Philosophical Anarchism

Philosophical anarchism is the view that no existing state possesses genuine political authority and that there is no general moral duty to obey the law.

Definition

Philosophical anarchism holds that states lack legitimate authority — the right to be obeyed — and that citizens have no general duty to obey the law, while typically allowing that many laws should still be followed for independent moral or prudential reasons.

Scope

Covers the distinction between philosophical and political (revolutionary) anarchism, a priori arguments from autonomy, a posteriori arguments from the failure of obligation theories, the weak/strong and positive/negative varieties, and influential modern statements. It is the natural counterpart to consent and political-obligation theories.

Core questions

• Can any state possess genuine authority over autonomous agents?
• Do the standard grounds for political obligation all fail?
• Does denying authority require resisting or abolishing the state?
• How does philosophical anarchism differ from political anarchism?

Key concepts

• political authority
• the duty of autonomy
• weak vs. strong anarchism
• justification vs. legitimacy
• the right to coerce
• anti-authoritarianism

Key theories

The argument from autonomy

Wolff argues that the moral duty to be autonomous — to act on one's own reasoned judgement — is incompatible with the state's claim to a right to be obeyed simply because it commands, so legitimate authority is impossible.

Weak philosophical anarchism

Simmons distinguishes justification of the state from its legitimacy and argues that, while states may be justified, none has legitimate authority over its subjects, yielding a weak anarchism that does not entail a duty to oppose the state.

The challenge to political authority

Huemer argues that the kind of authority states claim cannot be justified by consent, fairness, democracy, or consequences, and that common-sense morality therefore implies a sceptical, broadly anarchist stance toward political authority.

History

Anarchist thought runs from Godwin and Proudhon to Bakunin and Kropotkin, but philosophical anarchism as an analytic position was crystallized by Wolff's In Defense of Anarchism (1970). Later work by Simmons distinguished weak from strong forms, and Huemer (2013) restated the position from common-sense moral premises.

Debates

Weak vs. strong anarchism

Whether denying state legitimacy entails a duty to resist or abolish the state (strong anarchism) or merely the absence of a duty to obey, compatible with law-abiding behaviour (weak anarchism), as Simmons argues.

Key figures

• Robert Paul Wolff
• A. John Simmons
• Michael Huemer
• William Godwin

Seminal works

• wolff1970
• simmons2001
• huemer2013

Frequently asked questions

Does philosophical anarchism mean one should break the law?

Not necessarily. Most philosophical anarchists deny only that there is a general duty to obey the law as such; they typically accept that many laws should be followed for independent reasons, such as the wrongness of theft or violence.