based argument in “Autonomy, toleration, and the harm principle. excluding it is one of the goals of Joseph Raz’s autonomy-based argument in “Autonomy. Joseph Raz aligns practices with harms in a different way w person who fails to See “Autonomy, Toleration, and the Harm Principle,” in Issue. Philosophy, ed. First, it is essential for the concept of toleration that the tolerated beliefs .. Raz, J. , , “Autonomy, Toleration, and the Harm Principle,” in S.
|Published (Last):||14 December 2005|
|PDF File Size:||8.65 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||17.84 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
But already in early Christian discourse, the term adn applied to the challenge of coping with religious difference and conflict. Your reading intentions are also stored in your profile for future reference. It does not, however, seem able to support the harm principle for the coercion based considerations do not neatly settle only on harm-based considerations.
Toleration (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
So what should a state do in the here-and-now where there is no consensus, even among reasonable people, about what ought to be done? The argument depends on a particular understanding of harm as autonomy. How to cite this entry. It makes it easy to scan through your lists and keep track of progress. In discussions of toleration, one finds alongside the conceptions mentioned thus tolegation a fourth one which I call the esteem conception.
We still face the challenge of examining the grounds arz forms of tne politics of toleration as an emancipatory form of politics. In the course of the religious-political conflicts throughout Europe that followed the Reformation, toleration became one of the central concepts of political-philosophical discourse, yet its history reaches much further back into antiquity for the following, see esp.
Devlin’s main point was to argue that this specific theoretical conclusion did not stand up. As we shall see, answering the challenge to articulate principled limits is a far from straightforward task. Tolerance can only be a virtue if this distinction can be made, and it presupposes that the limits of toleration can be drawn in a non-arbitrary, justifiable way. Third, one might say the argument is inadequate because it is a highly controversial view, believed only by a small number and rejected by most.
The Limits of Law (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy/Spring Edition)
The most common context for the invocation of the harm principle is the criminal law. Many of the systematic arguments for toleration—be they religious, pragmatic, moral or epistemological—can be used as a justification for more than one of the conceptions of toleration mentioned above section 2.
But coercing against harmless immorality gives one an autonomy-loss, due to the coercion itself, which puts the account in debit, with no positive gain in autonomy to counterbalance the loss.
Therefore a political principle of toleration is necessary to preserve one of the necessary conditions of autonomy. Cambridge University Press, — In important respects, this is a more radical theory than prunciple much more popular and influential one developed by Locke, who distinguishes between state and church in an early liberal perspective of natural individual rights.
Provided the justification for this is not to favour the outdoor enthusiasts or shake up the lazy television watchers a bit, but is instead, say, to provide for clean air, it would be perfectly legitimate. This is where his other autonkmy comes in, based on the condition of independence.
The Concept josehp Toleration and its Paradoxes 2. It needs further, independent normative resources in order to have a certain substance, content, and limits—and in order to be regarded as something good at all.
Freedom and Autonomy
In English society today none of the mainstream political parties takes the view of homosexuality Devlin thought widespread in the s, or, more pertinently in Devlinite terms, believes that there are votes to be gained from advocating such a tolertaion. Therefore coercive sanctions reduce people’s ability to autonomously choose the good.
Mill of course believed that harmless behaviour was not the law’s business, whether or not it could be styled immoral, and Hart’s purpose in challenging Devlin was to reassert a modified version of Mill’s view.
It is clear that law has limits. For them, the preservation of political sovereignty anv primacy over the preservation of religious unity, and toleration was recommended as a superior policy in a situation of religious plurality and strife. Imagine next that it changes tack and criminalizes possession and use of tobacco.
Coercive sanctions reduce people’s negative liberty to choose good options.
Columbia University Press, What is different, however, is the relationship between the subjects and the objects of toleration. According to QuongRaz is committed to the following theses: It has been pointed out many times by Kantians that treating someone as a means only toleratoon not the same as treating someone as a means.
It is this conception that Goethe, transl.