Assessing A. J. Simmonss Theory of Philosophical Anarchism - Essay Example

Assessing A. J. Simmons’s Theory of Philosophical Anarchism Simmons’s philosophical anarchism theory covers various philosophical perceptions on the nature of politics in the society. Philosophical anarchists mainly focus on individuals’ political obligation in the state. More so, they question the legitimacy of the state as an institution and so they also consider eliminating the state because to them, the state is unjust and illegitimate. Anarchists perceive the state as an institution with no moral legitimacy and so individuals have no political obligation to obey state laws or even support the state. In his writing, Simmons advocates for self-regulation of a social order and opposes institutional regulation. Anarchists claim that social and political life without the intervention of the state is possible. Anarchism argues that social stability in the society can be maintained easily is no state existed because individuals are capable of acting morally and treating each other justly without being ordered to do so. Philosophical anarchists including Simmons have been justly condemned due to their complete denial of the state and political obligation, owing to the fact that individuals’ autonomy to do what pleases them should also be put into consideration. Anarchism rejects any form of political organizations, with some anarchists even attempting to overthrow the government (Kraut 173). They demand that political bonds must be voluntary and the states should act as voluntary associations. Therefore, there is no obligation to obey the state since the states are illegitimate, and this removes any strong moral presumption in favor of obedience and support of any existing state. As such, a controversy may exist since an obligation to obey is usually denied and the choice of rejecting or accepting political obligation is between obedience and social chaos. Anarchists argue that the only acceptable source of political obligations comes from voluntary acts since most people do not voluntarily assume political obligation, making the states illegitimate (Sinnerbrink 165). Strong anarchists even view the government as a form of evil that undermines the personal judgment of people in the society (Springer 1606). There are two forms of philosophical anarchism, that is, priori anarchism which views the state as morally illegitimate due to some of its characteristics such as the coercive character. On the other hand, posteriori anarchists argue that the state is not legitimate because of their contingent characters (Simmons, 105). Generally, philosophical anarchism argues that political bonds have to be voluntary. More so, this school of thought claims that the state is not a voluntary association and that states are illegitimate and so individuals have no moral duty to obey the existing states. Anarchists also argue from a moral perspective in supporting their arguments. Many people believe in certain moral aspects of life and thus many obey law just as a coincidence with their daily moral practice. In most cases, people under this condition need to act morally due to external justification of the morality, and not because they are pressured by a particular moral obligation of the state. Simmons argues that some duties most individuals hold on to include refraining from harming others, and, many people would respond to such a duty with less regard to the state (Simmons, 105). He adds that such duties to do what is right can be enforced by establishing informal cooperation’s systems that can easily guide moral behavior without political institutions. It is thus possible to conceive a state of nature whereby individuals can enjoy equal rights in pursuing their dreams with less external interference. This is because people are more likely to behave well in a state of perfect freedom and conscience as they tend to pursue their plans in life. Simmons argues that voluntary consent of individuals is a morally accepted way in which the states can exercise their political authority properly. This ideology is based on the argument that people should be at liberty to determine their own actions and decisions in planning their lives. Membership of certain institutions is likely to interfere with the principles of freedom and autonomy. There are many criticisms that have been advanced against philosophical anarchism. First and foremost, philosophical anarchists have been criticized on their views on political obligation and the legitimacy of the state. Anarchists have been accused of failing to take legitimacy of the state to include a strong moral imperative before trying to judge or eliminate the states. They instead focus on state illegitimacy so as to do away with strong moral presumption in favor of obedience, compliance and supporting the states (Simmons, 104). Additionally, scholars have challenged the stance of philosophical anarchists on coercion claiming that it is not compatible with political voluntarism. Anarchists did not actually consider non-coercive types of political power and so other philosophers have challenged the possibility of voluntary political associations. Philosophical anarchists claim that individuals should not be forced to support the state and obey its laws. This is so because the law does not have independent moral importance. Therefore, citizens are not obligated to obey such laws and they should not even support the leadership of such state. On the contrary, scholars have criticized this with the view that rejection of an obligation to obey the laws of the society implies the denial of justice in the society. According to philosophical anarchists, rejecting or supporting the state depends on the operations of the state. However, this is not the case because people need to act morally based on the moral principles of the society and not just because the law commands them to do so. Individuals are expected to obey the laws of the state because these laws coincide with what the society defines as morally acceptable. Another criticism advanced against this theory is that voluntarism is not appropriate mode of political association and so voluntarism is irrelevant. According to philosophical anarchists, voluntary acts are the only acceptable source of political obligation and they claim that societal members do not assume their political obligations voluntarily. This claim has been refuted by some scholars who argue that political life is comprised of voluntary and non- voluntary ties. Critiques posit that a totally voluntarist or non-voluntarist for of political association cannot function independently in a more effective manner. Opponents of philosophical anarchism argue that political lives involve both voluntary and non-voluntary bonds as subjects interact with their government. Therefore, it is wrong