Accessible Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter October 27, 2018

Indirect Instrumentalism about Political Legitimacy

Matthias Brinkmann

Abstract

Political instrumentalism claims that the right to rule should be distributed such that justice is promoted best. Building on a distinction made by consequentialists in moral philosophy, I argue that instrumentalists should distinguish two levels of normative thinking about legitimacy, the critical and applied level. An indirect instrumentalism which acknowledges this distinction has significant advantages over simpler forms of instrumentalism that do not.

Acknowledgements

This paper grew out of my dissertation, for which I am indebted to my supervisors, Ralf Bader, Leslie Green, and Jeremy Waldron, as well as my examiners, David Miller and Laura Valentini.

References

Acemoglu, D. and Robinson, J. (2012). Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty (New York: Crown Publishers).Search in Google Scholar

Alexander, L. (1985). ‘Pursuing the Good–Indirectly’, Ethics 95 (2): 315–332.Search in Google Scholar

Alexander, L. (1991). ‘The Gap’, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 14: 695–701.Search in Google Scholar

Alexander, L. and Sherwin, E. (2001). The Rule of Rules: Morality, Rules, and the Dilemmas of Law (Durham: Duke University Press).Search in Google Scholar

Applbaum, A. (2004). ‘Legitimacy in a Bastard Kingdom’, Center for Public Leadership Working Paper Series, Harvard Kennedy School, (accessed on 16th July 2018).Search in Google Scholar

Arneson, R. (2003). ‘Defending the Purely Instrumental Account of Democratic Legitimacy’, Journal of Political Philosophy 11 (1): 122–132.Search in Google Scholar

Bales, E. (1971). ‘Act-Utilitarianism: Account of Right-Making Characteristics or Decision-Making Procedure?’, American Philosophical Quarterly 8 (3): 257–265.Search in Google Scholar

Brandt, R.B. (1988). ‘Fairness to Indirect Optimific Theories in Ethics’, Ethics 98 (2): 341–360.Search in Google Scholar

Brinkmann, M. (2017). A Rationalist Theory of Legitimacy. D.Phil. thesis, University of Oxford, or (accessed on 10th September 2018).Search in Google Scholar

Brinkmann, M. (2018). ‘Coordination Cannot Establish Political Authority’, Ratio Juris 31 (1): 49–69.Search in Google Scholar

Buchanan, A. (1999). ‘Rule-Governed Institutions versus Act-Consequentialism: A Rejoinder to Naticchia’, Philosophy & Public Affairs 28 (3): 258–270.Search in Google Scholar

Buchanan, A. (2002). ‘Political Legitimacy and Democracy’, Ethics 112 (4): 689–719.Search in Google Scholar

Buchanan, A. (2004). Justice, Legitimacy, and Self-Determination: Moral Foundations for International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Search in Google Scholar

Buck, R. (2012). ‘Democratic Legitimacy: The Limits of Instrumentalist Accounts’, Journal of Value Inquiry 46 (2): 223–236.Search in Google Scholar

Christman, J. (2002). Social and Political Philosophy: A Contemporary Introduction (London: Routledge).Search in Google Scholar

Coakley, M. (2011). ‘On the Value of Political Legitimacy’, Politics, Philosophy & Economics 10 (4): 345–369.Search in Google Scholar

Crisp, R. (1992). ‘Utilitarianism and the Life of Virtue’, Philosophical Quarterly 42: 139–160.Search in Google Scholar

Dworkin, R. (2003). ‘What is Equality? Part 4: Political Equality’, in T. Christiano (ed.), Philosophy and Democracy: An Anthology (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 116–137.Search in Google Scholar

Estlund, D. (2008). Democratic Authority: A Philosophical Framework (Princeton: Princeton University Press).Search in Google Scholar

Feldman, F. (2012). ‘True and Useful: On the Structure of a Two Level Normative Theory’, Utilitas 24 (2): 151–171.Search in Google Scholar

Finnis, J. (1989). ‘Law as Co-Ordination’, Ratio Juris 2 (1): 97–104.Search in Google Scholar

Green, L. (2007). ‘The Duty to Govern’, Legal Theory 13 (3–4): 165–185.Search in Google Scholar

Griffin, C. (2003). ‘Democracy as a Non-Instrumentally Just Procedure’, Journal of Political Philosophy 11 (1): 111–121.Search in Google Scholar

Hare, R.M. (1981). Moral Thinking: Its Levels, Method, and Point (Oxford: Clarendon Press).Search in Google Scholar

Hart, H.L.A. (1961). The Concept of Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press).Search in Google Scholar

