2018•Leiden Repository (Leiden University)Open access

Political obligation as a moral necessity

Luo Yi-zhong

Open full text 0 citations

Abstract

This book defends political obligation, stating that people are morally obligated to obey the law of their state, if the law is at least reasonably just. The defense is based on the tradition of the Kantian political philosophy and legal philosophy, and it is a defense mainly against political anarchists. They believe that the only possible justification for political obligation should be voluntarist, proving people’s deliberate undertakings to incur the obligation. Since no attempt in the voluntarist approach is justifiable, political obligation does not exist from the a posterior point of view. As a consequence, political legitimacy, which is claimed to be the other side of the same concept of political obligation, fails to obtain its justification, and no state is legitimate. The exploration in this book contends that a voluntarist basis is neither necessary nor sufficient for people to be obligated to obey the law. And this contention earns the space for justifying political obligation on an involuntarist ground, meaning that people can be imposed on a moral obligation to obey the law without any voluntary actions incurring this obligation. This involuntarist ground is what I name the “moral necessity thesis”.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

This book defends political obligation, stating that people are morally obligated to obey the law of their state, if the law is at least reasonably just. The defense is based on the tradition of the Kantian political philosophy and legal philosophy, and it is a defense mainly against political anarchists. They believe that the only possible justification for political obligation should be voluntarist, proving people’s deliberate undertakings to incur the obligation. Since no attempt in the voluntarist approach is justifiable, political obligation does not exist from the a posterior point of view. As a consequence, political legitimacy, which is claimed to be the other side of the same concept of political obligation, fails to obtain its justification, and no state is legitimate. The exploration in this book contends that a voluntarist basis is neither necessary nor sufficient for people to be obligated to obey the law. And this contention earns the space for justifying political obligation on an involuntarist ground, meaning that people can be imposed on a moral obligation to obey the law without any voluntary actions incurring this obligation. This involuntarist ground is what I name the “moral necessity thesis”.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

This book defends political obligation, stating that people are morally obligated to obey the law of their state, if the law is at least reasonably just. The defense is based on the tradition of the Kantian political philosophy and legal philosophy, and it is a defense mainly against political anarchists. They believe that the only possible justification for political obligation should be voluntarist, proving people’s deliberate undertakings to incur the obligation. Since no attempt in the voluntarist approach is justifiable, political obligation does not exist from the a posterior point of view. As a consequence, political legitimacy, which is claimed to be the other side of the same concept of political obligation, fails to obtain its justification, and no state is legitimate. The exploration in this book contends that a voluntarist basis is neither necessary nor sufficient for people to be obligated to obey the law. And this contention earns the space for justifying political obligation on an involuntarist ground, meaning that people can be imposed on a moral obligation to obey the law without any voluntary actions incurring this obligation. This involuntarist ground is what I name the “moral necessity thesis”.

Key concepts: Obligation, Politics, Legitimacy, Political philosophy, Law, Political science, Meaning (existential), State (computer science)

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Political obligation as a moral necessity — Research Paper | ScholarLens