Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Content-independence and natural-duty theories of political obligation.Jiafeng Zhu - 2018 - Philosophy and Social Criticism 44 (1):61-80.
    This paper contends that the requirement of content independence poses a pressing challenge to natural-duty theories of political obligation, for it is unclear why subjects of a state should not discharge the background natural duty in proper ways other than obeying the law. To demonstrate the force of this challenge, I examine and refute three argumentative strategies to achieve content independence represented in recent notable natural-duty theories: by appealing to the epistemic advantages of the state in discharging a natural duty, (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Political Legitimacy: What’s Wrong with the Power-Liability View?Kjartan Mikalsen - forthcoming - Moral Philosophy and Politics.
    In this paper, I take issue with Arthur Isak Applbaum’s power-liability view of political legitimacy. In contrast to the traditional view that legitimate rule entails a moral duty to obey, here called the right-duty view, Applbaum argues that political legitimacy is a moral power that entails moral liability for the subjects of political rule. According to Applbaum, the power-liability view helps us explain how responsible citizens in some cases can act contrary to law while still recognizing the claims of law. (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
    		•
  • Democratic legitimacy, political speech and viewpoint neutrality.Kristian Skagen Ekeli - 2021 - Philosophy and Social Criticism 47 (6):723-752.
    The purpose of this article is to consider the question of whether democratic legitimacy requires viewpoint neutrality with regard to political speech – including extremist political speech, such as hate speech. The starting point of my discussion is Jeremy Waldron’s negative answer to this question. He argues that it is permissible for liberal democracies to ban certain extremist viewpoints – such as vituperative hate speech – because such viewpoint-based restrictions protect the dignity of persons and a social and moral environment (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations