References
- Baber, H. E. 2007. “Adaptive Preference.” Social Theory and Practice 33 (1): 105–126. doi: 10.5840/soctheorpract200733137
- Buss, Sarah. 2012. “Autonomous Action: Self-determination in the Passive Mode.” Ethics 122 (4): 647–691. doi: 10.1086/666328
- Jaggar, Alison. 2006. “Reasoning About Well-being: Nussbaum’s Method of Justifying the Capabilities Approach.” Journal of Political Philosophy 14 (3): 301–322. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9760.2006.00253.x
- Khader, Serene. 2011. Adaptive Preferences and Women’s Empowerment. New York: Oxford University Press.
- Khader, Serene. 2012. “Must Theorizing About Adaptive Preferences Deny Women’s Agency?” Journal of Applied Philosophy 29 (4): 302–317. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5930.2012.00575.x
- Khader, Serene. 2016. “Beyond Autonomy Fetishism: Affiliation with Autonomy in Women’s Empowerment.” Journal of Human Development and Capabilities 17 (1): 125–139. doi: 10.1080/19452829.2015.1025043
- Narayan, Uma. 2002. “Minds of Their Own: Choices, Autonomy, Cultural Practices, and Other Women.” In A Mind of One’s Own, edited by L. Antony and C. Witt, 418–433. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
- Nussbaum, Martha. 2001. Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Oshana, Marina. 1998. “Personal Autonomy and Society.” Journal of Social Philosophy 29 (1): 81–102. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9833.1998.tb00098.x
- Raz, Joseph. 1986. The Morality of Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Sen, Amartya. 2002. Rationality and Freedom. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
- Shoemaker, David. 2003. “Caring, Identification, and Agency.” Ethics 114 (1): 88–118. doi: 10.1086/376718
- Terlazzo, Rosa. 2016. “Conceptualizing Adaptive Preferences Respectfully: An Indirectly Substantive Account.” Journal of Political Philosophy 24 (2): 206–226. doi: 10.1111/jopp.12062
- Valdman, Mikhail. 2011. “Autonomy, History, and the Origins of Our Desires.” Journal of Moral Philosophy 8 (3): 415–434. doi: 10.1163/174552411X589026
- Weimer, Steven. 2009. “Externalist Autonomy and Availability of Alternatives.” Social Theory and Practice 35 (2): 169–200. doi: 10.5840/soctheorpract200935212