Farewell to Political Obligations is a 368-book written by Zhu Jiafeng and published by China Legal Publishing House. The price of this book is 49., and the number of pages is 217-8. The article gives some readers' comments carefully, hoping to be helpful to everyone.

Comments on Farewell to Political Obligations (1): Post the recommendation, preface and table of contents of this book

Recommendation

I think this book is an excellent treatise. It deals with one of the most important topics in political philosophy; Although the literature on political legitimacy has been very rich, it still discusses a very interesting concept of political legitimacy; Its grasp of contemporary literature is very sophisticated; At the same time, the author also showed superb skills in integrating the original argumentation of the work with the brief analysis and criticism of other documents.

-Chen Zuwei (Professor, Department of Politics and Public Administration, Hong Kong University)

If you think that political obligation is easy to prove, at least it may be proved, or that political obligation is a concept that political legitimacy cannot be separated from, this book will bring you novel arguments and arguments that are not easy to refuse. Through careful verification, the author draws a bold and even surprising conclusion, that is, the establishment of political legitimacy can and should abandon the concept of political obligation, because not only can political obligation not be proved, but the legitimacy without political obligation makes sense both conceptually and morally. As this conclusion was reached through discussions with many related scholars, Farewell to Political Obligations also presents a panoramic view of this field of political philosophy. If you are persuaded, your understanding of political legitimacy will fundamentally change. Even if you can't agree, you will get valuable inspiration from the author's unique questioning and careful analysis of political obligations.

—— Ci Jiwei (Professor, Department of Philosophy, Hong Kong University)

I think Farewell to Political Obligations is a model work of studying political philosophy by using Anglo-American analytical approach, and it is one of the best political philosophy works in China at present. Focusing on the core theme of whether we have political obligations, the author goes deep into the forefront of contemporary research, and on the basis of clearly defining relevant concepts and issues, he has launched a rigorous and meticulous internal criticism on the most influential related theories, which further deepens our understanding of political obligations. Its research method is worthy of emulation and reference by young researchers and students, and its research content is worthy of detailed discussion and strong criticism in the same spirit.

-Ge Siyou (Professor of Philosophy Department of East China Normal University)

Preface

This is my first book. I hope this book concisely and clearly presents an original research on legitimacy and political obligation in the field of analytical political philosophy. Let me explain a little. First of all, my so-called "analytical political philosophy" only refers to the study of political philosophy that adopts the "analytical approach", and it is also the mainstream of contemporary British and American political philosophy. Regarding the analytical approach, I benefited from Professor Ge Siyou's discussion on different occasions. If I understand correctly, the essence is that the research of analytical approach focuses on the first-order problem, not just on how others study it (in a phrase I like very much, it requires researchers to "think like Aristotle, not just what Aristotle is thinking"), and tries to promote the solution of this problem with concise and clear analysis and argumentation. The main means is to put forward and demonstrate. Secondly, the above definition of analytical approach also helps me to answer what is original research: this research must promote the understanding or solution of first-order problems, rather than just introducing and commenting on existing arguments. Finally, regarding the requirement of "conciseness and clarity", in a slightly exaggerated way, the analytical approach implements "presumption of guilt" for researchers: if readers with corresponding knowledge background and reading ability can't understand it, it is that the author has not written clearly; It is especially wary that researchers intentionally or unintentionally impose the following unequal burden on readers: through abstruse, obscure, vague and jumping writing, readers are "forced" to think that their discussion is bound to be of great significance.

Taking this book as an example, I try to solve two first-order problems: in a reasonably just country, do citizens have a broad moral obligation to obey the laws of that country (this is a political obligation)? Is political obligation a necessary part of the legitimacy of a country (rule)? In explaining my answers to the above two questions, I defended my position by introducing a series of distinctions (such as the distinction between "cooperation" and "return"), and criticized the existing arguments that are contrary to my views. In addition, this book also tries to meet the requirements of "conciseness and clarity". Specifically, I try to achieve the following goals in my writing: any reader who has finished a (reliable) introduction to political obligations, or who has not read such an introduction but is interested in and dabbled in contemporary British and American political philosophy can read this book. I also hope that the writing of this book is clear enough for academic colleagues to criticize my views and arguments; Of course, in the face of criticism, I usually don't "sit still" (as far as my limited contribution experience is concerned, there is nothing more sour than responding to academic criticism).

