Freedom, Coercion, and Ability

Keith Dowding and Martin Hees
Additional contact information
Keith Dowding: Australian National University
Martin Hees: University of Groningen

Chapter 16. in Power, Freedom, and Voting, 2008, pp 307-323 from Springer

Abstract: Abstract In his methodological comments about the study of ethics and politics, Aristotle famously remarked that one should not demand more precision from the study of a subject than that subject allows.1 He has sometimes been interpreted as suggesting that analytical rigour is not required here. Indeed it may well be true that at the end of analytical scrutiny, central topics in moral and political philosophy, such as freedom or power, may still leave room for interpretation because the superiority of one analysis over another may well be embedded in our intuitions. This fact, if it proves to be so, should not dissuade us from analytical rigour. In the last few decades philosophers, economists and mathematicians have fruitfully applied mathematical and formal analysis to the concepts of ‘power’ and ‘freedom’. From that analysis we have learned much.

Keywords: Social Choice; Actual World; Generic Ability; Negative Freedom; Night Club (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2008
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:sprchp:978-3-540-73382-9_16

Ordering information: This item can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/9783540733829

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-73382-9_16

Access Statistics for this chapter

More chapters in Springer Books from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().