Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-nx7b4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-10T13:10:40.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fair Play and Discretionary Response

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 October 2025

George Klosko Open the ORCID record for George Klosko [Opens in a new window]
George Klosko*
Affiliation:
Emeritus, Politics, University of Virginia , Charlottesville, Virginia, USA
*
Email: gk@virginia.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In recent years, scholars argue that, although the principle of fair play is able to establish obligations to reciprocate for benefits received, these do not include political obligations. They contend that recipients themselves should be able to determine the form their recompense takes. I examine different cases of benefit provision and identify instances in which the principle of fair play does not allow such discretion. An important consideration is epistemic difficulties that can be avoided only if citizens accept the judgment of law and follow it. In familiar political obligation cases, disagreements about benefits and burdens should be resolved by democratic procedures. Following decisions arrived at is necessary to avoid problems of two kinds: moral, making sure burdens of cooperation are distributed in ways that are fair to all participants; and empirical/sociological, making sure important benefits are provided.

Keywords

fair playpolitical obligationsdiscretionary responseindispenable benefitsdemocracy

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Legal Theory , Volume 31 , Issue 3 , September 2025 , pp. 248 - 269
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Applbaum, Arthur (2019). Legitimacy: The Right to Rule in a Wanton World. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.10.4159/9780674241923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arneson, Richard (1982). “The Principle of Fairness and Free-Rider Problems.” Ethics 92(4): 616–33.10.1086/292379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, Lawrence (1986) Reciprocity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990.Google Scholar
Beetham, David (2013) The Legitimation of Power. 2nd ed. London: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1007/978-1-137-36117-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broad, C. D. (1916) “On The Function of False Hypotheses in Ethics.” International Journal of Ethics 26(3): 377–397.10.1086/intejethi.26.3.2377052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Brookes (2020) “Reciprocity Without Compliance,” Philosophy & Public Affairs 48: 382–421.10.1111/papa.12176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Brookes (2023) “Impartiality and Fair Play Revisited,” Journal of Political Philosophy 31: 315–336.10.1111/jopp.12300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Brookes. Forthcoming. “Political Obligation and the Unitary State.” In Oxford Handbook of Political Obligation. Klosko, G., ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Christiano, Thomas (2008) The Constitution of Equality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198297475.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dagger, Richard (2018) Playing Fair: Political Obligation and the Problems of Punishment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199388837.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dicey, Albert V (1914) Lectures on the Relation Between Law and Public Opinion in England During the Nineteenth Century. 2nd ed. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald (1977) Taking Rights Seriously. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Estlund, David (2008) Democratic Authority. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gallie, Walter B. (1955–56) “Essentially Contested Concepts.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. New Series 56: 167–198.10.1093/aristotelian/56.1.167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guerrero, Alex (2014) “Against Elections: The Lottocratic Alternative.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 42: 135–178.10.1111/papa.12029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guerrero, Alexande (2021) “The Epistemic Pathologies of Elections and the Epistemic Promise of Lottocracy.” In Politics and Truth: New Perspectives in Political Epistemology. Edenberg, Elizabeth and Hannon, Michael, eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gur, Noam (2012) “Normative Weighing and Legal Guidance of Conduct,” Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 25: 373–389.10.1017/S0841820900005853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. (1955) “Are There Any Natural Rights?” Philosophical Review 6: 175–191.10.2307/2182586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huemer, Michael (2013) The Problem of Political Authority: An Examination of the Right to Coerce and the Duty to Obey. New York: Macmillan.10.1057/9781137281661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, Andrew (2020) “Despite Claims, Trump Rarely Uses Wartime Law in Battle Against Covid.” New York Times, September 22, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/22/health/Covid-Trump-Defense-Production-Act.html (accessed December 2020).Google Scholar
Johns Hopkins University of Medicine (2023) “Mortality in the most affected countries”. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality (accessed June 2023).Google Scholar
Klosko, George (1992) The Principle of Fairness and Political Obligation. Savage, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Landemore, Hélène (2012) Democratic Reason: Politics, Collective Intelligence, and the Rule of the Many. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, David (1965) Forms and Limits of Utilitarianism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198241973.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mittiga, Ross (2022) “Political Legitimacy, Authoritarianism, and Climate Change.” American Political Science Review 116: 998–1011.10.1017/S0003055421001301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Archives (n.d.) “Records of the War Production Board, National Archives”. https://www.archives.gov/research/guide-fed-records/groups/179.html#179.1 (January 2020).Google Scholar
National WWII Museum (2017). “Out-Producing the Enemy: American Production During WWII.” National WWII Museum. https://www.nationalww2museum.org/sites/default/files/2017-07/mv-education-package.pdf (accessed December 2020).Google Scholar
Pitkin, Hannah (1966) “Obligation and Consent, Part Two”. American Political Science Review 60: 39–52.10.2307/1953805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, Ian (2003) The State of Democratic Theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Simmons, A. John (1979) Moral Principles and Political Obligations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Stewart, Conor (2023) “Cumulative number of coronavirus deaths in the Nordics 2023”. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1113834/cumulative-coronavirus-deaths-in-the-nordics/ (accessed June 2023).Google Scholar
Tosi, Justin (2018) “Rethinking the Principle of Fair Play”. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 99: 612–631.10.1111/papq.12219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vergun, David (2020) “During WWII, Industries Transitioned from Peacetime to Wartime Production,” DOD News, March 27, 2020. https://www.doncio.navy.mil/chips/ArticleDetails.aspx?ID=13326 (accessed Dec. 2020).Google Scholar
Viehoff, Daniel (2014) “Democratic Equality and Political Authority.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 42(4): 337–375.10.1111/papa.12036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhu, Jiafeng (2015) “Fairness, Political Obligation, and the Justificatory Gap”. Journal of Moral Philosophy 12: 290–312.10.1163/17455243-4681047CrossRefGoogle Scholar