Customer Reviews

The Principle of Fairness and Political Obligation

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This is a very fine overview of fairness theory, although Klosko wisely limits the scope of its ramifications for obligation to a government to major public institutions, such as making war and keeping the peace.

The principle of fairness that Klosko writes about has five main points:

(1) That there exists a cooperative venture of some group X;
(2) That this venture imposes burdens upon individuals in X;
(3) That this venture yields benefits for some group Y;
(4) That without (1), there will be no (3); and
(5) That Y contains X, but is not X (Y/X is non-empty).

This is intended to generalize the views of Hart and Rawls. There are three possible responses to the free riders (Y/X):

(A) That the benefits be denied Y/X;
(B) That the costs cease to be imposed on X; or
(C) That the costs be imposed upon Y/X.

Klosko argues that (C), which is political obligation as we usually think of it, is only viable if (A) and (B) cannot be accomplished. This is why he restricts himself to large and obvious public goods and refrains from discussing redistributive justice and other governmental functions.

This doesn't free him from the "limiting argument," which denies that (C) is justified, even if (A) and (B) are impossible. Many of the problems with the text come when he discusses reasons to not believe such arguments. In the case of Nozik's examples of the neighborhood intercom system and the street sweeping association, for example, he argues that they aren't viable because of their triviality. Thus, when we switch to enlistment and National Defense, because to stakes are much higher and the benefits are universal, the obligation is assumed to be clear.

This brings about the other of the major problems with this book, which is that Klosko often compares the results of his analysis of the fairness principle to our prejudices about political obligation. Although most of the book doesn't really require it, it often seems as though he's trying to patch together a system that agrees with our intuitions about what the community or the government should and shouldn't be able to impose upon an individual.

The best aspect of the book is when Klosko discusses the bases of his theory, that of consequentialism (esp. Act-Utilitarianism), and that of contractualism. He's quite fair in his analyses and devotes time to explaining where, exactly, each of the three have strengths and where they have weaknesses as a theory of political obligation. This is also true of when he describes the arguments of philosophers (Rawls, Locke, Nozik); his counter arguments are, however, often unconvincing. Both of the appendices ("Parfit's Moral Arithmetic and the Obligation to Obey the Law" & "The Principle of Fairness and Political Attitudes"), in a strange twist for any book, are both readable and useful.

The prose is clear, and ideas are well presented. It is a very fine overview of the subject.