자유와 사회제도

Abstract

The freedom of the ancient people was guaranteed by citizens actively participating in the public sphere. However, the range of citizens was so narrow that women's freedom and slaves' freedom were excluded. On the other hand, the freedom of modern people was able to form the concept of freedom only in the private sphere even without the public sphere. The private realm of ‘autonomy’ was given its own meaning. Instead, the link between the private and public spheres has become weaker. Unlike the concept of ‘ancient freedom’ that pursued public freedom through citizens’ political participation, the influence of today’s public sphere must be exerted through the operation of social institutions such as the utility system. It is true that with today's weakened civic consciousness, there are no easy ways to strengthen citizens' political participation. The private and public spheres must be connected through social institutions that provide conditions for individual autonomy. It is a great loss that the public nature of ancient thought was lost as we turned to modern ‘individualism.’ I seek to connect the strings of public good through the establishment of systems. What is required more than anything from the perspective of freedom today is ‘institution’. Autonomy is a concept that includes not only capabilities but also non-domination. The socially disadvantaged lack capabilities and at the same time have their autonomy violated due to domination. Lack of competency is eliminated by securing active freedom through distribution, and infringement of autonomy due to domination is eliminated by securing ‘freedom as non-domination.’ The modern concept of ‘freedom as autonomy’ also pays attention to the ‘freedom as non-domination’ advocated by republicanism. This is because the socially underprivileged cannot exercise autonomy under the subordination and oppression that comes from a state of domination. As social systems advocating neoliberalism appeared and took root everywhere, the freedom of the socially disadvantaged and social minorities disappeared from sight. Large corporations and large financial institutions were given great power and discretion, and income and wealth inequality deepened based on this. Neoliberalism’s idealized claim to self-reliance causes the socially disadvantaged to shrink. Neoliberalism fails to guarantee and promote the freedom of the socially disadvantaged. Whether it is a good or bad social system, it has a great impact on individual autonomy. Social institutions change the conditions for the exercise of individual autonomy. Social institutions not only influence the formation of an individual's identity, but also have a great influence as a condition for exercising individual autonomy. In a society where social institutions are not provided, individuals miss out on the possibility of harmoniously integrating themselves and society. Every individual has a source of autonomy, but that autonomy can only be exercised under appropriate conditions. If freedom is based on autonomy, society must above all provide appropriate social institutions. ‘Institutional freedom theory’ is limited by the duality of good and evil in humans and the limitations of human empathy, but it has normative justification for substantiating the freedom of the socially disadvantaged through institutions. Given that ‘institutional freedom theory’ is a (counterfactual) normative claim, normative language such as human rights, human dignity, and utility is still strongly required.