The book is an exemplar of close and careful arguement, fairness, and clarity.

Klosko's analysis is based on a commonsense idea of fairness, rather than on policy consequences and outcomes. It recognizes the fuzzy―even tragic―nature of political reality. In a less than perfect world, we must be (and generally are) satisfied with 'good enough. The book is an exemplar of close and careful arguement, fairness, and clarity. Further, even with the developments over the last twelve years, the book retains the virtue of being a terrific introduction to the topics of political obligation and legitimacy more generally. Andrew Rehfeld Ethics: An International Journal of Social, Political, and Legal Philosophy). The principle of fairness that Klosko writes about has five main points: (1) That there exists a cooperative venture of some group X; (2) That this venture imposes burdens upon individuals in X; (3) That this venture yields benefits for some group Y; (4) That without (1), there will be no (3); and (5) That Y contains X, but is not X.

Political Obligations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. view, the fairness principle remains the basic one, the other principles being in. some ways dependent on it.

Political Obligation. 1. The Principle of Fairness. 33. Political Precepts. His books include Democratic Procedures and Liberal Consensus, Jacobins and Utopians: The Political Theory of Fundamental Moral Reform, as well as the two-volume History of Political Theory: An Introduction.

In The Principle of Fairness and Political Obligation, George Klosko presents the first book-length treatment of political obligation grounded in the premises of liberal political theory.

George Klosko is Henry L. and Grace Doherty Professor of Politics at the University of Virginia.

It recognizes the fuzzy-even tragic-nature of political reality. George Klosko is Henry L.

A principle of political obligation is only a single moral requirement, which must exist in the context of - and be consistent with-a network of other acceptable principles. For discussion of how considerations along these lines limit political obligations under fairness theory, see Klosko,, Principle of Fairness, 122–25. Defining the boundary between acceptable and unacceptable violations of rights raises complex issues that cannot be discussed here

Current debate has it that a theory of political obligation grounded on the premises of liberal political theory does not exist.

Current debate has it that a theory of political obligation grounded on the premises of liberal political theory does not exist. Indeed, most theories to date have either produced a set of plausible conditions for the existence of political obligations and then argued that these conditions have not been met, or they have attempted to ground submission to the state on something other than political obligation. In "Fairness and Political Obligation", George Klosko presents a treatment of the issue.

Whether political obligation is the central or fundamental problem of political philosophy, as some have .

Whether political obligation is the central or fundamental problem of political philosophy, as some have maintained (. McPherson), may well be doubted. The phrase political obligation is apparently no older than T. H. Green's Lectures on the Principles of Political Obligation, delivered at Oxford University in 1879–80 (D'Entrèves, p. 3). The two words from which Green formed the phrase are much older, of course, and he apparently thought that combining them required no elaborate explanation or defense.