for proponents of philosophical anarchy to argue that governing intuitions are fully coercing their subjects into accepting their policies. Opponents of philosophical anarchism also argue that obligation as obedience precludes voluntary political self-determination, since politics involve voluntary and involuntary ties. Therefore, an entirely voluntarist form of political association is just as incomplete as existing non-involuntary defenses of general political obligation. Moreover, anarchists’ ideas have been refuted like their argument that individuals’ rights and moral duties of justice can be upheld in absence of any political authority. Philosophical anarchists argue further that the rights and duties of citizens can be defined if they fulfill the common interpersonal duties. Anti-anarchists group opposes this claiming that ensuring that the rights of individuals cannot be violated easily if there is political authority. In addition, anarchism failed to provide any proof that legitimate authority needs to create a requirement to obey the laws. Scholars argue that authority of command and its power to create a requirement to obey is very different from its legitimacy. Moreover, philosophical anarchism has been criticized for entirely focusing on political obligation as obedience and ignores voluntary political self-determination. Anarchists view political obligation as obedience instead of considering voluntary assumed obligations to take other types of political action. Anarchists are convinced that obedience is not all about doing what has been instructed but it is about doing what individuals have been told to do because they have been instructed to do so. They believe that the moral duty to obey laws requires individuals to surrender their autonomy (Gans, 18). Philosophical anarchism puts a lot of emphasis on the authority and ignores coercion and as a result, it eliminates clear distinction between the state and the government. Anarchists argue that political obligation requires comprehensive obedience. However, this is not the case because voluntarist political obligation is independent in that, individuals determine what they are assigned to do when they assume the obligation. This means that political voluntarism includes political self-determination through individuals’ voluntarily assumed obligations. Nevertheless, philosophical anarchism has been criticized based on its priori projection of coercion. Other philosophers like Horton have not agreed with philosophical anarchists on their view of non-voluntary bonds and he argues that non-voluntary ties are also very important. Horton believes that the rejection of coercion do not direct the society on how to deal with those societal member who act immorally. Power (229) posits that there exists no separation between politics and ethics; therefore, the government is justified to impose their rule of the general public. He argues further that voluntary moral requirements sometimes correspond to laws, but they do not rest on an independent general requirement in obeying such laws. A blanket rejection of coercion can tell what to do when people flout moral requirements and thus an anarchist stance on coercion is incompatible with political voluntarism. Some scholars claim that the state is not the only coercive institution in social life and they have accused anarchists of considering mutual agreement to social norms without telling the society how to enforce compliance. They argue further that political coercion does not mean the inability of people to do what they want, but it refers to a situation in which a person articulates choices for other individuals by force. On the other hand, philosophical anarchists’ views on the state and political obligation need to be considered because the state should provide citizens with an autonomous life. Individuals need to be at liberty to do whatever to they want without being ordered around. According to Rawls (334), the structure of the society is just and every societal member is expected to perform their duties as assigned. The principle of fairness states that individuals are expected to perform their moral duties as outlined by the institutional rules. Therefore, philosophical anarchism has got some sense, for instance, the political system plays a very important role in the society including creating unity and maintaining stability among others. The Society is able to exist based on their morals and ethics, but the governing institution is entrusted to enforce this. Not everyone in the society is able to uphold the moral expectations of the society, thus a state is needed to enforce the fundamental freedoms to the people. There is a strong relation between politics and ethics; hence, the states are justified to continue existing. In conclusion, philosophical anarchists mainly argue that the state is illegitimate and so individuals have no moral duty to obey the laws of the state and support the leadership of the state. Anarchists claim that peace and social stability can be maintained without any legislative power in control because individuals will be able to treat each other more justly. Philosophical anarchists argue that political bonds need to be voluntary and that states are not voluntary solutions and so individuals are not charged with moral responsibility to obey the laws of the state. The perceptions of these anarchists have been criticized by many other philosophers who argue that voluntarism is not appropriate form of political association as claimed by the anarchists. Moreover, they have been accused of denying political obligation and it is necessary to conform to the social norms of the society and obey the laws of the society. On the contrary, the state needs to guarantee individuals an autonomous life in which they can do whatever they want. Works Cited Gans, Chaim. Philosophical Anarchism and Political Disobedience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Print. Kraut, Julia. Global Anti-Anarchism: The Origins of Ideological Deportation and the Suppression of Expression. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies. 2012, Vol. 19 Issue 1, p169-193 Power, Nina. Which Anarchism? On the Advantages and Disadvantages of Infinity for (Political) Life: A Response to Simon Critchleys Infinitely Demanding. Critical Horizons. 2009, Vol. 10 Issue 2, p225-240. Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1971. Internet resource. Simmons, John. Justification and Legitimacy: Essays on Rights and Obligations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Print. Sinnerbrink, R. Neo-Anarchism or Neo-Liberalism? Yes, Please! A Response to Simon Critchleys Infinitely Demanding. Critical Horizons. 2009, Vol. 10 Issue 2, p163-179. Springer, Simon. Anarchism! What Geography Still Ought To Be. Antipode. Nov 2012, Vol. 44 Issue 5, p1605-1624. Read More