Horton, J. (2012). ‘Political Legitimacy, Justice and Consent’, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 15 (2): 129–148.Search in Google Scholar

Krasnoff, L. (1998). ‘Consensus, Stability, and Normativity in Rawls's Political Liberalism’, Journal of Philosophy 95 (6): 269–292.Search in Google Scholar

Lang, G. (2004). ‘A Dilemma for Objective Act-Utilitarianism’, Politics, Philosophy & Economics 3 (2): 221–239.Search in Google Scholar

Larmore, C. (2013). ‘What Is Political Philosophy?’, Journal of Moral Philosophy 10 (3): 276–306.Search in Google Scholar

Lewis, D. (2002). Convention: A Philosophical Study (Oxford: Blackwell).Search in Google Scholar

Miller, D. (2003). Political Philosophy: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Search in Google Scholar

Morris, C. (1998). An Essay on the Modern State (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Search in Google Scholar

Ord, T. (2009). Beyond Action. D.Phil. thesis, University of Oxford, (accessed on 16th July 2018).Search in Google Scholar

Otsuka, M. (2011). ‘Are Deontological Constraints Irrational?’, in R. Bader and J. Meadowcroft (eds.). The Cambridge Companion to Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 38–58.Search in Google Scholar

Parfit, D. (1984). Reasons and Persons (Oxford: Clarendon Press).Search in Google Scholar

Pettit, P. and Brennan, G. (1986). ‘Restrictive Consequentialism’, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 64 (4): 438–455.Search in Google Scholar

Quong, J. (2011). Liberalism without Perfection (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Search in Google Scholar

Quong, J. (2014). ‘What Is the Point of Public Reason?’, Philosophical Studies 170 (3): 545–553.Search in Google Scholar

Railton, P. (1984). ‘Alienation, Consequentialism, and the Demands of Morality’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 13 (2): 134–171.Search in Google Scholar

Rawls, J. (1955). ‘Two Concepts of Rules’, Philosophical Review 64 (1): 3–32.Search in Google Scholar

Rawls, J. (1993). Political Liberalism (New York: Columbia University Press).Search in Google Scholar

Rawls, J. (1999). A Theory of Justice: Revised Edition (Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press).Search in Google Scholar

Raz, J. (1986). The Morality of Freedom (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Search in Google Scholar

Sandel, M. (1998). Liberalism and the Limits of Justice: Second Edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Search in Google Scholar

Scanlon, T. (2008). Moral Dimensions: Permissibility, Meaning, Blame (Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press).Search in Google Scholar

Simmons, J. (1999). ‘Justification and Legitimacy’, Ethics 109 (4): 739–771.Search in Google Scholar

Stocker, M. (1976). ‘The Schizophrenia of Modern Ethical Theories’, Journal of Philosophy 73 (14): 453–466.Search in Google Scholar

Valentini, L. (2012a). ‘Assessing the Global Order: Justice, Legitimacy, or Political Justice?’, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 15 (5): 593–612.Search in Google Scholar

Valentini, L. (2012b). ‘Justice, Disagreement and Democracy’, British Journal of Political Science 43 (1): 1–23.Search in Google Scholar

Varden, H. (2009). ‘Nozick's Reply to the Anarchist’, Law and Philosophy 28 (6): 585–616.Search in Google Scholar

Waldron, J. (1996). ‘Kant's Legal Positivism’, Harvard Law Review 109 (7): 1535–1566.Search in Google Scholar

Waldron, J. (1999). Law and Disagreement (Oxford: Clarendon Press).Search in Google Scholar

Wall, S. (2006). ‘Democracy, Authority and Publicity’, Journal of Political Philosophy 14 (1): 85–100.Search in Google Scholar

Wall, S. (2007). ‘Democracy and Restraint’, Law and Philosophy 26 (3): 307–342.Search in Google Scholar

Walzer, M. (1980). ‘The Moral Standing of States: A Response to Four Critics’, Philosophy & Public Affairs 9 (3): 209–229.Search in Google Scholar

Wiland, E. (2007). ‘How Indirect Can Indirect Utilitarianism Be?’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 74 (2): 275–301.Search in Google Scholar

Williams, B. (1973). ‘A Critique of Utilitarianism’, in J.J.C. Smart and B. Williams (eds.). Utilitarianism: For and Against (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 77–150.Search in Google Scholar

Williams, B. (2005). ‘Realism and Moralism in Political Theory’, in G. Hawthorn (ed.), In the Beginning Was the Deed: Realism and Moralism in Political Argument (Princeton: Princeton University Press), pp. 1–17.Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2018-10-27
Published in Print: 2019-05-27

© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston