Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. The content-independence of political obligation: What it is and how to test it.Laura Valentini - 2018 - Legal Theory 24 (2):135-157.
    One of the distinctive features of the obligation to obey the law is its content-independence. We ought to do what the law commands because the law commands it, and not because of the law's content—i.e., the independent merits of the actions it prescribes. Despite its popularity, the notion of content-independence is marked by ambiguity. In this paper, I first clarify what content-independence is. I then develop a simple test—the “content-independence test”—which allows us to establish whether any candidate justification of the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • In defense of content-independence.Nathan Adams - 2017 - Legal Theory 23 (3):143-167.
    Discussions of political obligation and political authority have long focused on the idea that the commands of genuine authorities constitute content-independent reasons. Despite its centrality in these debates, the notion of content-independence is unclear and controversial, with some claiming that it is incoherent, useless, or increasingly irrelevant. I clarify content-independence by focusing on how reasons can depend on features of their source or container. I then solve the long-standing puzzle of whether the fact that laws can constitute content-independent reasons is (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Fair-play obligations and distributive injustice.Göran Duus-Otterström - 2021 - European Journal of Political Theory 20 (2):167-186.
    This article investigates the relationship between distributive injustice and political obligation within the confines of the fair-play theory of political obligation. More specifically, it asks how the distribution of benefits and burdens of a cooperative scheme affects people’s fair-play obligations to that scheme. It argues that neither a sufficiency-based nor a proportionality-based approach is capable of answering that question singlehandedly. However, the two approaches can be combined in a plausible way. Noting that some of the duties that go into our (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation