I.

Introduction
A. Brief overview of Joseph Raz
B. Importance of Raz's work on justifications for authority
C. Comparison with HLA Hart and Philosophical Anarchists (PA)
II. Hobbesian Social Contract Theory
A. Individuals surrender their ability to exercise violence
B. State's monopoly over violence
C. Maintaining order in society
III. Service Theory of Authority
A. Laws as providers of service to society
B. Exclusionary reasoning and liberal theory of law
C. Normal Justification Thesis
D. Critique of PA's Paradox of Authority
IV. Positivism
A. Raz's stance on positivism
B. Theoretical and practical authority
C. Court's authoritative positivist considerations
V. Exclusion of Reason
A. Discarding individual normal justification in favor of authority
B. Authority's broader and profound view
C. Chaos and disruption due to individual normal justification
VI. Criticisms and Limitations of Raz's Theory
A. Dependence on people's approval of authority
B. Contradiction with liberal principles and individual autonomy
C. Potential exploitation by the authority
D. Comparison with Bentham's Philosophical Anarchists
VII. Comparison with Ronald Dworkin's Theories
A. Judges' discretion in "hard cases"
B. Undermining the principle of separation of powers and democratic norms
VIII. Conclusion
A. Summary of Raz's theory on authority
B. Importance of Raz's work in understanding the role of authority in society
C. Continuing debates and challenges surrounding Raz's theory

Joseph Raz

The core of Joseph Raz’s work is the justifications that he has provided for authority. His
theory is a counter view point to the standing of the Philosophical Anarchists (PA). He was
follower of HLA Hart but the factor that differentiates Raz’s ideas from those of Hart is the
former’s novel view on the validity of authority. He goes on to establish that authority is the best
decision maker in the society because of application of balance of reason on a broader scope. He
also tries to convince by employing reason that it is imperative to follow law for maintenance of
social order and societal progress since law provides service to the society. Raz was a hard-core
positivist who completely rules out any standing of morality in the formation of laws.

Raz has formed the basis of his thought in the Hobbesian social contract theory. He
opines that the individuals, being prudent and self-prioritizing, have surrendered their ability to
exercise violence to the state in return for the assurance to be saved from violence. This social
contract established the sovereign’s monopoly over violence and by way of application of this
designated right to exercise violence, the state maintains order in the society.

A unique proposition for the justification of following orders of the authority and
adhering to the laws has been forwarded by Raz. According to Raz, neither the Normative
Theory nor the Positivist Thought explain the actual reason behind adherence of laws. According
to Raz, laws are followed because they provide service to the society and the people benefit from
it.

Philosophical Anarchists such as Professor Wolff, in their Paradox of Authority, stand for
redundancy and irrationality of authority, and claim that what is right should be done and what is
wrong should be avoided regardless of what the authority desires. Raz negates this approach by
showcasing the service that law provides to the society, by applying exclusionary reasoning and
by using the liberal theory of law. An example can make his point clear, when we go to the
doctor for treatment, he does not give us a lesson in medicine, rather he diagnoses our issue and
prescribes medication. This means that the state has to analyze the issues faced by the people and
propose the suitable actions rather than framing justification for the actions. Moreover, it is the
authority that mediates between the individuals of the society when they have some matter of
discord among them. Furthermore, authority provides great service by safeguarding the liberties
of the individuals. Raz is of the view that without authority the concept of law is not
comprehendible. Raz has given the Normal Justification Thesis whereby, he has highlighted the
process through which individuals reach at decisions. This process is subjective in nature and
varies person to person, thus further negating the paradox of authority since there is no one
benchmark for right and wrong.

An ardent proponent of positivism, Raz believed that the courts are steered by
authoritative positivist consideration (i.e. they do not require a moral justification). According to
him the law purely consists of positivist considerations. In his service concept of authority that
has been alluded to above, he defines that there are two types of authority that ensure the smooth
running of the legal system. The kind of authority are (i) theoretical authority, and (ii) practical
authority. Theoretical authority is the authority of the opinion makers who tell the people what to
believe. It serves the purpose of conditioning of the people. On the other hand, the practical
authority is more in the form of control that is exercised to implement or avoid some action. For
example, it was the theoretical authority that instilled fear in the mind of people about COVID-
19 and it was the practical authority that implemented the lockdowns and other restrictions.

It is the Exclusion of Reason which is supported by Raz and which explains that the
individual normal justification should be discarded in favor of the directions provided by the
authority. This is so because the authority reaches the best of the decisions due to having a
broader and a profound view. This means that one needs to ignore their normal justification once
they step out of their home and it the law that is to be followed thereafter. The authority i.e the
legislature, makes laws by keeping the bigger picture in view, a picture that takes into account
the culture, religion, social fabric, and economic condition of the society. If an individual insists
on exercising his own normal justification in the presence of laws, this leads to disruption and
chaos in the society. A practical example of efficacy of this concept can be when someone get
assaulted by a miscreant, as per the law, the person suffering the injustice has the options of
exercising minimal and necessary self-defense, to suffer the beating or to run away; and
afterwards channel their revenge by reporting the incident to the authority who shall in due
course look into the matter a per the law. The authority provides little or no options of use of
force to the citizens since as per the social contract it is the authority that has the monopoly over
violence. If everyone would use their own normal justification in such cases, there shall be chaos
and lawlessness in the society wherein everyone would avenge themselves as per their
understanding of a fit response.

Joseph Raz’s take on authority has been criticized due to its limitations. Since Raz is a
pure positivist, the authority explained in his theory is wholly dependent upon the people’s
approval of authority in the absence of morals as the yardstick. Another criticism that Raz faces
is that his theory of authority is against the basic liberal principles that allow for every
individual’s autonomy in their decisions until they interfere with the liberties of others. Not only
does Raz’s authority limit freedoms, rather it enjoys complete power to coerce the individuals.
Moreover, Raz’s advocacy of authority revolves around the service concept of authority but he
fails of explain what should be done if the authority does not provide benefit to the people and
becomes exploitative. Though Raz is silent over this but the most appropriate action in this case
is as proposed by Bentham that the individuals should become Philosophical Anarchists in such a
scenario.

Moreover, when seen in the light of the theories of Ronald Dworkin, Raz’s pure positivist
theory can lead the society towards the Hobbesian State of Nature since the judges in the absence
of morality would have to use their discretion in “hard cases” which would undermine the
principle of separation of powers and the democratic norms.