Intro: How do we analyze acting unfreely in cases of coercion and socialization?

1. Coercion: a species of a loss of freedom, i.e. a way in which one can be unfree.

1. Acts: conceptually required for there to be coercive acts at all.

1. Doing what one does not really want to do, i.e. acting in ways contrary to one’s real interest.
2. Paradox: you acted! You took on a course of action (you chose to do it) –so how can you claim to have not wanted to do x? The paradox is that we are active under coercion.

1. Hurricanes: bad example since one is acted upon (i.e. passive) rather than act.

1. Hierarchical Analyses

1. Odd Object of Evaluation: Motives doesn’t seem primary focus of concern.
2. "Stratospheric yearnings": paradigm cases challenged (not saying such self-evaluations never occur, but that they are just not central or necessary)

1. Hold-up Victim: few wouldn’t endorse volition (few Tough guys)
2. Object of Aversion: motives or action/consequences?
3. Critique: Mistaken or Exaggerated focus on motives.
4. The Giver: approval of act transfers to desire

1. Grass Roots Desires (preliminary account): to Give & to Be Safe (i.e. in unmenacing circumstances)

1. Circumstances and Coercion: an alternative account

1. Object of Evaluation: Coercive situations (few if any options)
2. Ground Level Desires

1. Aversion to Circumstances –to be
2. Comply to save life –to do

1. Magical Return (a test): all things being equal, would you go back and change?

1. Unwilling/Coerced Agent: would prefer to change circumstances
2. Willing/Uncoerced Agent: wouldn’t prefer to change circumstances
3. Not "really" wanting to x: captures the idea that some interests are not standing candidates for satisfaction –we would change the circumstances that push us in these directions if we had the chance.

1. Focus of Autonomy: no longer Agent’s desires, but attitudes towards circumstances.

1. Unfree Action

1. No Coercing Entity: socialization is a special case, since there is no compulsion from external force
2. Misgivings of Hierarchical Analyses: equating "real" person w/2^nd Order

1. Regress anyone?: What’s special about 2^nd Order?
2. What’s special about Identification? Why is it further questions "cannot arise" regarding the identification of an agent with 2^nd order desires?

1. Orders Not Needed: uwilling smokers revisited

1. Young smokers: similar to mad scientist case –no levels needed since explanation is straight-away found in externally implanted operative desires, i.e. someone else is pulling the strings.
2. Other cases: Return to magic

1. unwilling smokers would want to go back and change
2. willing smokers wouldn’t change
3. focus is on circumstances –not "cravings" or desires

1. Oppressive Socialization

1. Difficulties: "clock turning back" doesn’t work.
2. Consent is not a sensible notion for young children.

1. Alternative Theories

1. Rationality as Guide

1. Neely and MacIntyre: "what I really desire [is] what I desire when I am thinking rationally" p.132

1. Intuition: sensation/experience of desire overpowering "normal" thinking
2. What standards? The majority? Logicians? Standardized Tests?

1. Rationality = Real Me? Begs Q against Freudian style model of mind/identity

1. Watson

1. Values vs. Acculturation: dichotomy is superficial and simplistic
2. Reasoning-Valuing Self = Real Me: again, whittles "I" down to rational self and begs Q against other personality-theories.
3. Dubious Ontological Superiority: the fact we value our valuing self is not an argument (or if it is, it’s circular) for the claim that it is the authentic self –the real me.