Eric Boot | University of Amsterdam (original) (raw)

Publications by Eric Boot

International Encyclopedia of Ethics, 2022

The common good has traditionally been a keystone of normative political theory, but its meaning ... more The common good has traditionally been a keystone of normative political theory, but its meaning has been contested. Possible meanings include the aggregrative, procedural, and unitary, and, most recently, a civic account seeing the common good as those goods that all share qua members of the public. The balance between different meanings has changed over time, with aggregative meanings (i.e., the common good as the sum of individual goods) increasing in frequency from the eighteenth century on but challenged in the twentieth. In a major twentieth-century confrontation, empirical social scientists joined some philosophers to argue both that a single conception of the common good was inappropriate for a pluralist society and that the common good could not be known. In response, deliberative theorists, civic republicans, and communitarians argued that uncertainty and contest regarding its meaning should not prevent individuals or communities from trying to act for the common good or from developing a politics in which the common good, conceived always as contested, plays a central role.

Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2022

A whistleblower is someone who, in the course of her work, comes across wrongdoing in her organiz... more A whistleblower is someone who, in the course of her work, comes across wrongdoing in her organization and reports it with the aim of bringing a particular harmful policy to an end. Such a report can be submitted internally within one’s organization, externally to the proper supervisory authorities, or externally to the public, via the media. Of these three, the last raises the most ethical questions. Cases of such public whistleblowing often give rise to heedless and one-sided appraisals: the whistleblower is either reviled as a traitor or extolled as a hero. The ethics of whistleblowing intends to make moral sense of whistleblowers’ actions. Often, whistleblowing is seen as something that requires justification, indicating that it is morally wrongful. But for what reasons might one view whistleblowing to be an, at least pro tanto, morally wrongful act? And, given this wrongfulness, under what conditions might it nonetheless be justified or morally permissible? At first glance, one might hesitate to view an act of whistleblowing as obligatory; experience shows that whistleblowers are often treated quite harshly; they are demoted, bullied, fired, and even imprisoned. In view of these personal risks, ought we not to view whistleblowing instead as an act of supererogation, beyond the call of duty?

Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics., 2022

Appeals to the public interest in fields such as politics and law are commonplace. Government pol... more Appeals to the public interest in fields such as politics and law are commonplace. Government policies are criticized for contravening the public interest. A whistleblower’s violation of government secrecy laws may be deemed justified because their disclosures are in the public interest. Human rights violations may be considered justified if a particularly weighty public interest (national security, public health) is at stake. If biobanking promotes the public interest, its ambiguous relation to privacy may be deemed acceptable. The problem is that such appeals are made without clarifying what the public interest is and how it can be determined.

Political philosophers are particularly well qualified to provide much-needed conceptual clarification and moral argument, yet during the past few decades they have largely ignored the issue. This is the consequence of a certain uneasiness with the concept of the public interest: It has been criticized for being empty, inimical to contemporary pluralistic societies, and a mere veil for the self-serving interests of the powerful. Proponents of the concept, however, respond that it is possible to provide a clear account of the public interest that meets (most of) these criticisms. The aggregative theory, for example, holds that the public interest corresponds simply to the sum of the private interests of those who make up the public. The procedural approach, instead, hopes to distill the public interest from a plethora of private interests through the process of either democratic competition or deliberation. Where these two accounts of the public interest derive the public interest from people’s private interests, the unitary account derives it instead from a comprehensive moral theory that applies equally to private and public interests. Finally, the civic account maintains that the public interest consists in interests we share in our capacity as citizens.

Proponents of the concept of the public interest, moreover, argue that it can do normative work no other concept can. Though political philosophy has been dominated by the concept of justice for decades, not all political philosophical matters are reducible to questions of justice. Public interest is used to justify facilities, policies, and actions that are somehow beyond the purview of justice, such as public infrastructure, the disclosure of state secrets, the placing of limits on human rights, and much more.

Routledge , 2019

Following the enormous political, legal, and media interest that has surrounded high profile case... more Following the enormous political, legal, and media interest that has surrounded high profile cases of whistleblowing, such as Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden, the fundamental ethical questions surrounding whistleblowing have often been obscured. In this fascinating book Eric Boot examines the ethical issues at stake in whistleblowing.

Can the disclosure of classified government documents ever be justified? If so, how? Why does it require justification in the first place? Can there ever be a duty to blow the whistle? When is breaking the law justified?

