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

Assess how the limits of our political obligations to the state might be defined

Extracts from this document...


Political Philosophy Assess how the limits of our political obligations to the state might be defined Our political obligations to the state originate from the consent we have granted to it through voting and tacit consent, which means remaining in the state and the fact that we haven't left means we do not object to the state. The social contract we enter creates rights and obligations. An obligation in this context means the extent to which we should obey the law. Depending on our position in regards to the social contract and type of state, the limits of our obligations will vary. Liberals assert that the state is an arbiter of the different interests in society. Locke, a proponent of this argument states that all people are free, equal and have natural rights to life, liberty and property, as given to use by god - meaning no one has a right to subordinate another or take away our natural rights. ...read more.


Hobbes also proposes that this social contract should give political authority to a leviathan, an individual who is the strongest amongst a group of self-interested individuals. Such leadership qualities are needed for control to keep peace and prevent continuous fighting. In such a state there are no limits to our obligations to the state. There are many problems with such an idea of a state, as demonstrated by modern day dictators such as Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini who were leviathans who failed to produce a peaceful state, rather they oppressed the people in it. The third main theory of social contract was formulated by Rousseau. His idea of the state of nature differed from Locke's and Hobbes, as he suggested that men were neither good nor bad. Man is innocent and harmless and does not know vice or virtue, but wants to be good. The social contract is made so that a society that benefits the community can be created. ...read more.


Anarchists believe humans, due to their nature, would be better off with without a state. Under anarchism, there would be neither state nor an obligation to one. However, there is little evidence to suggest that humans would behave orderly under anarchy, from past experiences and study of human behaviour, it is more likely chaos would ensue. Taking this all into account, the limits to our obligations to the state depends on how our state of nature is described. For Locke, the limits to our obligation depend on the state's position in relation to our natural rights, whereas for Hobbes and Rousseau, although they have two completely different ideas regarding the state, they both state there is no limit to political obligation. On the other hand, it can be argued that there is no political obligation, as the consent which these theories rely on does not exist. Furthermore, the concept of a state according to anarchists is unnecessary, which means there would also be no political obligation. ?? ?? ?? ?? ...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 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 Philosophy essays

  1. Synoptic Study, Satre, Engels and Marx

    The need for conquering more slaves ultimately proves to be the downfall of this society and leads to the birth of aristocracy. The third stage known as Feudalism still has class divides now between aristocrat and the peasant. Now land is the primary source of production and the nation state grows.

  2. Compare and Contrast the Philisophical Contributions of Nietzsche and Mill to our understanding of ...

    - "If he has spoiled his life by mismanagement, we shall not for that reason desire to spoil it further" At this point, Mill makes a clear distinction between the part of a person's life which concerns only himself and that which concerns others.

  1. Social Contract

    giving a justification for us to be moral (as well as the existence of societies). However, there seems to remain one problem. By saying that societies develop morality and that there is no morality independent of this, it leaves us with the problem of cultural relativism.

  2. Plato and Nietzsche on Authority

    and Nietzsche's subjectivism would agree. Human nature would be indulged in an ideal world, if happiness was the ultimate value, and this calls for freedom to be a central concept of any Authority. Freedom to vote, to those in the UK, seems to be a basic human right with few restrictions.

  1. Sartre is a very strong proponent of strong determinism, that is, he does not ...

    wouldn't have to bother with studying physics, chemistry or biology at all. These hard sciences are a strict guide for what will occur in the universe, and any physical act not explainable by our current science is only so because of a lack of knowledge on our part.

  2. Explain and illustrate the four different viewpoints on the state of nature of Hobbes, ...

    Essentially the Natural Right of Liberty implies in the state of nature there is no justice or injustice and no right or wrong. The Laws of Nature that Hobbes outlines in Leviathan concern justice, property, gratitude, arrogance and other matters of moral conduct.

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