• 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 ...

    from government intervention, and so they allowed for unemployment to rise to extremely high levels.

  2. 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.

  1. "Why does philosophy play such a large part in the conversation about justice in ...

    Socrates has attempted to show how the just man will lead a happier life, that justice is more than something which corresponds only to the ideas and actions of the stronger party in some social interaction, and thus variable and subjective, but has a universal meaning through which the individual (in Plato's metaphor)

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

    How can Locke's universally known theory be applied to each person? The answer to this question is that Locke's theory of property can not incorporate each person into it's meaning. The information that Locke wrote applied to the sixteenth century.

  1. Free essay

    The emerge of Alliance 90

    Dobson's model of ecological citizenship has attracted a number of criticism3, such as for using the notion of "post-cosmopolitan" citizenship and over who is eligible to be an ecological citizen. According to Neil Carter "The Politics of the environment: Ideas, Activism.

  2. Could one censor pornography, on Millean grounds?

    in an attempt to use the "elevated faculties"5 that we all possess. So in this light Mill believed that people should "not live according to customs or social traditions but rather on the basis of their own judgement - based on their own needs, desires personality and interests"6.

  1. Assess what should be the role of the state

    However, in practice, the oppressive nature of Stalinist Russia did not end there, and Russian lives continued to be fundamentally controlled by the state as an absolute authority. Communism's basic discrediting as a feasible politico-economic system of administration by the end of the 1980s must show that this form of

  2. Nationalism is inherently expansionist and destructive - discuss

    a sense of supremacy or desire to force their culture on to others. The emphasis is on preservation of self-pride without hostility towards other nations and their cultures. Conservative nationalism can be seen as more expansionist and destructive than either liberal or cultural nationalism.

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