On a more practical level, this book also considers the various whistleblower protection documents and finds them often lacking in consistency and clarity, before providing an argument for a plausible "public interest" defense for whistleblowers.

Law and Philosophy, 2020

It is commonly stated, by both whistleblower protection laws and political philosophers, that a b... more It is commonly stated, by both whistleblower protection laws and political philosophers, that a breach of state secrecy by disclosing classified documents is justified if it serves the public interest. The problem with this defense of justified whistleblowing, however, is that the operative term-the public interest-is all too often left unclarified. This is problematic, because it leaves potential whistleblowers without sufficient certainty that their disclosures will be covered by the defense, leading many to err on the side of caution and remain silent, depriving the public of much-needed information. Failing an agreed upon definition of the public interest or a process to determine it, judges' applications of the public interest in whistleblowing cases have been criticized for demonstrating 'judicial idiosyncrasy'. The present paper, therefore, sets out to (1) provide some clarity concerning the concept of the public interest, and (2) to ascertain the extent to which a public interest defense for whistleblowing is feasible and desirable. I. INTRODUCING THE PROBLEM Contemporary liberal democracies recognize the importance of citizens having access to government information. Transparency is of fundamental importance for an informed public debate as well as for democratic accountability, which is why many countries have freedom of information laws. Nonetheless, few support Julian Assange's call for complete transparency and his rejection of legitimate secrets. Even NGOs promoting transparency such as Transparency International are prepared to allow for exceptions when national security and official secrets are involved.

Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 2019

Political philosophical work on whistleblowing has thus far neglected the role of journalists. A ... more Political philosophical work on whistleblowing has thus far neglected the role of journalists. A curious oversight, given that the whistleblower's objective-informing the public about government wrongdoing-can typically not be realized without the media. The present article, therefore, aims to start remedying this neglect by exploring some of the most pressing questions. Accordingly, the paper will be structured as follows: Section 1 will explain why the authorities have treated whistleblowers far more harshly than the journalists who publish their disclosures. Still, the freedom of expression of media workers is (and ought to be) less extensive than that of ordinary individuals. Section 2 will explain why by arguing that the freedom of expression of the press, contrary to that of individuals, is not an unconditional good; instead, it is good merely instrumentally. Section 3 considers and refutes an argument for a more expansive press freedom based on the marketplace of ideas model and, in doing so, also discusses some important differences between the ethics of the traditional and the new online media. Often journalists, like whistleblowers, will justify their publications based on leaked classified documents by appealing to the public interest. Yet, this is problematic for two reasons: (1) the public interest is never clarified; and (2) this argument overlooks the fact that the public interest can also be a reason for not publishing about leaked classified documents, even if the leaks are verified (in the interest of national security, for example). Accordingly, Section 5 sets out to clarify the public interest. Section 4 then discusses two case studies-one concerning unverified leaks, and one concerning verified leaks-in order to demonstrate how we might employ the concept of the public interest in order to determine the permissibility of publishing about leaked classified information in practice.

Journal of Moral Philosophy, 2019

Ratio Juris, 2018

Given the crucial role unauthorized disclosures can play in uncovering grave government wrongdoin... more Given the crucial role unauthorized disclosures can play in uncovering grave government wrongdoing, it makes sense to search for a defense of justified cases of what I call " classified public whistleblowing. " The question that concerns me is what form such a defense should take. The main claim will be a negative one, namely, that a defense of whistleblowing cannot be based on individual rights, be they legal or moral, though this is indeed the most commonly proposed defense. In closing, I will outline a more appealing alternative, namely, a justification defense.

Ethic@. An International Journal for Moral Philosophy, 2017

This paper aims to clarify how Kant understood the relation between the two spheres of morals (Ri... more This paper aims to clarify how Kant understood the relation between the two spheres of morals (Right and virtue). Did he, as O'Neill claims, acknowledge the need for civic virtue as necessary for maintaining a liberal state? Or did he take the opposite view (shared by many contemporary liberals) that citizens' virtuous dispositions are irrelevant and that all that matters is the justice of institutions? Though The Metaphysics of Morals gives the impression that Kant shared the latter position, I will argue that, in fact, Kant held a position somewhere between the Rousseauian view (which O'Neill believes Kant endorsed) that the essential difficulty of politics concerns the cultivation of civic duty in citizens, and contemporary liberals' exclusive focus on the justice of institutions, by arguing that it is the laws themselves that foster respect for the laws. In short, Kant views virtue as the felicitous by-product of legality.

