• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

If the state is not a voluntary organisation, how can one be under any obligation to obey its commands?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Q1 If the state is not a voluntary organisation, how can one be under any obligation to obey its commands? This is a question about justifying the state. What D. D. Raphael calls " the grounds of political obligation.1 If the state can be justified somehow then so can the commands it makes, whether it is voluntary or not. This would be a state built on individual consent; obligation to the commands of the state would flow from that consent. This essay will discuss the possibility of justifying of the state through the idea of a social contract. The state when it creates a law draws a line one cannot cross without consequences. For clarity I am talking about a serious law, specifically one that obviously has a moral base, the law against murder for example. An individualist might say 'I have no intention of crossing that line anyway because I believe it would be morally wrong to do so'. The law in his case may as well not exist. Just by not breaking a law it can appear as though he supports it. When what he might agree with is what the law defends/upholds /represents, and that is the moral principle behind it. This is one reason why some people appear to uphold the law when in fact all they may be doing is following a personal moral code. ...read more.

Middle

I may be against nuclear weapons or the military in general for moral reasons (pacifism for example) but my moral objection is sacrificed for the greater happiness. The problem political philosopher's face is finding ways to solve issues like the one above. Just how does one justify the state? One theory is the idea of 'the social contract.' Wolff here defines the 'project of the social contract theory.' "The project of showing that individuals consent to the state lies behind the idea of social contract theory. If, somehow or other, it can be shown that every individual has consented to the state, or formed a contract with the state, or made a contract with each other to create a state, then the problem appears to be solved."6 It is difficult to support the idea that the state, and thereby its commands and responding obligations, can be justified by the theory of a social contract. "The theory of a social contract tries to justify political obligation as being based on an implicit promise, like the obligation to obey the rules of a voluntary association."7 If there were such a contract (based on the idea that the state is a voluntary organisation) the problem of individual obligation to the state would be solved. ...read more.

Conclusion

For the purpose of this essay the idea of a 'veil of ignorance' which is subject to many conditions, is the device Rawls uses to argue for consent. If people can agree on what would be just, (which he argues is possible using the principles he suggests) from behind a 'veil of ignorance' the consent reached would be a voluntary contract. Again the problem remains, what principles really constitute a 'just society' are not clear. Objections to Rawls ideas include the 'libertarian critique.' Kukathas and Pettit13 argue that for principled libertarians like Nozick the state that would emerge from Rawls's theory "is bound to seem inherently evil."14 Nozick's objections are based on his libertarian view that "Individuals have rights, and there are things no person or group may do to them (without violating their rights)"15 To conclude is this essay is very difficult; the argument I have tried to demonstrate is that one cannot be under any obligation to obey the commands of the state using the social contract model. I have argued that the social contract fails because it is not consensual. I have also tried to show that the idea of hypothetical contract cannot work because the 'veil of ignorance' still does not produce consent because people cannot agree on what the principles of a just state are. One can only be obligated to obey the commands of the state (I think) when its principles are consensual. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Political Philosophy section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Political Philosophy essays

  1. "At the heart of New Right thought, lies the paradox of libertarian and authoritarian ...

    In 'One-Nation' conservatism we had an interventionalist government as well as a mixed economy, gradual political change and European integration. When Margaret Thatcher took over as the head of the Conservative party, she changed all of these features. She decided to have a limited government and a free market, in order to allow entrepreneurs to succeed in the economy.

  2. How and why does Locke explain the creation, value and protection of property?

    This means that they are unable to produce their own food, shelter, and other necessities to survive.The outcome of man's labour is his property.Does this mean that a disabled person can not have the necessities for survival? God forced men to labour(to survive),thus creating the condition of life.

  1. Deontology- a theory based purely on obligation or duty.

    This matter provides a moral dilemma for the deontologists; however, a consequentialist would argue that the act preformed by the police officers was right, despite the fact that justice was totally ignored. Deontology, with its emphasis on the upholding of law no matter what, allows for the preservation of justice as well as the morale of the officers.

  2. Resolved: As a general Principle, individuals have an obligation to value the common good ...

    A collective good is anything which requires some form of cooperative action to produce. There are a considerable amount of goods in our society which can only be produced collectively, that is, by the combined actions of numerous individuals, institutions, and agencies.

  1. Socialist uses of workers' inquiry

    On the one side, there was the faction of "sociologists? (lead by Vittorio Rieser)11, and at that time the most numerous. This section understood the inquiry as a cognitive tool in order to understand a transformed worker reality, and oriented towards provide the tools for producing a theoretical and political renovation of the worker movement's official institutions.

  2. Could one censor pornography, on Millean grounds?

    As a utilitarian, Mill believed in the principle of "the greatest happiness for the greatest number"4 and connected freedom to this happiness. In a search for truth, that brings happiness, people must have freedom to act according to their own plan for their lives, as they know best for themselves

  1. So, whats wrong with Anarchism?

    The other form of anarchy is communism, however this is not communism as we know it after the Russian Revolution and the example of the Marxist states which were influenced by the Soviet Union but a form of society where there would be no need for a state and authority.

  2. Compare Hobbes and Locke's views on the obligation to obey the law.

    Locke also defends the principle of majority rule and the separation of legislative and executive powers. In the Letter Concerning Toleration, Locke denied that coercion should be used to bring people to (what the ruler believes is) the true religion and also denied that churches should have any coercive power over their members.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work