Legitimacy and democracy : a platonic defense of voluntary rule
Abstract/Contents
- Abstract
- Democracy is widely recognized as a distinctively legitimate form of government. In this dissertation I evaluate democracy's claim to political legitimacy. I propose a new theory of political legitimacy based on an ideal of voluntary rule, and I call this view the sovereignty conception. The sovereignty conception of legitimacy employs an interpretation of political freedom as voluntary acceptance of rule, based on the positive governance assessments of individual subjects. Thus, I develop and defend the view that a political order is legitimate to the degree that it achieves widespread consent among subjects on the basis of governance outcomes. Due to its orientation to both quality of outcomes and actual consent to rule, the sovereignty conception offers a novel way to value consent in the political domain. Accordingly, I argue that it addresses important shortcomings in other consent theories of legitimacy, namely, voluntarism and contractualism. I also show the advantages of the sovereignty conception of political legitimacy as compared to two alternative accounts that are not based on consent, Philip Pettit's republicanism and Bernard Williams's political realism. Furthermore, I argue that an ideal of voluntary rule that resonates with the sovereignty conception can be found in Plato's Laws, in which he both distinguishes freedom from justice and emphasizes freedom's distinct value. I develop and defend a new interpretation of the Laws, according to which proper political rule involves respect for the freedom of citizens by aiming at their free acceptance of rule. Finally, I utilize the sovereignty conception of legitimacy to propose an alternative argument for the legitimacy of democracy. According to the sovereignty conception, a democracy is legitimate because it prioritizes actual quality consent over other welfare outcomes through its institutional mechanisms of responsiveness to popular approval and disapproval. I argue that the legitimacy of democracy is better defended by the sovereignty conception than by views based on equality or hypothetical consent, and I analyze in particular the democratic theories of Thomas Christiano, David Estlund, and Joshua Cohen. I propose a new way of combining instrumental and non-instrumental elements in an argument for democracy, resulting in a defense that preserves the distinct contributions of democracy's instrumental and non-instrumental value. Ultimately, I show that the personal sovereignty conception of political legitimacy affords a promising new route to justifying the legitimacy of democracy. Thus, the sovereignty conception of political legitimacy represents a novel approach, one that seeks to articulate the distinct value of political legitimacy vis-à-vis other political values.
Description
| Type of resource | text |
|---|---|
| Form | electronic; electronic resource; remote |
| Extent | 1 online resource. |
| Publication date | 2014 |
| Issuance | monographic |
| Language | English |
Creators/Contributors
| Associated with | Greene, Amanda Ruth |
|---|---|
| Associated with | Stanford University, Department of Philosophy. |
| Primary advisor | Cohen, Joshua, 1951- |
| Thesis advisor | Cohen, Joshua, 1951- |
| Thesis advisor | Bobonich, Christopher |
| Thesis advisor | Satz, Debra |
| Thesis advisor | Wood, Allen W |
| Advisor | Bobonich, Christopher |
| Advisor | Satz, Debra |
| Advisor | Wood, Allen W |
Subjects
| Genre | Theses |
|---|
Bibliographic information
| Statement of responsibility | Amanda Ruth Greene. |
|---|---|
| Note | Submitted to the Department of Philosophy. |
| Thesis | Thesis (Ph.D.)--Stanford University, 2014. |
| Location | electronic resource |
Access conditions
- Copyright
- © 2014 by Amanda Ruth Greene
Also listed in
Loading usage metrics...