Social Theory and Practice, 2017

Though whistleblowing is quickly becoming an accepted means of addressing wrongdoing, whistleblow... more Though whistleblowing is quickly becoming an accepted means of addressing wrongdoing, whistleblower protection laws and the relevant case law are either awkwardly silent, unclear or mutually inconsistent concerning public disclosures of classi ed government information. I remedy this problem by rst arguing that such disclosures constitute a pro tanto wrong as they violate (1) promissory obligations, (2) role obligations and (3) the obligation to respect the democratic allocation of power. However, they may be justi ed if (1) the information disclosed concerns grave government wrongdoing, (2) alternative channels of disclosure are rst exhausted and (3) steps are taken to minimize harm.

Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Mensenrechten, 2016

Samenvatting In een tijd waarin ons normatieve denken wordt gedomineerd door het mensenrechtendis... more Samenvatting In een tijd waarin ons normatieve denken wordt gedomineerd door het mensenrechtendiscours zal ik een betoog houden voor het belang van plichten. Anticiperend op de kritiek dat een dergelijk betoog een bedreiging voor onze mensenrechten vormt, zal ik aan de hand van een uitgebreide studie van artikel 29 UVRM aantonen dat (1) de opstellers van de UVRM reeds vanaf het begin plichten een prominente plek wilden geven; (2) dat dit geen bedreiging voor onze rechten vormt; (3) dat het onze rechten juist ten goede komt; en (4) dat aandacht voor onze plichten jegens de gemeenschap ons zowel een meer complete voorstelling van ons morele landschap geeft alsook een aantrekkelijker beeld schetst van de relatie tussen het individu en de gemeenschap waarin zij zich bevindt. Trefwoorden Mensenrechten, plichten, rechtsfilosofie, travaux préparatoires. [artikel 29 UVRM]

Various human rights documents list the human right to an adequate standard of living. While the ... more Various human rights documents list the human right to an adequate standard of living. While the content of the duties of States and non-State actors are being made increasingly clear, the duties we have as individuals with regard to this human right are left nearly completely undefined. This article therefore wishes to clarify, firstly which duties towards the global poor we have as individuals and, secondly, what the status of these duties is. I will argue that nearly all our duties that stem from global subsistence needs are at present duties of virtue. I will arrive at this conclusion in two steps. Section I will aim to provide an exhaustive overview of our individual duties related to global subsistence needs. Next, Section II will need to ascertain the status of each of these duties. Accordingly, it will first have to offer definitions of the distinction between perfect and imperfect duties, and of the difference between duties of justice and duties of virtue. Subsequently, these definitions will be applied to the duties presented in Section I. Finally, I will conclude with a brief reflection on the significance of virtue as a necessary complement to justice.

Books by Eric Boot

Springer International Publishing, 2017

Book Reviews by Eric Boot

Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 2021

Algemeen Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Wijsbegeerte, 2017

International Dialogue: A Multidisciplinary Journal of World Affairs, 2016

It is quite common to make the argument that a stable liberal democracy requires high levels of c... more It is quite common to make the argument that a stable liberal democracy requires high levels of compliance with the law. Scholars disagree, however, how such reliable and widespread compliance can be achieved. Roughly, liberals have traditionally emphasized the importance of arriving at compliance by way of autonomous and critical reasoning, whereas others (communitarians and republicans chiefly) argue that autonomous motives are notoriously weak and can, therefore, not by themselves bring about a high enough rate of compliance. The exclusionary importance accorded to autonomy by (many) liberals bars the state from cultivating the habits, sentiments and civic virtue upon which a polity's stability depends. By contrast, many republicans follow Rousseau when he states that it is necessary for the law to reach the citizens' hearts: " So long as the legislative force does not reach that deep, the laws will invariably be evaded " (Rousseau 1997: 179). We ought to, in other words, acknowledge the importance of nonautonomous motives for compliance stemming from character, sentiments, habits, beliefs and identities.

