Obligation by Association? A Reply to John Horton

Bibliographic Data

ID11586261
AuthorsRichard Vernon (University of Western Ontario, corresponding author)
Year2007
Volume55
Issue4
Pages865-879
Publication date2007-11-07
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenuePolitical Studies (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0032-3217 • E-ISSN: 1467-9248
PublisherSAGE Publishing (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.1111/j.1467-9248.2007.00701.x
OpenAlexW2025994862
LanguageEN
Citations received8
References cited16

In a recent two-part article in this journal, John Horton offers reasons to reject ‘philosophical anarchism’, and claims that rejecting that view should lead us to an ‘associative’ account of political obligations. This article argues for a different conclusion. The claim that local obligations are irreducible or independent is vulnerable to critique, and does not provide a compelling account of moral conflict. Rejecting philosophical anarchism should lead us to a version of moral universalism that can find a place for local attachment

Association (psychology · Epistemology · Moral obligation · Obligation · Political philosophy · Political science · Politics · Sociology · Universalism · Hannah Arendt's Political Philosophy · Law · Philosophy · Political Philosophy and Ethics · War, Ethics, and Justification

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub