Authority Flashcards

1
Q

Political authority

A

When entity issues binding laws enforced by coercive means

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Reasons legitimate political authority might depend on democracy?

A
  1. consent
  2. promotion of substantive outcomes (e.g. equality)
  3. Moral obligation to obey, due to egalitarian principle embodied in democracy and equal respect for persons
  4. Value of autonomy
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Raz’ service conception

A

role of authority is to serve governed, by enabling them to act better on reasons that already apply to them

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What undermines tacit consent?

A
  1. We have no choice but to enjoy benefits (many public goods = non-excludable)
  2. No genuine alternative (costs of leaving country too high)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Principle of fair play

A

those who benefit from others’ cooperative efforts have obligation to pay fair share (wrong to free ride)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Benefit foisting objection

A

NOZICK

can’t force benefits on others and then demand payment/obligation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Claim of voluntarist fair play

A

Distinction between actively accepting and merely receiving benefits

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Problem w/voluntarist fair play?

A

how can citizens actively accept benefits of non-excludable goods provided by state?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Conditions for Klosko’s fair play?

A

Fair play obligations arise if receive goods which meet following conditions because it would be deeply objectionable to free-ride

  1. Benefits > costs
  2. ‘Presumptively beneficial’ good (i.e. every individual can reasonably be expected to want good, whatever their values/conception of good)
  3. Fair scheme (e.g. fair distribution of benefits and burdens)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Rawls - natural duty of justice

A
  1. Support and comply w/just institutions that exist + apply to us
  2. Create + support institutions that protect basic rights/justly govern distribution of benefits and burdens of social cooperation
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Particularity objection to natural duty of justice claims

A

Particularity objection

  1. why obligated to our particular state?
  2. Which institutions apply to us?
  3. Why not duty to create these institutions across globally?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

A posteriori anarchism

A

legitimate authority possible, but no existing states justify conditions for it

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

A priori anarchism

A

no state could ever be legitimate

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Stiltz – why do he argue we are required to obey democratic laws?

A

natural duty not to unilaterally impose will on others

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Simmons - universal weakness of natural duty theories

A
  1. Imply that duties not dependent on relationships to particular institution
  2. Therefore universal only obliged to obey law of ‘own’ government (not all governments globally that meet criteria)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Response to Simmons’ particularity objection to natural duty theories. Reply to this?

A
  1. Not obliged to obey law where not obeying wouldn’t threaten other just institutions (e.g. France’s democratic, just institutions) and wouldn’t impose our will on others/violate a right
  2. Other states could easily make us obliged to obey their laws (E.g. if France granted me citizenship against my will, would that give me an obligation to obey French laws too?)
17
Q

Wolff’s argument for a priori anarchism

A

Primary obligation of autonomy – “refusal to be ruled”

  1. Political obligations imply we’ve surrendered our right to choose to an authority, neglecting our obligation to be autonomous agents
  2. Only exception = direct democracy with unanimous decisions, although wouldn’t really constitute political obligation
  3. Political obligations can’t exist
18
Q

Why does Wolff argue for the primary obligation of autonomy (refusal to be ruled)?

A
  1. Humans have capacity to choose/be free + responsibility to use capacity (and hence be autonomous agents)
  2. Have primary obligation because it’s necessary for moral action
19
Q

Obligations vs duties

A
  1. Obligations must be voluntarily undertaken
    (a) E.g. obligation to keep promise/fulfil contract arises only when done something to generate obligation
    (b) e.g. made promise, signed contract
  2. Duties need not be
    (a) E.g. moral duties fall on us regardless of voluntary commitments
20
Q

Parekh - distinction between legal obligation and political obligation

A
  1. Obligation to obey law = legal obligation
  2. Political obligation broader (someone who owes political obligation owes polity more than obedience to its law, but also duty also to take positive steps to secure safety + advance interests of country)
21
Q

Response to Wolff’s a priori anarchist argument

A
  1. Implausible that autonomy overrides all other values

2. Not clear Wolff can reject political authority w/o also rejecting promises and contracts as constraints on autonomy

22
Q

Estlund - normative consent

A
  1. Most agree consent void if wrong to consent to authority (e.g. consent to become slave generates no obligation)
  2. Symmetrically, draw same conclusion where would wrong not to consent to another’s authority
  3. i.e. failure to consent where wrong not to do so = void
  4. If state performs morally necessary tasks (and hence citizens ought to consent to obey laws), then failure to consent effectively void (still have political obligations)
23
Q

3 interpretations of ‘legitimate political authority’

A
  1. Justified coercion
  2. Capacity to impose duties
  3. Right to rule
24
Q

Dworkin - conditions for communities to generate associative political obligations

A
  1. Communities satisfying 4 conditions generate obligations:
    (a) Each member sees themselves as having special obligations to other members
    (b) Obligations seen as owed to each other personally
    (c) Obligations flow from concern for well-being of each of members
    (d) Obligations flow from equal concern for all members
25
Q

Descriptive vs normative legitimacy

A
  1. Descriptive legitimacy - people’s beliefs about political authority and obligations
  2. Normative legitimacy - some benchmark of acceptability or justification of political power/authority
26
Q

3 conceptual accounts of legitimate political authority

A
  1. Justified coercion
  2. Capacity to impose duties
  3. Right to rule
27
Q

What is a political obligation?

A
  1. Each under general obligation of obedience to legal norms of society in which they live
  2. If citizens have such obligation, then state imposes obligations on us through legislative acts (i.e. it has authority)
28
Q

What does Rawls argue about fair play obligation arguments?

A
  1. Fair play can generate obligations only when “one has voluntarily accepted” its benefits
  2. Lots of state-provided good non-excludable and so can’t avoid enjoying benefits
29
Q

Does Rawls think we still have political obligations when laws not fully just?

A

Still have political obligations as long as institutions and law reasonably just

30
Q

Challenges to a posteriori anarchist argument

A
  1. Objection – hypocrisy
    (i) (Philosophical) anarchists claim legitimate state and political obligations don’t exist, yet don’t do anything about it + may still see value in institutions
  2. Objection – denying political obligation
    (i) Intuition – we do have political obligations
    (ii) Anarchism denies this
31
Q

Rawls’ definition of normative political legitimacy?

A

justification of coercive political power

32
Q

Example Estlund uses to demonstrate normative consent argument?

A
  1. Plane crash, but strong chance to save many people w/well-coordinated effort
  2. Steward takes control and gives commands to coordinate rescue
  3. Plan will be successful, but requires cooperation of everyone
  4. Steward not giving any immoral commands
  5. Conclusion
    (i) Clearly immoral for someone in position to help not to agree to steward’s commands
    (ii) non-consent here nullified due to immorality of not consenting
33
Q

Problems with associative membership political obligation theories?

A
  1. Problem w/family analogy – not persuasive because members of political community lack close and intimate relationships
  2. Conflates sense of obligation w/obligation itself – I may feel more obliged to save my brother, but that doesn’t mean I actually am obliged (i.e. feeling of obligation doesn’t provide independent moral justification)