Dissertation by Eric Boot

The present study aims to demonstrate the importance of a renewed focus on duty in normative disc... more The present study aims to demonstrate the importance of a renewed focus on duty in normative discourse. The dominance of what has been labeled “rights talk” leads to the neglect of duties without corresponding rights (i.e. duties of virtue) and stimulates the proliferation of questionable human rights. In order to remedy these problems, this dissertation argues for the adoption of a duties-based perspective on morality in order to, firstly, salvage duties of virtue, and, secondly, counter the trend of rights proliferation by providing some conceptual clarity concerning rights and duties that will enable us to differentiate between genuine and spurious claims to the status of “right.”
The argument for this duties-based perspective is made by elaborately examining two particularly contentious duties, namely our duties to aid the global poor and our duties to the community. These two duties serve as case studies and are explored from the perspective of various disciplines, including human rights law, political theory and moral philosophy. The argument is made that both duties can only be adequately defined and allocated if we adopt the perspective of duties, as the predominant perspective of rights either does not recognize them to be duties at all, or else leaves their content and allocation completely indefinite.
The point of this renewed focus on duties is emphatically not to detract anything from the importance of rights. Rather, the duties-based perspective on morality will have a salutary effect on our human rights discourse by distinguishing more strictly between genuine and inauthentic rights. Furthermore, a duties-based approach enlarges the moral playing field, by recognizing both duties of justice and duties of virtue. The latter include such fundamental duties as duties to aid the global poor and civic duties, which function as indispensable complements to the duties prescribed by the sphere of justice.

International Encyclopedia of Ethics, 2022

The common good has traditionally been a keystone of normative political theory, but its meaning ... more The common good has traditionally been a keystone of normative political theory, but its meaning has been contested. Possible meanings include the aggregrative, procedural, and unitary, and, most recently, a civic account seeing the common good as those goods that all share qua members of the public. The balance between different meanings has changed over time, with aggregative meanings (i.e., the common good as the sum of individual goods) increasing in frequency from the eighteenth century on but challenged in the twentieth. In a major twentieth-century confrontation, empirical social scientists joined some philosophers to argue both that a single conception of the common good was inappropriate for a pluralist society and that the common good could not be known. In response, deliberative theorists, civic republicans, and communitarians argued that uncertainty and contest regarding its meaning should not prevent individuals or communities from trying to act for the common good or from developing a politics in which the common good, conceived always as contested, plays a central role.

Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2022

A whistleblower is someone who, in the course of her work, comes across wrongdoing in her organiz... more A whistleblower is someone who, in the course of her work, comes across wrongdoing in her organization and reports it with the aim of bringing a particular harmful policy to an end. Such a report can be submitted internally within one’s organization, externally to the proper supervisory authorities, or externally to the public, via the media. Of these three, the last raises the most ethical questions. Cases of such public whistleblowing often give rise to heedless and one-sided appraisals: the whistleblower is either reviled as a traitor or extolled as a hero. The ethics of whistleblowing intends to make moral sense of whistleblowers’ actions. Often, whistleblowing is seen as something that requires justification, indicating that it is morally wrongful. But for what reasons might one view whistleblowing to be an, at least pro tanto, morally wrongful act? And, given this wrongfulness, under what conditions might it nonetheless be justified or morally permissible? At first glance, one might hesitate to view an act of whistleblowing as obligatory; experience shows that whistleblowers are often treated quite harshly; they are demoted, bullied, fired, and even imprisoned. In view of these personal risks, ought we not to view whistleblowing instead as an act of supererogation, beyond the call of duty?

Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics., 2022

Appeals to the public interest in fields such as politics and law are commonplace. Government pol... more Appeals to the public interest in fields such as politics and law are commonplace. Government policies are criticized for contravening the public interest. A whistleblower’s violation of government secrecy laws may be deemed justified because their disclosures are in the public interest. Human rights violations may be considered justified if a particularly weighty public interest (national security, public health) is at stake. If biobanking promotes the public interest, its ambiguous relation to privacy may be deemed acceptable. The problem is that such appeals are made without clarifying what the public interest is and how it can be determined.

Political philosophers are particularly well qualified to provide much-needed conceptual clarification and moral argument, yet during the past few decades they have largely ignored the issue. This is the consequence of a certain uneasiness with the concept of the public interest: It has been criticized for being empty, inimical to contemporary pluralistic societies, and a mere veil for the self-serving interests of the powerful. Proponents of the concept, however, respond that it is possible to provide a clear account of the public interest that meets (most of) these criticisms. The aggregative theory, for example, holds that the public interest corresponds simply to the sum of the private interests of those who make up the public. The procedural approach, instead, hopes to distill the public interest from a plethora of private interests through the process of either democratic competition or deliberation. Where these two accounts of the public interest derive the public interest from people’s private interests, the unitary account derives it instead from a comprehensive moral theory that applies equally to private and public interests. Finally, the civic account maintains that the public interest consists in interests we share in our capacity as citizens.

