Every person who possesses both free will and reason has an obligation to take responsibility for her actions. This obligation is not compatible with the recognition of political obligation Discuss this statement with particular reference to the ana

Authors Avatar


Introduction

It has been presented by the majority of political philosophers that there is a moral obligation to do what the law requires just because the law requires it; the mere illegality of an act rendering its performance prima facie morally wrong and citizens under a political obligation to obey the law. However, others hold the view that there can be no resolution of the conflict between the autonomy of the individual and the putative authority of the state and so no such obligation can exist.
An alternative view is that, while autonomy and authority cannot coincide, it is the obligation to obey the law that still stands, as we do not have real autonomy; it being only a wish/something to aspire to having that we all believe we do in fact have. In this instance, all that exists is the authority of the state and our forced political obligation to obey the state.

There is an obligation to obey the law

There are numerous theories that support the existence of a political obligation: those which rest on the benefits each individual receives from government; those relying on implicit consent or promise; and those which appeal to the general good. These are examples of the few that will be examined in an attempt to establish an obligation to obey the law.

The gratitude-based theory stems from the view that political obligation arises as a result of the gratitude citizens have incurred towards their government as a result of the benefits they receive from that government. Citizens owe allegiance to the government of their country of residence because of the benefits received, no matter whether they have consented to that government or not.
Obedience to the law is seen as the best way of showing gratitude towards one’s government because it confers substantial benefits on their subjects.
 The theory focuses on the necessity of reciprocation by the citizens of a given state of the benefit they have received from their government. Simmons challenges this version of the argument from the view that no such requital is obligated, unless in certain circumstances. Simmons dramatically modified each step relevant to the theory in order to suit his personal view that the obligations of gratitude are a matter of compensation.
The clearest objection to the gratitude-based theory is that the most important benefits of the government are enjoyed regardless of acceptance, in attempt to further a purpose of its own, and that the content of the debt stemming from the supposed gratitude is undefined. There is also criticism of the theory from the position that some citizens benefit from the state more than others. For example, the rich do not receive enough benefits as they do not make use of the National Health Service or the police force due to using private health organisations and private, more personal protection, through the use of bodyguards. This renders the gratitude-based theory biased towards the poorer citizens of the state.

Another theory that has been used to clarify the scope of political obligation in recognition of its existence is the fair play theory. This theory is based around the view that it would be unfair for individuals to enjoy benefits associated with the existence of the state at no cost. As long as citizens receive benefits from the political institutions, they are said to be bound to accept impositions too.
Hart and Rawls claim that if a joint enterprise is set up and people benefit from this enterprise, beneficiaries have an obligation to do their share by submitting themselves to those restrictions that are necessary for the existence of the common beneficial enterprise.
The fair play theory differs from the argument from gratitude in contending that the prima facie obligation to obey the law is owed not to the government but to one’s fellow citizens.
 Hart holds the view that the mere existence of cooperative enterprise gives rise to such a political obligation and that the moral obligation to obey the rules is due to the members of society, having the correlative moral right to obedience. Rawls claims, with rather more complexity, that political obligation is owed to the members of society whose obedience has made the benefits of such a system possible through elements of sacrifice, with the result that legal systems give rise to obligation to obey their laws. The fair play principle holds that a person is under an obligation to do his part as specified by the rules of an institution whenever he has voluntarily accepted the benefits of the scheme or has taken advantage of the opportunities it offers to advance his interests; provided that this institution is just.
In criticism of the fair play principle, states are not associations that can be opted in or out of by the citizens without restrictions. The theory also grounds the political obligation in the category of citizens only, resulting in not everyone being covered, as some people are not citizens of any particular state. The principle is also only applicable to the fundamental laws, excluding other categories of law, which damages its applicability to the obligation to obey the law.

Join now!

A further theory justifying the citizen’s obligation to obey the law is through his consent. This is quite difficult to establish as we have never signed any such document to agree to any such obligation. Locke has argued that mere residence in a country, for whatever length of time, constitutes implicit consent to its law. In contrast, Plamentaz attributes political obligation to when a person freely votes or abstains from voting. By abstaining from casting a vote in general elections, he argues, the citizen is recognising the authority of whoever wins the said election.
The theory of consent can be challenged, specifically ...

This is a preview of the whole essay