Intro: Quick elucidation of mainstream model, and Dworkin’s revision –no longer structural but procedural.

1. Background: A Theory

1. Theory

1. Complex Notions & Terms of Art: "autonomy" is widely used
2. Useful Characterization: constructing an appropriate theory is contingent upon one’s theoretical purposes –not upon conceptual analysis or accuracy of definition (read: you can put your dictionaries away now)
3. No Vacuums: Theory is not developed in ether a noumenal realm of Platonic forms, nor on a level of pure thought –as if any of these things exist. Theory is developed from need –always and forever.

1. Constraints and Criteria

1. Logical Consistency: c.f. "uncaused cause" is ruled out
2. Empirical Possibility: "requiring [that] values not be influenced by others"
3. Value Claims: model should provide basis for why we value autonomy
4. Ideological Neutrality: model should not form the basis for a value that only a small range of ideological bents would appreciate
5. Normative Relevance: should be able to integrate model into other normative claims where the concept is often used, c.f. paternalism.
6. Judgmental Relevance: model should account for or be in harmony with most (though not necessarily all) intuitions about the concept.

1. Preliminary Problems (to Overcome)

1. Autonomy and Authority: imposing ends, paternalism, incompatible?
2. Socialization and the acquisition of principles: Is autonomy possible?
3. Self-determination and Objectivity: How can we be autonomous when constrained by objective standards (c.f. Canons of reason, morality…)
4. Formal vs. Substantive Theory: Content and Source restrictions?

1. The New Model

1. Another Dimension of Human Experience/Existence

1. Odysseus as 2^nd Order Reflection? "I want to hear their song, I don’t want to die."
2. Other Candidates: Long term planner, Mediator of 1^st Order Desires, Adrenaline Junkie, Pragmatic Maximizer.

1. Revisions: D originally held a view almost identical to Frankfurt.

1. Old View: Frankfurt’s congruence as Authenticity
2. Some Concerns

1. Global property: autonomy is property of lives, not individualized to single choices, i.e. D opposes thinking of autonomy in "local" terms
2. Losing autonomy: identifications are not threatened, rather the ability to make such identifications is threatened.
3. Odd Implication: bottoms-up autonomy seems implausible.
4. Effectiveness of Desire: ability to change preferences and implement them in action is important (not just to id with them).

1. The New View: the Ability to form/alter higher order preferences and make them effective (under appropriate conditions) is indicative of autonomous agents.

1. The Constitution of Autonomy: Centrality of a Self-Chooser

1. This ability (i.e. ability to choose one’s guiding preferences) is core of model –i.e. it is constitutive of autonomy.
2. Liberty (esp. negative liberty), Power, and Control over aspects of life, are deemed pragmatically necessary, but not theoretically constitutive.

1. Full Formula of Autonomy

1. Incomplete: higher order reflection is not enough to theorize autonomy.
2. Conditions of Procedural Independence (CPI): antecedent conditions safeguarding ability to reflect.

1. Distinguishing feature: promoting or hindering reflective abilities
2. Ex: freedom from hypnotism, manipulation, coercion, subliminal messages, "and so forth." p.18

1. Two Criticisms and Replies

1. First Order Sufficiency

1. Objection: If CPI are needed to distinguish legitimate from illegitimate reflection, use this apparatus to delineate competing 1^st Order desires. Higher Order is unnecessary.
2. Reply: This would make our theory blind to higher order attitudes and thus (misses an important aspect of people’s lives) that helps us to distinguish those who agree to coercion vs. those who do not.

1. Objection: As ACTS, forming higher order preferences are subject to the question of autonomy just as well as first order preferences. So your theory is groundless or incomplete.
2. Reply: This objection misses an important distinction between autonomous acts and autonomous people.