Proponents of the concept of the public interest, moreover, argue that it can do normative work no other concept can. Though political philosophy has been dominated by the concept of justice for decades, not all political philosophical matters are reducible to questions of justice. Public interest is used to justify facilities, policies, and actions that are somehow beyond the purview of justice, such as public infrastructure, the disclosure of state secrets, the placing of limits on human rights, and much more.

Routledge , 2019

Following the enormous political, legal, and media interest that has surrounded high profile case... more Following the enormous political, legal, and media interest that has surrounded high profile cases of whistleblowing, such as Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden, the fundamental ethical questions surrounding whistleblowing have often been obscured. In this fascinating book Eric Boot examines the ethical issues at stake in whistleblowing.

Can the disclosure of classified government documents ever be justified? If so, how? Why does it require justification in the first place? Can there ever be a duty to blow the whistle? When is breaking the law justified?

On a more practical level, this book also considers the various whistleblower protection documents and finds them often lacking in consistency and clarity, before providing an argument for a plausible "public interest" defense for whistleblowers.

Law and Philosophy, 2020

It is commonly stated, by both whistleblower protection laws and political philosophers, that a b... more It is commonly stated, by both whistleblower protection laws and political philosophers, that a breach of state secrecy by disclosing classified documents is justified if it serves the public interest. The problem with this defense of justified whistleblowing, however, is that the operative term-the public interest-is all too often left unclarified. This is problematic, because it leaves potential whistleblowers without sufficient certainty that their disclosures will be covered by the defense, leading many to err on the side of caution and remain silent, depriving the public of much-needed information. Failing an agreed upon definition of the public interest or a process to determine it, judges' applications of the public interest in whistleblowing cases have been criticized for demonstrating 'judicial idiosyncrasy'. The present paper, therefore, sets out to (1) provide some clarity concerning the concept of the public interest, and (2) to ascertain the extent to which a public interest defense for whistleblowing is feasible and desirable. I. INTRODUCING THE PROBLEM Contemporary liberal democracies recognize the importance of citizens having access to government information. Transparency is of fundamental importance for an informed public debate as well as for democratic accountability, which is why many countries have freedom of information laws. Nonetheless, few support Julian Assange's call for complete transparency and his rejection of legitimate secrets. Even NGOs promoting transparency such as Transparency International are prepared to allow for exceptions when national security and official secrets are involved.

Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 2019

Political philosophical work on whistleblowing has thus far neglected the role of journalists. A ... more Political philosophical work on whistleblowing has thus far neglected the role of journalists. A curious oversight, given that the whistleblower's objective-informing the public about government wrongdoing-can typically not be realized without the media. The present article, therefore, aims to start remedying this neglect by exploring some of the most pressing questions. Accordingly, the paper will be structured as follows: Section 1 will explain why the authorities have treated whistleblowers far more harshly than the journalists who publish their disclosures. Still, the freedom of expression of media workers is (and ought to be) less extensive than that of ordinary individuals. Section 2 will explain why by arguing that the freedom of expression of the press, contrary to that of individuals, is not an unconditional good; instead, it is good merely instrumentally. Section 3 considers and refutes an argument for a more expansive press freedom based on the marketplace of ideas model and, in doing so, also discusses some important differences between the ethics of the traditional and the new online media. Often journalists, like whistleblowers, will justify their publications based on leaked classified documents by appealing to the public interest. Yet, this is problematic for two reasons: (1) the public interest is never clarified; and (2) this argument overlooks the fact that the public interest can also be a reason for not publishing about leaked classified documents, even if the leaks are verified (in the interest of national security, for example). Accordingly, Section 5 sets out to clarify the public interest. Section 4 then discusses two case studies-one concerning unverified leaks, and one concerning verified leaks-in order to demonstrate how we might employ the concept of the public interest in order to determine the permissibility of publishing about leaked classified information in practice.

Journal of Moral Philosophy, 2019

Ratio Juris, 2018

Given the crucial role unauthorized disclosures can play in uncovering grave government wrongdoin... more Given the crucial role unauthorized disclosures can play in uncovering grave government wrongdoing, it makes sense to search for a defense of justified cases of what I call " classified public whistleblowing. " The question that concerns me is what form such a defense should take. The main claim will be a negative one, namely, that a defense of whistleblowing cannot be based on individual rights, be they legal or moral, though this is indeed the most commonly proposed defense. In closing, I will outline a more appealing alternative, namely, a justification defense.

Ethic@. An International Journal for Moral Philosophy, 2017

This paper aims to clarify how Kant understood the relation between the two spheres of morals (Ri... more This paper aims to clarify how Kant understood the relation between the two spheres of morals (Right and virtue). Did he, as O'Neill claims, acknowledge the need for civic virtue as necessary for maintaining a liberal state? Or did he take the opposite view (shared by many contemporary liberals) that citizens' virtuous dispositions are irrelevant and that all that matters is the justice of institutions? Though The Metaphysics of Morals gives the impression that Kant shared the latter position, I will argue that, in fact, Kant held a position somewhere between the Rousseauian view (which O'Neill believes Kant endorsed) that the essential difficulty of politics concerns the cultivation of civic duty in citizens, and contemporary liberals' exclusive focus on the justice of institutions, by arguing that it is the laws themselves that foster respect for the laws. In short, Kant views virtue as the felicitous by-product of legality.

Social Theory and Practice, 2017

Though whistleblowing is quickly becoming an accepted means of addressing wrongdoing, whistleblow... more Though whistleblowing is quickly becoming an accepted means of addressing wrongdoing, whistleblower protection laws and the relevant case law are either awkwardly silent, unclear or mutually inconsistent concerning public disclosures of classi ed government information. I remedy this problem by rst arguing that such disclosures constitute a pro tanto wrong as they violate (1) promissory obligations, (2) role obligations and (3) the obligation to respect the democratic allocation of power. However, they may be justi ed if (1) the information disclosed concerns grave government wrongdoing, (2) alternative channels of disclosure are rst exhausted and (3) steps are taken to minimize harm.

Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Mensenrechten, 2016

Samenvatting In een tijd waarin ons normatieve denken wordt gedomineerd door het mensenrechtendis... more Samenvatting In een tijd waarin ons normatieve denken wordt gedomineerd door het mensenrechtendiscours zal ik een betoog houden voor het belang van plichten. Anticiperend op de kritiek dat een dergelijk betoog een bedreiging voor onze mensenrechten vormt, zal ik aan de hand van een uitgebreide studie van artikel 29 UVRM aantonen dat (1) de opstellers van de UVRM reeds vanaf het begin plichten een prominente plek wilden geven; (2) dat dit geen bedreiging voor onze rechten vormt; (3) dat het onze rechten juist ten goede komt; en (4) dat aandacht voor onze plichten jegens de gemeenschap ons zowel een meer complete voorstelling van ons morele landschap geeft alsook een aantrekkelijker beeld schetst van de relatie tussen het individu en de gemeenschap waarin zij zich bevindt. Trefwoorden Mensenrechten, plichten, rechtsfilosofie, travaux préparatoires. [artikel 29 UVRM]

Various human rights documents list the human right to an adequate standard of living. While the ... more Various human rights documents list the human right to an adequate standard of living. While the content of the duties of States and non-State actors are being made increasingly clear, the duties we have as individuals with regard to this human right are left nearly completely undefined. This article therefore wishes to clarify, firstly which duties towards the global poor we have as individuals and, secondly, what the status of these duties is. I will argue that nearly all our duties that stem from global subsistence needs are at present duties of virtue. I will arrive at this conclusion in two steps. Section I will aim to provide an exhaustive overview of our individual duties related to global subsistence needs. Next, Section II will need to ascertain the status of each of these duties. Accordingly, it will first have to offer definitions of the distinction between perfect and imperfect duties, and of the difference between duties of justice and duties of virtue. Subsequently, these definitions will be applied to the duties presented in Section I. Finally, I will conclude with a brief reflection on the significance of virtue as a necessary complement to justice.

Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 2021

Algemeen Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Wijsbegeerte, 2017

International Dialogue: A Multidisciplinary Journal of World Affairs, 2016

It is quite common to make the argument that a stable liberal democracy requires high levels of c... more It is quite common to make the argument that a stable liberal democracy requires high levels of compliance with the law. Scholars disagree, however, how such reliable and widespread compliance can be achieved. Roughly, liberals have traditionally emphasized the importance of arriving at compliance by way of autonomous and critical reasoning, whereas others (communitarians and republicans chiefly) argue that autonomous motives are notoriously weak and can, therefore, not by themselves bring about a high enough rate of compliance. The exclusionary importance accorded to autonomy by (many) liberals bars the state from cultivating the habits, sentiments and civic virtue upon which a polity's stability depends. By contrast, many republicans follow Rousseau when he states that it is necessary for the law to reach the citizens' hearts: " So long as the legislative force does not reach that deep, the laws will invariably be evaded " (Rousseau 1997: 179). We ought to, in other words, acknowledge the importance of nonautonomous motives for compliance stemming from character, sentiments, habits, beliefs and identities.

The present study aims to demonstrate the importance of a renewed focus on duty in normative disc... more The present study aims to demonstrate the importance of a renewed focus on duty in normative discourse. The dominance of what has been labeled “rights talk” leads to the neglect of duties without corresponding rights (i.e. duties of virtue) and stimulates the proliferation of questionable human rights. In order to remedy these problems, this dissertation argues for the adoption of a duties-based perspective on morality in order to, firstly, salvage duties of virtue, and, secondly, counter the trend of rights proliferation by providing some conceptual clarity concerning rights and duties that will enable us to differentiate between genuine and spurious claims to the status of “right.”
The argument for this duties-based perspective is made by elaborately examining two particularly contentious duties, namely our duties to aid the global poor and our duties to the community. These two duties serve as case studies and are explored from the perspective of various disciplines, including human rights law, political theory and moral philosophy. The argument is made that both duties can only be adequately defined and allocated if we adopt the perspective of duties, as the predominant perspective of rights either does not recognize them to be duties at all, or else leaves their content and allocation completely indefinite.
The point of this renewed focus on duties is emphatically not to detract anything from the importance of rights. Rather, the duties-based perspective on morality will have a salutary effect on our human rights discourse by distinguishing more strictly between genuine and inauthentic rights. Furthermore, a duties-based approach enlarges the moral playing field, by recognizing both duties of justice and duties of virtue. The latter include such fundamental duties as duties to aid the global poor and civic duties, which function as indispensable complements to the duties prescribed by the sphere of justice.

The main contention of the present paper is that external coercion alone will not suffice to achi... more The main contention of the present paper is that external coercion alone will not suffice to achieve compliance with the prescriptions and proscriptions of Right and that therefore Kant’s strict division between Right and virtue (or ethics) is not tenable. Whereas Right may only demand compliance of our external actions with its prescriptions, virtue places the additional demand on us to comply with said prescriptions from the motive of respect for the law. Kant further explains this distinction by means of an example: It is a duty of Right to honor one’s contracts. If one does not, one can be externally coerced to do so. Yet, fulfilling a contract is also an indirect duty of virtue, i.e. an ethical duty to, in the absence of the juridical incentive of external coercion, perform a duty of Right from the motive of respect.
Right merely demands the compliance of my external actions with its laws. It may enforce this compliance by means of external coercion, but it may not force me to adopt a particular maxim for acting, as that would amount to paternalism. I will argue, however, that in practice any legal system does depend on at least a majority of its subjects acting in accordance with its laws from the motive of duty, i.e. from respect for the law. This, however, leads to the following paradox: How can Right depend on something – i.e. its subjects acting from respect for its prescriptions – that it may not demand?
This paper will attempt to resolve the paradox in several steps. Firstly, Kant’s description of Right as the authorization to use coercion will be briefly expounded as well as the difference between Right and virtue. Secondly, it will be shown how Kant’s equation of Right with the authorization to coerce will eventually lead to the concept of ‘strict’ Right: a legal system that, Kant seems to claim, could organize its coercive force in such a manner that human freedom has no choice but to obey the prescriptions of Right. In practice, however, all legal systems do leave room to freely choose to obey or disobey, which implies that legal systems must depend on other incentives besides coercion if they wish to ensure compliance with its laws.
Thirdly, the argument will be made that Kant’s distinction between duties of Right and duties of virtue is too rigid and that, in fact, Right depends on its subjects regularly fulfilling duties of Right from respect for the law, i.e. as indirect ethical duties. This will lead to the abovementioned paradox that Right depends on the motive of duty, which, however, it may not demand.
The final section will turn to Toward Perpetual Peace. There, Kant argues that the very act of living in a good Rechtsstaat develops one’s virtue by instilling respect for the law in its subjects. Therefore, Right may not demand virtue, but it can help cultivate it, thus undoing the paradox.