Moral Principles and Political Obligations

by A. John Simmons

Outlining the major competing theories in the history of political and moral philosophy--from Locke and Hume through Hart, Rawls, and Nozick--John Simmons attempts to understand and solve the ancient problem of political obligation. Under what conditions and for what reasons (if any), he asks, are we morally bound to obey the law and support the political institutions of our countries?

Genres: Politics, Philosophy, Nonfiction

248 pages, Paperback

First published December 12, 1979

Reviews

[Julia · Rating 3 out of 5]

Probably as good and exciting as a book on political obligations can be.

[Ross · Rating 4 out of 5]

Citizenship does not free a man from the burdens of moral reasoning.

[jacob · Rating 4 out of 5]

God my contemporary philosophy arc is gonna be ROUGH. While the question of whether people have political obligations seems like a really basic and broad sort of question, not to mention an important one, but in CLASSIC philosopher fashion, Simmons is not talking about political obligations in the way that normal people think of that term. The kind of political obligation Simmons ACTUALLY cares about is a hype specific very western liberal democratic sort of idea of political obligation that is more like "I ought to obey the law literally because it is the law", and not "I ought to obey the law for [insert any one of various more reasonable and less fanatical reasons here]". But all that being said, if you're actually enough of a nerd to care about the kind of political obligation Simmons does - the books pretty damn good.

Overall, Simmons' approach to the issue was highly commendable, and I can see why it became the staple in the field of political authority that it is. The four general arguments for political authority that Simmons engages with provide an incredibly wide overview of approaches to the problem of political authority, and he manages to do so while also providing novel critiques of each one, and in a very short and concise space as well. While certainly not all of his four critiques are equally motivating, his response to fair play and gratitude felt particularly strong compared to his replies to (surprisingly, given it's probably the most controversial one) consent theory and in particular, natural duties of justice. The natural duty chapter felt particularly unsatisfying actually - the issue is that unless you're an ethical particularist (which might be even more controversial than the natural duty take itself), the idea of providing an ethically universal duty to obey a particular state was sort of destined to fail from the start given that barring a few very specific lines of reasoning that ultimately don't pan out anyways, those two projects are sort of incompatible with one another (which to be honest, I think Simmons also sort of realized himself as well).

Overall, if I had to pick one sin for this book I think it would be that philosopher's hyper specificity that stops it from really being everything I wanted it to be. For all it's value, the book has a very particular goal to take on a very particular challenge, and there is no room for any deviation from the path, even when Simmons himself admits that such deviations might be incredibly fruitful. The book basically ends with Simmons admitting that despite having unintentionally justified "philosophical anarchism" by showing that all methods of grounding a fundamental duty to civil obedience fail, there's still definitely a LOT of good reasons why we should follow the law and support state institutions anyways (which frankly, makes philosophical anarchism sound really fucking lame - Bakunin and Kropotkin would be very disappointed). I really do hesitate to knock the book for this since it's also part of what makes it so thorough and concise, which are both virtues, but it just stopped me from really feeling super blown away by the conclusions and I think withholding one star for that is more than fair.

TL;DR - According to my prof, this book was like Simmons' master's thesis or something? And I've never felt more self-conscious about my own philosophical achievements in my life. So I guess that means this book was pretty good, but also I'm a massive nerd so I guess how good it is really does just depend on the person.

[Leonardo]

Filo Política. Clase 6.

John Simmons presenta una lista intuitivamente plausible de condiciones en Principios morales y obligaciones políticas.
(1) La situación debe ser tal que sea perfectamente claro que el consentimiento es apropiado y que el individuo que lo presta es consciente de ello. Esto incluye el requerimiento de que el agente que potencialmente consciente esté despierto y al tanto de lo que está ocurriendo.
(2) Debe existir un período definido de una duración razonable durante el cual objeciones o expresiones de disenso sean invitadas o claramente apropiadas y los medios para expresar disenso deban ser comprendidos por o mostrados al agente que potencialmente consiente.
(3) El momento en que las expresiones de disenso no sean aceptables deben ser obvias o mostradas de alguna forma al agente que potencialmente consiente.
(4) Los medios apropiados para indicar disenso deben ser razonables y su utilización también debe ser razonable.
(5) Las consecuencias del disenso no deben ser extremadamente gravosas para el agente que potencialmente consiente.

[Jim Cook · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a lucidly argued and engaging book that anyone interested in political philosophy would appreciate. It’s focus is on determining whether there is a general principle or set of principles to ground the notion of political obligation within the context of liberal political theory. I won’t give away the conclusions reached but, interestingly, they are consistent with the position of what is often called “philosophical anarchism.”

He also cogently argues that “…political obligation is only one consideration among many in a determination of how we ought to act in matters political…” (p. 199).

[Antoine · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thorough analysis of political obligation with many examples, though a bit dated

[Emi · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5

[Sergei Moska · Rating 4 out of 5]

Along with Wolff's In Defense of Anarchism, one of the two foundational texts of modern philosophical anarchism. It's a small book, but packed with really good stuff. The most surprising part was very nice critique of Nozick. Since the book came out in 1979, it's not always altogether clear if his critique of Rawls' "mature work" would fully hold up to the Rawls of Political Liberalism and Law of Peoples.

I didn't give this book five stars because (1)I only give that to books that have a profound impact on me, and (2)my spidey-sense told me not to. I can't explain (1), and the best reason I can give for (2) is that in his discussion on the possibility of "gratitude" as a grounds of political obligation, he does not respond to communitarian position that a failure to feel a sense of gratitude (note: Simmons dismisses the notion of a *sense* of gratitude as being an adequate political ground, and I think this dismissal happens to quickly) is itself indicative of a failure of the state, and that we should try to foster this sense.

I'm not saying that the argument defeats Simmons - just that it was on my mind for the last third of this really great book!

[Nick Geiser · Rating 5 out of 5]

Still one of the best defenses of philosophical anarchism out there. Simmons smartly included a chapter on associative duties, which everyone falls back on now to justify political obligation. Everything else now is just details.

[M · Rating 5 out of 5]

Read ch 1-4. Very clear, outlines different assumptions and arguments.