{"title":"为功能主义辩护","authors":"J. Quong","doi":"10.18574/nyu/9781479888696.003.0003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter provides a response to Anna Stilz’s chapter in this volume, “Legitimacy and Self-Determination.” I argue that Stilz’s Kantian approach to political autonomy and self-determination is vulnerable to a serious dilemma. Her account either cannot explain various intuitively wrongful instances of colonialism and annexation, or else it can only do so by departing from its Kantian foundations. I then defend a functionalist approach to political legitimacy, one that appeals to the pro tanto wrongness of involuntarily changing people’s political status. I argue, contra Stilz, that such a functionalist approach can adequately explain why certain cases of colonialism and territorial annexation are wrongful.","PeriodicalId":119174,"journal":{"name":"Political Legitimacy","volume":"59 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"In Defense of Functionalism\",\"authors\":\"J. Quong\",\"doi\":\"10.18574/nyu/9781479888696.003.0003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This chapter provides a response to Anna Stilz’s chapter in this volume, “Legitimacy and Self-Determination.” I argue that Stilz’s Kantian approach to political autonomy and self-determination is vulnerable to a serious dilemma. Her account either cannot explain various intuitively wrongful instances of colonialism and annexation, or else it can only do so by departing from its Kantian foundations. I then defend a functionalist approach to political legitimacy, one that appeals to the pro tanto wrongness of involuntarily changing people’s political status. I argue, contra Stilz, that such a functionalist approach can adequately explain why certain cases of colonialism and territorial annexation are wrongful.\",\"PeriodicalId\":119174,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Political Legitimacy\",\"volume\":\"59 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-08-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Political Legitimacy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18574/nyu/9781479888696.003.0003\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Legitimacy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18574/nyu/9781479888696.003.0003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
This chapter provides a response to Anna Stilz’s chapter in this volume, “Legitimacy and Self-Determination.” I argue that Stilz’s Kantian approach to political autonomy and self-determination is vulnerable to a serious dilemma. Her account either cannot explain various intuitively wrongful instances of colonialism and annexation, or else it can only do so by departing from its Kantian foundations. I then defend a functionalist approach to political legitimacy, one that appeals to the pro tanto wrongness of involuntarily changing people’s political status. I argue, contra Stilz, that such a functionalist approach can adequately explain why certain cases of colonialism and territorial annexation are wrongful.