Skip to main content
×
×
Home

The Liberal Ethics of Non-Interference

  • Marco Mariotti and Roberto Veneziani
Abstract

This article analyses the liberal ethics of non-interference in social choice. It examines a liberal principle that captures non-interfering views of society and is inspired by John Stuart Mill’s conception of liberty. The principle expresses the idea that society should not penalize individuals after changes in their situation that do not affect others. The article highlights an impossibility for liberal approaches: every social decision rule that satisfies unanimity and a general principle of non-interference must be dictatorial. This raises some important issues for liberal approaches in social choice and political philosophy.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      The Liberal Ethics of Non-Interference
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      The Liberal Ethics of Non-Interference
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      The Liberal Ethics of Non-Interference
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
Footnotes
Hide All
*

School of Economics and Finance, Queen Mary University of London (emails: m.mariotti@qmul.ac.uk, r.veneziani@qmul.ac.uk). Special thanks go to Costanze Binder, Richard Bradley, Ben Ferguson, Mark Fey, Martin van Hees and John Roemer for detailed comments on an earlier draft. We thank José Carlos Rodriguez Alcantud, Elizabeth Anderson, Roland Bénabou, Ken Binmore, Matthew Braham, Marc Fleurbaey, Wulf Gaertner, Conrad Heilmann, Ted Honderich, Michele Lombardi, Tibor Machan, François Maniquet, Paola Manzini, Juan Moreno-Ternero, Jan Narveson, Ariel Rubinstein, Itai Sher, Robert Sugden, two anonymous referees, the Editor of this journal and audiences at the London School of Economics, Columbia University, the University of Massachusetts (Amherst), University of Bayreuth, VU Amsterdam, Hitotsubashi University, the University of Padova, the Midwest Political Science Association Conference (Chicago), the New Directions in Welfare Conference (Oxford) and the Formal Ethics Conference (Rotterdam) for comments and suggestions. The usual disclaimer applies. Online appendices are available at https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123417000576.

Footnotes
References
Hide All
Anderson, Elizabeth S. 1991. J. S. Mill’s Experiments in Living. Ethics 102:426.
Berger, Fred R. 1984. Happiness, Justice, and Freedom. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Berlin, Isaiah. 1969. Four Essays on Liberty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Braham, Matthew, and van Hees, Martin. 2014. The Impossibility of Pure Libertarianism. Journal of Philosophy 111:420436.
Danley, John R. 1979. Robert Nozick and the Libertarian Paradox. Mind 88:419423.
Feinberg, Joel. 1984–8. The Moral Limits to the Criminal Law, 4 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Feldman, Allan M., and Serrano, Roberto. 2008. Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem: Two Simple Single-Profile Versions. Mimeo: Brown University.
Fleurbaey, Marc, and Mongin, Philippe. 2005. The News of the Death of Welfare Economics is Greatly Exaggerated. Social Choice and Welfare 25:381418.
Jacobson, Daniel. 2000. Mill on Liberty, Speech and the Free Society. Philosophy and Public Affairs 29:276309.
Lombardi, Michele, Miyagishima, Kaname, and Veneziani, Roberto. 2016. Liberal Egalitarianism and the Harm Principle. The Economic Journal 126:21732196.
Mariotti, Marco, and Veneziani, Roberto. 2009. Non-Interference Implies Equality. Social Choice and Welfare 32:123128.
Mariotti, Marco, and Veneziani, Roberto. 2013. The Impossibility of Non-Interference in Paretian Social Judgements. Journal of Economic Theory 148:16891699.
Mariotti, Marco, and Veneziani, Roberto. 2014. The Liberal Ethics of Non-Interference and the Pareto Principle, DP 1404, University of St Andrews.
McCloskey, Henry J. 1963. Mill’s Liberalism. The Philosophical Quarterly 13:143156.
McQuillin, Ben, and Sugden, Robert. 2011. The Representation of Alienable and Inalienable Rights: Games in Transition Function Form. Social Choice and Welfare 37:683706.
Mill, John S. 1859. On Liberty. London: J. W. Parker.
Rees, John C. 1991. A Re-Reading of Mill On Liberty . In J.S. Mill’s ‘On Liberty’ in Focus, edited by John Gray and G. W. Smith, 169189. London: Routledge.
Riley, Jonathan. 1985. On the Possibility of Liberal Democracy. The American Political Science Review 79:11351151.
Riley, Jonathan. 1998. Mill on Liberty. London: Routledge.
Ripstein, Arthur. 2006. Beyond the Harm Principle. Philosophy and Public Affairs 34:215245.
Roemer, John E. 1996. Theories of Distributive Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sen, Amartya K. 1970. The Impossibility of a Paretian Liberal. Journal of Political Economy 78:152157.
Sen, Amartya K.. 1976. Liberty, Unanimity and Rights. Economica 43:217245.
Sen, Amartya K.. 1981. Plural Utility. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 81:193215.
Sen, Amartya K.. 1983. Liberty and Social Choice. Journal of Philosophy 80:528.
Sen, Amartya K.. 1992. Minimal Liberty. Economica 59:139159.
Sen, Amartya K.. 1999. The Possibility of Social Choice. American Economic Review 89:349378.
Sugden, Robert. 1993. Rights: Why Do They Matter, and To Whom? Constitutional Political Economy 4:127152.
Ten, Chin L. 1980. Mill on Liberty. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Vernon, Richard. 1996. John Stuart Mill and Pornography: Beyond the Harm Principle. Ethics 106:621632.
Wellman, Christopher H. 1996. Liberalism, Samaritanism, and Political Legitimacy. Philosophy and Public Affairs 25:211237.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

British Journal of Political Science
  • ISSN: 0007-1234
  • EISSN: 1469-2112
  • URL: /core/journals/british-journal-of-political-science
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords

Type Description Title
PDF
Supplementary materials

Mariotti and Veneziani supplementary material
Mariotti and Veneziani supplementary material 1

 PDF (97 KB)
97 KB

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 3
Total number of PDF views: 36 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 248 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 22nd December 2017 - 23rd June 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.