Natalie Stoljar's Poem Summary

Natalie Stoljar in her journal, Autonomy, Oppression, and Gender, argues that adaptive preferences can undermine an agent’s autonomy. Stoljar explains that there are two types of arguments against her theory. The first argument Stoljar discusses is by Anita Superson. This argument claims that deformed desires impair autonomy. The second argument, which is the argument Stoljar undertakes as her own, is that deformed desires are autonomy impairments, which she names adaptive preferences. Stoljar illustrates adaptive preference with Jon Elster’s analogy of a fox that cannot reach some grapes. Stoljar explains that because the fox cannot reach the grapes, it makes itself believe that it never wanted the grapes in the first place. The structure …show more content…
Stoljar assumes that people avoiding bad things is the same as rationalizing not having something they want. For example, Stoljar repeatedly referenced the Vasanti case, in which a woman chose to remain in an abusive relationship because they did not want to be homeless. Stoljar relates this to the fox and the grapes by saying that the women changed her preferences to seek out an abusive relationship. However, if one is more analytical in relation to this woman’s decision one can see that the consequences are actually twofold. Not only was this woman seeking out an abusive relationship, but she was avoiding the suffering associated with living on the streets. The fox on the other hand only loses out on the grapes. In order for the two cases to be comparable there would have to be a negative outcome for the fox if it attempted to get the grapes. For example, if the fox attempted to jump for the grapes, it would do significantly irreparable damage to itself with no guarantee of actually acquiring the grapes. This would be comparable to Vasanti because if she does choose to be homeless there is no guarantee that she would actually be living a better