The previous chapter was devoted to discussions of applications of skepticism to moral philosophy. In this chapter, applications of skepticism to political philosophy are discussed. Once again, our starting point is that skepticism is true. We consider the implications of this to the questions that traditionally inhabit the agenda of political philosophy.

The Justification of Sovereignty

The basic question of traditional political philosophy is: What justifies sovereignty? Let us explain.

Rulers maintain their power even if some citizens oppose them, and then they rule by the application of force; the application of force is morally problematic. At the very least, it raises grave questions: Is this use of force moral? If so, under what conditions and on what grounds?

The most popular theory in the modern West is contractarianism, the doctrine of the social contract: rulers have the right to apply force because they are entitled to do it because they have the consent of their subjects to do so. This doctrine is obviously false because none of us has given blanket permission to the rulers to apply force, not even to apply force within the law, because none of us have given blanket consent to the law. Contractarianism came to distinguish between just and unjust governments, and it does not do that because no government is utterly just or unjust. Had it declared any government just, it would thereby declare it a utopia.