This book is based on my doctoral thesis, but it is restated in Chinese. Based on the further consideration of related issues in the past three years after graduation, I have rewritten and expanded many arguments in my doctoral thesis and added new arguments. Therefore, the formation of this book should first thank Uwe Steinhoff, my doctoral thesis supervisor in the Department of Politics and Public Administration of the University of Hong Kong. This book is dedicated to him. Uwe is a rigorous (but humorous), sharp, argumentative and productive political philosopher. As for its high yield, I only give one example. Once I wrote an email to him, he replied: "I have 13 articles in my hand now, and two other papers are about to be published." At the same time, he is also a mentor who can give full respect and support to students. (Of course, for most doctoral students who are not familiar with him in the Department of Politics and Public Administration, their impression of him is probably nothing more than the tall man wearing short sleeves in winter in Hong Kong and his magical and hearty laughter that resounds through the department corridor. ) Uwe's preciseness and sharpness always make the draft paper I gave him return to me every time in the form of "terrible": from English punctuation marks (such as the difference between dash and hyphen) and spaces between characters, to English words and sentence patterns, to the concrete arguments I put forward, and the layout of the whole paper, he either directly marked changes in the text, or gave a subtle and desperate rebuttal in the blank, and it was so long that it made people numb. But he never interferes with my research, nor will he assign me to help him "do private work"; On the contrary, he completely regards me as an independent researcher and tries his best to help me grow. In addition to providing academic criticism and suggestions, he also generously provided the expenses (not a small sum) for English proofreading of papers submitted by our journals and doctoral dissertations. Uwe's sharpness and eloquence are the important reasons for its high yield (he often writes a short essay after reading a paper and throws it out for discussion). These two points have also influenced me more or less. Although I am still less than one tenth of him, it is enough to make us feel the same when we "spit out" some academic works, and it also prompted me to try to write an article to challenge other people's views during my reading. There is another interesting thing about Uwe's debate, which may be mentioned. In the summer of 216, I was lucky enough to attend an international conference on political philosophy jointly organized by Fudan-Harvard-new york University Abu Dhabi (thanks to Professor Bai Tongdong from the School of Philosophy of Fudan University). At the conference, he severely criticized Rawls' "ideal theory", and Professor Mathias Risse from Harvard University (who mainly studies global justice) joked and called him Uwe Bashhoff(bash means fierce attack).

I would also like to thank the members of the defense committee of the doctoral thesis, including Professor Joseph Chan, Professor Ci Jiwei and Professor Gee Klosko, for their affirmation of the thesis and their pertinent suggestions for revision. It is particularly worth mentioning that Professor Klosko's generosity and encouragement to the younger generation show the demeanor of a real scholar. I met him because of a paper that mainly criticized him (see Chapter 5 of this book). He not only spoke highly of the paper, but also promised to be a member of my doctoral thesis defense committee, and he also helped me write a recommendation letter when I applied for a job.

Professor Liu Qing, the head of the political science department of East China Normal University, took me in after my doctoral degree (Mr. Liu also enthusiastically recommended my PhD application at Hong Kong University) and has been giving me a lot of care and support both academically and in life. Half a year after I joined the Political Department of East China Normal University, I was selected as a young researcher of Simian at the suggestion of Professor Mao Haijian, then president of Simian Institute of Humanities and with the support of other senior researchers of Simian, so I enjoyed three years of uninterrupted time to engage in academic research. During my work in East China Normal University, I was also fortunate to have many exchanges with Professor Ge Siyou of the Philosophy Department. Teacher Ge not only provided many useful academic information and suggestions, but also urged me to write this book as soon as possible. Without the help and urging of the above teachers, I am afraid that the formation of this book will be in the foreseeable future, and I am deeply grateful for this.

in addition, the publication of this book also depends on Dr. Wu Yan from the School of Law of East China Normal University and China Legal Publishing House to organize the Collection of Philosophy of Law and Political Philosophy, and to include this book in it. I would like to extend my sincere respect and thanks to Dr. Wu Yan and editor Ma Ying of China Legal Publishing House for their academic enthusiasm and hard work in organizing and publishing this series.

finally, part of this book is taken from my published academic papers. I am grateful to the following journals for allowing me to use these contents in this book:

1. "Legitimacy as a mere moral power: a response to applbaum", diametro S 33, (212): 12-137. Part of the papers are included in the seventh chapter of this book, with slight changes.

