• PhilPapers
  • PhilPeople
  • PhilArchive
  • PhilEvents
  • PhilJobs
  • Sign in
PhilPeople
 
  • Sign in
  • News Feed
  • Find Philosophers
  • Departments
  • Radar
  • Help
 
profile-cover
Drag to reposition
profile picture

Christopher McMahon

University of California, Santa Barbara
  •  Home
  •  Publications
    66
    • Most Recent
    • Most Downloaded
    • Topics
  •  News and Updates
    3

 More details
  • University of California, Santa Barbara
    Department of Philosophy
    Regular Faculty
Santa Barbara, California, United States of America
Areas of Specialization
Meta-Ethics
Social and Political Philosophy
Areas of Interest
Meta-Ethics
Social and Political Philosophy
  • All publications (66)
  •  177
    The Indeterminacy of Republican Policy
    Philosophy and Public Affairs 33 (1): 67-93. 2004.
    Social and Political PhilosophyRepublicanism
  •  84
    Pettit on Collectivizing Reason
    Social Theory and Practice 31 (3): 431-449. 2005.
    Value TheorySocial and Political PhilosophyPolitical Theory
  •  76
    Gewirth's justification of morality
    Philosophical Studies 50 (2). 1986.
    Value Theory, Miscellaneous
  •  130
    Quentin Skinner, Liberty before Liberalism:Liberty before Liberalism
    Ethics 110 (3): 638-641. 2000.
    Liberalism
  •  91
    Review: Reply to Gaus, Richardson, and Weber (review)
    Philosophical Studies 116 (2). 2003.
    Social and Political PhilosophyPolitical Theory
  •  74
    Nondomination and normativity
    Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 88 (3): 319-327. 2007.
    In an earlier paper, “The Indeterminacy of Republican Policy,” I argued that in an important class of cases, republican political theory, as formulated by Philip Pettit, does not have determinate implications for policy. Pettit has replied that my argument was based on a conception of freedom as nondomination that is not his own. In the present paper, I explore the two ways of understanding republican freedom. I first suggest that they may not, in the end, be very different. I then note that if …Read more
    In an earlier paper, “The Indeterminacy of Republican Policy,” I argued that in an important class of cases, republican political theory, as formulated by Philip Pettit, does not have determinate implications for policy. Pettit has replied that my argument was based on a conception of freedom as nondomination that is not his own. In the present paper, I explore the two ways of understanding republican freedom. I first suggest that they may not, in the end, be very different. I then note that if a sharp difference is restored, my conception may have some desirable features.
    Normativity, Misc
  • Prev.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Next
PhilPeople logo

On this site

  • Find a philosopher
  • Find a department
  • The Radar
  • Index of professional philosophers
  • Index of departments
  • Help
  • Acknowledgments
  • Careers
  • Contact us
  • Terms and conditions

Brought to you by

  • The PhilPapers Foundation
  • The American Philosophical Association
  • Centre for Digital Philosophy, Western University
PhilPeople is currently in Beta Sponsored by the PhilPapers Foundation and the American Philosophical Association
Feedback