Moderate republicanism and the equivalent judgments thesis

Abstract

The first horn of Moen’s (2024) republican dilemma is the claim that moderate versions of the republican theory of freedom make judgments about freedom that are equivalent to the judgments generated by the pure negative theory of freedom. This article challenges the claim. Drawing on a moderate version of the republican theory Ingham and Lovett, the article explains why a dominating agent's power of interference need not restrict the dominating agent's menu of conjunctively exercisable opportunities—the measure of freedom according to the pure negative theory—contrary to the arguments made for the equivalent judgments thesis.