Loading…
Debate: Unequal Consenters and Political Illegitimacy
According to a familiar liberal assumption, the foundational political principles underlying a political system are not legitimate unless they can be justified to those who are subject to them. Political principles are justified to someone roughly to the extent that she can reflect on them (in light...
Saved in:
Published in: | The journal of political philosophy 2013-09, Vol.21 (3), p.347-360 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Summary: | According to a familiar liberal assumption, the foundational political principles underlying a political system are not legitimate unless they can be justified to those who are subject to them. Political principles are justified to someone roughly to the extent that she can reflect on them (in light of such considerations as the available alternatives) and then choose to live under those principles. However, in any political system, there are persons who seem to be incapable of reflecting on or choosing political principles. Non-consenters at any point in time include young children, the elderly who have dementia, and people at any stage of life who have lost, or never developed, the capacities for reflecting on and choosing political principles. Based on the liberal starting assumption mentioned above, the legitimacy of political principles at that moment is in question for all such persons. A complete liberal theory should have something to say about how to determine whether political principles are legitimate for those persons who are subject to them but who cannot reflect on or consent to them. Adapted from the source document. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0963-8016 1467-9760 |
DOI: | 10.1111/jopp.12010 |