David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Ratio Juris 26 (2):149-186 (2013)
Aristotle thought we are by nature political animals, but the state-of-nature tradition sees political society not as natural but as an artifice. For this tradition, political society can usefully be conceived as emerging from a pre-political state of nature by the exercise of innate normative powers. Those powers, together with the rest of our native normative endowment, both make possible the construction of the state, and place sharp limits on the state's just powers and prerogatives. A state-of-nature theory has three components. One is an account of the native normative endowment, or “NNE.” Two is an account of how the state is constructed using the tools included in the NNE. Three is an account of the state's resulting normative endowment, which includes a (purported) moral power to impose duties of obedience. State-of-nature theories disagree about the NNE. For Locke, it included a “natural executive right” to punish wrongdoing. Recent social scientific findings suggest a quite different NNE. Contrary to Locke, people do not behave in experimental settings as one would predict if they possessed a “natural executive right” to punish wrongdoing. Moral reproof is subject to standing norms. These norms limit the range of eligible reprovers. The social science can support two claims. One, is that the NNE is (as Aristotle held) already political. The other is that political authority can be re-conceived as a matter of standing—that is, as the state's unique moral permission coercively to enforce moral norms, rather than as a moral power to impose freestanding duties of obedience
|Keywords||Political philosophy Political obligation Political authority Virtue ethics Philosophy of law Locke Moral philosophy|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
William A. Edmundson (2010). Political Authority, Moral Powers and the Intrinsic Value of Obedience. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 30 (1):179-191.
James J. Hamilton (2012). Pyrrhonism in the Political Philosophy of Thomas Hobbes. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 20 (2):217-247.
Kevin Thompson (2001). Kant's Transcendental Deduction of Political Authority. Kant-Studien 92 (1):62-78.
C. B. Macpherson (1962/2011). The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism: Hobbes to Locke. Oxford, Clarendon Press.
Andres Rosler (2011). Odi Et Amo? Hobbes on the State of Nature. Hobbes Studies 24 (1):91-111.
Matt Zwolinski (2011). States of Nature. Journal of Value Inquiry 45 (1):27-36.
Susanne Sreedhar (2010). Hobbes on Resistance. Cambridge University Press.
Dorota Mokrosinska (2012). Rethinking Political Obligation: Moral Principles, Communal Ties, Citizenship. Palgrave Macmillan.
Vicente Medina (2002). Locke's Militant Liberalism: A Reply to Carl Schmitt's State of Exception. History of Philosophy Quarterly 19 (4):345 - 365.
Ruth C. A. Higgins (2004). The Moral Limits of Law: Obedience, Respect, and Legitimacy. Oxford University Press.
Christopher Heath Wellman (2005). Is There a Duty to Obey the Law? Cambridge University Press.
William A. Edmundson (2013). Because I Said So. Problema: Anuario de Filosofía y Teoría Del Derecho 7:41-61.
George Klosko (2004). Multiple Principles of Political Obligation. Political Theory 32 (6):801-824.
Added to index2011-06-01
Total downloads66 ( #23,879 of 1,099,788 )
Recent downloads (6 months)7 ( #40,518 of 1,099,788 )
How can I increase my downloads?