Authors
Dorota Mokrosinska
Leiden University
Abstract
Much of the debate concerning political obligation deals with the question of which, if any, moral principles could make obedience to the directives of the government a matter of obligation. What makes political obligation political has not received attention in the literature on the topic. In this article I argue that the lack of systematic reflection on what makes political obligation political is responsible for the failure of a number of influential theories of political obligation. I demonstrate this failure using the consent theory of political obligation as my major example. I conclude my analysis by formulating some positive conditions that a successful principle of political obligation should satisfy
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1080/13698230.2012.659510
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 58,786
External links

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

The Metaphysics of Morals.Immanuel Kant - 1797/1996 - Cambridge University Press.
Harm to Others.Martin P. Golding - 1987 - Philosophical Review 96 (2):295-298.

View all 33 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP index
2012-03-23

Total views
123 ( #81,850 of 2,425,461 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
6 ( #122,985 of 2,425,461 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes