Autonomy is increasingly rejected as a fundamental principle by liberal political theorists because it is regarded as incompatible with respect for diversity. This article seeks, via an analysis of the Danish cartoon controversy, to show that the relationship between autonomy and diversity is more complex than often posited. Particularly, it asks whether the autonomy defense of freedom of expression encourages disrespect for religious feelings. Autonomy leads to disrespect for diversity only when it is understood as a character ideal that must be promoted as an end in itself. If it by contrast is understood as something we should presume everyone possesses, it provides a strong basis for equal respect among people from diverse cultures. A Kantian conception of autonomy can justify the right to freedom of expression while it at the same time requires that we in the exercise of freedom of expression show respect for others as equals.
This paper elaborates on the deliberative democracy argument for freedom of expression in terms of its relationship to different dimensions of autonomy. It engages the objection that Enlightenment theories pose a threat to cultures that reject autonomy and argues that autonomy-based democracy is not only compatible with but necessary for respect for cultural diversity. On the basis of an intersubjective epistemology, it argues that people cannot know how to live on mutually respectful terms without engaging in public deliberation and developing some degree of personal autonomy. While freedom of expression is indispensable for deliberation and autonomy, this does not mean that people have no obligations regarding how they speak to each other. The moral insights provided by deliberation depend on the participants in the process treating one another with respect. The argument is related to the Danish cartoon controversy.
During the Danish cartoon controversy, appeals to universal liberal values were often made in ways that marginalized Muslims. An analysis of the controversy reveals that referring to ‘universal values’ can be exclusionary when dominant actors fail to distinguish their own culture’s embodiment of these values from the more abstract ideas. The article suggests that the solution to this problem is not to discard liberal principles but rather to see them in a more deliberative democratic way. This means that we should move from focusing on citizens merely as subjects of law and right holders to seeing them as co-authors of shared legal and moral norms. A main shortcoming of the way in which dominant actors in Denmark responded to the cartoons was exactly that they failed to see the Muslim minority as capable of participating in interpreting and giving shared norms. To avoid self-contradiction, liberal principles and constitutional norms should not be seen as incontestable aspects of democracy but rather as subject to recursive democratic justification and revision by everyone subject to them. Newcomers ought to be able to contribute their specific perspectives in this process of democratically reinterpreting and perfecting the understanding of universalistic norms, and thereby make them fit better to those to whom they apply, as well as rendering them theirs.
The The British decision to leave the EU in the referendum held on the 23rd of June 2016 was made possible by article 50 in the Lisbon Treaty which allows member states to the leave the EU on their own decision. Before the Lisbon Treaty EU membership was in principle for eternity. The Brexit decision has been criticised for being based on a democratic process of poor quality due to manipulation of facts and unrealistic promises for the future. But few have questioned the democratic legitimacy of the British people unilaterally deciding on whether or not to remain in the EU. In this article, as part of a general argument, we will do exactly that. We argue that withdrawal from the EU by any member state cannot be defended from the perspective of fundamental democratic principles.Withdrawal violates basic democratic commitments and undermines the possible democraticness of relationships that should be democratic. The main reason for this assessment is that EU citizens across 2 borders mutually affect each other's fundamental interests and that the EU affords citizens with a status of individual rights holders and co-rulers that would be seriously affected by unilateral withdrawal by one state. The problem is twofold. First, all those whose status is affected by the decision to withdraw are not included in making it. Second, by withdrawing from the EU, citizens will be less able to rule together democratically with regard to the issues that affect them and their status across borders. While some degree of national self-determination is called for by democratic principles, national selfdetermination cannot be absolute; that is, it cannot trump the democratic right (of other citizens) to participate in decisions that significantly affect them as individuals and as citizens; a right which is (otherwise) institutionalized by the EU. We therefore conclude that unilateral and even mutually agreed withdrawal from the EU cannot be defended on the basis of democratic principles as easily as some believe.We build our case against withdrawal from the EU on a development of the all affected principle, which says that all those affected by a decision should be included in making it. In the literature, there has been a discussion about what is the relevant understanding of being affected; what the currency of affectedness is. A central notion is that it is the affectedness of individual interests, either actually or potentially, that explains why and when people should be included in decisions. This results in the all affected interests principle. Another idea is that it is not the fact that one's interests are affected that is decisive for whether one should be included in decisions or not but that one is subjected to potential coercion. This results in the all-subjected principle. Building on the criticism of these two principles and taking inspiration from the literature on non-domination, we develop our own conception of the currency of affectedness and formulate the all affected status principle, which states that pe...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.