Steve Coyne

It is often held that authoritative directives are intended to serve as exclusionary reasons, meaning that their intended force is that those who are subject to them should not act on or be motivated by some of their other reasons for action. I argue that the exclusion found in two common domains (practical rationality and non-instrumental moral duties) differs too much in character from authoritative exclusion to plausibly serve as its single source. I argue that a better account of authoritative exclusion can be constructed by combining those two sources, providing support for what I describe as a moralized version of Joseph Raz’s normal justification thesis, which understands obedience to authority as a requirement of instrumental morality rather than instrumental rationality.

How do exercises of authority different from requests, threats and advice? It is common to answer this question by emphasising the role of obligation, or the role of justified coercion, to the exclusion of the other. Using a distinction between an office of authority and an exercise of authority, I develop a taxonomy of such views of authority and present arguments against each of them. In place of these views, I argue for a symmetrical view of obligation and coercion within legal authority. On my view, authority is a conformance of one’s will to another’s will that the subject could recognise as consistent with the law’s respect for her, and this implies that obligation and coercion can equally be exercises of authority.