2. "Fairness, political contradiction, and the just tory gap", Journal of Moral Philosophy 12, (215): 29-312. The paper constitutes the main content of the fifth chapter of this book, with slight changes when it is included.

3. “Farewell to Political Obligation: In Defense of a Permissive Conception of Legitimacy” , Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, advance article, (215): 1-21, doi: 1.1111/papq.12128. The paper constitutes the main content of the eighth chapter of this book, and it was slightly changed when it was included.

4. On the Justification of Moral Authority, Social Science Research, No.2, 217, pp. 135-143. The thesis constitutes the main content of the first to third sections of the third chapter of this book, and it was slightly changed when it was included.

Contents

Chapter I Introduction

1. Why is political legitimacy a problem

2. Conceptual preparation

3. Political legitimacy, political obligation and philosophy without * * * ism

4. Legitimacy without political obligation: a revised approach

5. Arrangement of this book

Chapter II Theory of Political Obligation: Criteria for Success

I, Particularity

II, Content Independence

III, Universality of Law-abiding Behavior

IV, Universality of Obligation Subject

V, Conclusion: Unequal Importance of Four Criteria

Chapter III proves two approaches to political authority

Instrumental justification of moral authority

III. Non-instrumental justification of moral authority

IV. Approaches to justification of political authority

V. Classification of theories of political obligation and its difficulties

Chapter IV Theory of Natural Political Obligation

I. Estlander's Theory of Political Authority: Cognitive Democracy and Normative Agreement

II. Kant's theory of political obligation: private domination and improper threat

III. willman's theory of political obligation: Samaritan's obligation and fairness

Chapter V: Theory of fair political obligation

I. The gap between the fairness principle of involuntary and the justification

II. Can the voluntarism theory of fair principle bypass the justification gap?

Third, re-examine the theory of fair political obligation

Chapter VI Theory of Democratic Authority

First, Cristiano's theory of equality between the public and the democratic authority

Second, from equality between the public and the democratic authority: three criticisms

Third, the general dilemma of the theory of democratic authority

Chapter VII Opposes the proposition of strict legitimacy: offensive strategy < Appaubaum's view on "legitimacy with political obligation"

II. Cochley's view on "moral negative value" of legitimacy

III. The fallacy of Edmundson's view on "strong legitimacy"

Chapter VIII Opposes the proposition of strict legitimacy: defensive strategies

I. A loose concept of legitimacy: establishing preliminary rationality

II. From the concept,

third, is political obligation a necessary condition for the state to effectively provide public products?

conclusion of chapter 9

1. viewpoints and arguments

2. shortcomings and plans

appendix fairness principles and obedience rules: response to Justin tosi's reference

farewell to political obligations (2): correcting a mistake

the underlined sentence in the picture on page 3 of this book should be ". The original sentence in the book is missing a word "no". Thanks to Lu Pengjie, a doctoral student from the School of Philosophy of China Renmin University, for pointing out this mistake. I'm very sorry for my poor proofreading! If there is a chance to reprint it, it will be corrected!

You are welcome to continue to pick out mistakes, and pick out important mistakes (such as this one) that affect the meaning of the text. Please contact me and I will give you a signature book!

Comments on Farewell to Political Obligations (III): A brief impression

Undoubtedly, this book by Dr. Zhu Jiafeng is a masterpiece in which political obligations and political legitimacy are thoroughly and deeply discussed in the Chinese world, and it is also an outstanding model of analytical philosophy writing and argument. Based on my limited reading experience and