A Study Of Klosko’s Theory Of Political Obligation

Unlike the traditional theory of consent, the obligations derived from the principleof fairness are unique in that they originated in the actions of others rather than one’sown behavior. The principle of fairness provides a new path to explain politicalobligation. However, since the introduction of the principle of fairness it has receivedcriticism from various aspects. As a contemporary important supporter of the theory offairness, George Klosko attempts to provide a comprehensive defense for politicalobligation based on the principle of fairness in the premises of liberal political theory.In the beginning, this paper clarified the development process of the principle offairness and examined the criticism by Nozick and Simmons; found that the focus of thedebate lies in the voluntary acceptance of benefits. Klosko thinks that doubts on theeffect of the principle of fairness by Simmons and other people rooted in theunderstanding of the self-assumed obligations. The voluntarism factors largelyundermined the justification. In Klosko’s view, it is reasonable to limit the operation ofthe principle of fairness only to certain specific benefits. He puts forward three mainconditions which set limits on the type and value of benefits generated by cooperationin order to respond to the voluntarist paradox the principle of fairness has encountered.This paper analyzed Klosko’s argumentation and examined the role of the three mainconditions in establishing the obligation to cooperate. Klosko’s argument shows that ifbenefits produced by cooperation can meet these qualifications, the requirements of thevoluntary factors in accepting them will be ruled out. It means the individual shallperform the obligations based on the principle of fairness as long as he received benefits from cooperation. When the principle of fairness is applied to political area, the politicallife should be viewed as a cooperative system coordinated by the law, crucial benefitsconcerning physical security and order can meet the conditions. Therefore people whoreceive the benefits have obligation to limit their freedom and obey the law like othersinvolved in the cooperation. In order to make the principle of fairness explain broaderobligations, Klosko adopts the indirect argument to expand the range of its application.Klosko’s defense is an attempt to apply the principle of fairness to explain thepolitical obligations. Despite some unavoidable problems in Klosko’s argument, it doesnot prevent the revised principle of fairness from providing true and defensible reasonfor people to obey the law.