developed including three key features: the possibility of responding to reasons based on shared social expectations; the responsibility for certain scope of actions, according to a set of reasons available to the individual and to their maximum extent of expansion; and the need to preserve autonomy as a purpose unifying the set of autonomous actions of moral agents.
Downloads
References
Bagnoli, C. (2011). Constructivism in Metaethics. En E. N. Zalta (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Disponible en <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2011/entries/constructivism-metaethics/>.
Baker, L. R. (2013). Naturalism and the First Person Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.
Baier, K. (1958). The Moral Point of View. Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press.
Broome, J. (2013) Rationality through reasoning. Malden: Blackwell.
Christman, J. y Anderson, J. (2005). Introduction. En J. Christman y J. Anderson (eds.). Autonomy and the Challenges to Liberalism. New
Essays (pp. 1-23). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Dancy, J. (2004). Ethics Without Principles. New York: Oxford University Press.
Dennett, D. (1988). Why Everyone is a Novelist. The Times Literary Suplement. (Sept.), 16-22.
Dennett, D. (1992).Consciousness Explained.Boston: Bay Back Books.
Dworkin, R. (1986). Law’s Empire. New York: Harvard University Press.
Dworkin, R. (1996). Objetivity and Truth: You’d Better Believe It. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 25(2), 87-139.
Dworkin, R. (2011) Justice For Hedgehogs. Cambridge MA: Belknap Press.
Falk, D. (1948). Ought and Motivation. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 48(1947-1948), 492-510.
Finnis, J. (2011). Natural Law and Natural Rights (2º ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Finlay, S. and Schroeder, M. (2012). Reasons for Action: Internal vs.External. In E. N. Zalta (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Disponible en <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/reasons-internal-external/>.
Fisher, J. M. and Ravizza, M. (1993). Responsibility for Consecuences. En J. M. Fisher and M. Ravizza. Perspectives on Moral Responsibility (pp. 322-347). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Eshleman, A. (2014). Moral Responsibility. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Disponible en <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2014/entries/moral-responsibility/>.
Forst, R. (2002). Contexts of Justice, Political Philosophy beyond Liberalism and Comunitarism. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Hare, C. (2013). The Limits of Kindness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Korsgaard, C. M. (1996a). The Sources of Normativity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Korsgaard, C. M. (1996b). Creating the Kingdom of Ends. Cambridge MA: Cambridge University Press.
Korsgaard, C. M. (2008). The Constitution of Agency, Essays on Practical Reason and Moral Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Korsgaard, C. M. (2009). Self-Constitutition. Agency, Identity and Integrity. New York: Oxford University Press
Markovitz, J. (2014) Moral Reason. New York: Oxford University Press.
May, T. (1998). Autonomy, Authority and Moral Responsibility. Dordrecht: Springer.
Miller, A. (2013). An Introduction to Contemporary Metaethics. Malden: Polity Press.
Nagel, T. (1970). The Possibility of Altruism. New York: Oxford University Press.
Nagel, T. (1986).The View from Nowhere. New York: Oxford University Press.
Nielsen, K. (1999). Moral Point of View Theories. Crítica - UNAM, 31(93), 105-116.
Nussbaum, M. (2000). Why Practice Needs Ethical Theory: Particularism, Principle, and Bad Behaviour. En B. Hooker & M. O. Little (eds). Moral Particularism (pp. 227-255). New York: Oxford University Press.
Parfit, D. (2011). On What Matters. New York: Oxford University Press.
Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Raz, J. (1990). Practical Reasons and Norms. New York: Oxford University Press.
Raz, J. (2009). Between Authority and Interpretation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Raz, J. (2011). From Normativity to Responsibility. New York: Oxford University Press.
Richardson, H. S. (2014). Moral Reasoning. En E. N. Zalta (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Disponible en <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2014/entries/reasoning-moral/>.
Ross, W. D. (2002). [1930] The Right and the Good. New York: Oxford University Press.
Sapontzis, S. (1987). Moral, Reason, and Animals. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Scanlon, T. M. (1998). What We Owe to Each Other. Cambridge MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Scanlon, T. M. (2014). Being Realistic about Reasons. New York: Oxford University Press.
Sher, G. (2009). Responsibility without Awareness. New York: Oxford University Press.
Sneddon, A. (2013). Autonomy. New York: Bloomsbury.
Strawson, P. (1962). Freedom and Resentment. Proceedings of the British Academy London: Routledge.
Street, S. (2010). What is Constructivism in Ethics and Metaethics?. Philosophy Compass, 5, 363-384.
Street, S. (2012). Coming to Tems with Contingency: Humean Constructivism about Practical Reason. En J. Lenman y Y. Shemmer (eds.). Constructivism in Practical Philosophy (pp. 40-59). Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Velleman, J. D. (2000). The Possibility of Practical Reason. Michigan: University of Michigan Library.
Velleman, J. D. (2006). Self to Self. Selected Essays. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wallace, R. J. (1994). Responsibility and the Moral Sentiments. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.
Wolf, S. (1982). Moral Saints. The Journal of Philosophy, 8(79), 419-439.
Wolf, S. (1990). Freedom Within Reason. New York: Oxford University Press.
Wong, D. (2006). Moral Reasons: Internal and External. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 72(3), 536-558.
This journal provides open access to its content, based on the principle that providing the public with free access to research helps a greater global exchange of knowledge
Revista de la Facultad de Derecho. Creative Commons Reconocimiento 4.0 Internacional License.
