The Sovereign and the Republic a

Ekow N. Yankah
{"title":"The Sovereign and the Republic a","authors":"Ekow N. Yankah","doi":"10.18574/nyu/9781479888696.003.0005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Philosophically, we live in a liberal age, one that accords individual rights primacy of place among political values. Accordingly, contemporary conceptions of political and legal obligation treat sovereignty as perplexing, straining to justify how authority can impose on individual freedom and obligate one to obey law.  From Hobbes to Kant to Rawls, liberal thinkers have had to stitch together a civic sovereign from the free will of each individual. As against the machinations required to justify sovereignty beginning from the liberal premise of individual freedom, I suggest a fundamental reexamining of liberal freedom.  In its place, I will argue for a return to a classic conception of Athenian or Aristotelian republicanism as the basis of political obligation. Reigning for perhaps millennia, yet strangely absent from contemporary theory, the ancient view argues that political obligation is based on our natural and unavoidable interconnectedness.  Aristotle’s persuasive arguments that human beings need political communities to survive and flourish, now fortified by modern social science, illustrates why sovereignty is not a puzzle but rather a natural extension of our civic interconnectedness and gives rise to political obligation.","PeriodicalId":119174,"journal":{"name":"Political Legitimacy","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Legitimacy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18574/nyu/9781479888696.003.0005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Philosophically, we live in a liberal age, one that accords individual rights primacy of place among political values. Accordingly, contemporary conceptions of political and legal obligation treat sovereignty as perplexing, straining to justify how authority can impose on individual freedom and obligate one to obey law.  From Hobbes to Kant to Rawls, liberal thinkers have had to stitch together a civic sovereign from the free will of each individual. As against the machinations required to justify sovereignty beginning from the liberal premise of individual freedom, I suggest a fundamental reexamining of liberal freedom.  In its place, I will argue for a return to a classic conception of Athenian or Aristotelian republicanism as the basis of political obligation. Reigning for perhaps millennia, yet strangely absent from contemporary theory, the ancient view argues that political obligation is based on our natural and unavoidable interconnectedness.  Aristotle’s persuasive arguments that human beings need political communities to survive and flourish, now fortified by modern social science, illustrates why sovereignty is not a puzzle but rather a natural extension of our civic interconnectedness and gives rise to political obligation.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
君主与共和国
从哲学上讲,我们生活在一个自由的时代,一个将个人权利置于政治价值首位的时代。因此,当代政治和法律义务的概念将主权视为令人困惑的,难以证明权力如何能够强加于个人自由并迫使一个人服从法律。从霍布斯(Hobbes)到康德(Kant)再到罗尔斯(Rawls),自由主义思想家不得不从每个人的自由意志中拼凑出一种公民主权。为了反对从个人自由的自由主义前提出发为主权辩护所需要的阴谋,我建议从根本上重新审视自由主义的自由。取而代之的是,我将主张回归古典概念,即雅典或亚里士多德的共和主义,作为政治义务的基础。这种古老的观点统治了大约几千年,但奇怪的是,它没有出现在当代理论中,它认为政治义务是基于我们自然的、不可避免的相互联系。亚里士多德关于人类需要政治团体来生存和繁荣的有说服力的论点,现在得到了现代社会科学的支持,说明了为什么主权不是一个谜,而是我们公民相互联系的自然延伸,并产生了政治义务。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Trustworthy Government and Legitimating Beliefs Is Political Legitimacy Worth Promoting? On the Empirical Measurement of Legitimacy Evaluating Consensual Models of Governance The Sovereign and the Republic a
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1