English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The paper distinguishes between two conceptions of moral autonomy —self-legislation and self-judgment—. Both are present in Wolff’s In Defense of Anarchism. The paper then focuses on the analysis of the peculiar Wolffian conception of autonomy as self-legislation: voluntarism. It is proved that Wolff adopts this thesis as a consequence of his rejection of the viability of the Kantian claim of grounding the moral law on an a priori basis. Presenting Wolff’s arguments against Kant is a good way both to determine the contours of the voluntarist conception of autonomy as self-legislation and to make explicit the commitments that its adoption involves. Finally, the paper attempts to show that the thesis of the conceptual incompatibility between authority and autonomy cannot be coherently sustained by a supporter of the voluntarist conception of autonomy as self-legislation. If unanimous direct democracy is, as Wolff asserts, a kind of authority, then from voluntarism there is at least one case of which we can properly speak of as being a case of legitimate authority.

doxa

Wolff entre autoridad y autonomía: un análisis de la concepción voluntarista de la autonomía como autolegislación y de sus consecuencias respecto de la tesis de la incompatibilidad conceptual entre autoridad y autonomía