— Do we have an obligation to obey the laws of the

state? — Why? — Are we being legitimately coerced? — But we agreed — Morally right thing to do

— Political obligation is the obligation to obey the law

because it is the law

— because there is some independent moral justification

for doing what this or that law requires

— We could argue that we shouldn’t drive recklessly,

because it

— endangers the lives of other people (moral)

— It is different from arguing that we shouldn’t drive

recklessly because it is against the law.

— Political obligation is

— whether we have a general obligation to obey the law, or

— just an obligation to obey this law or that law?

— Why do we have this obligation? — Some argue that it is rational to obey the law — But is it? — Consider this — We take individuals to be free and equal. — The law coerces people to act in specific ways. — If you break the law, you are punished. — If you have an obligation to obey the law, this is just.

— But how can it be right to coerce people who are free and equal? — Somehow we agree that people have in some way agreed to this

— Various theories that explain political obligation in a

society

— Contract theory — Reciprocal theories — Consent Theories — Even extent to philosophical anarchism

— Consent Theories

— Direct or indirect (tacit) consent

— Direct Consent

— The strongest form of this answer claims that individuals

must explicitly consent to the rule of the state for them to have an obligation to obey the law — Locke’s Second Treatise — Men being…by nature all free, equal and independent, no one can

be put out of this estate and subjected to the political power of another without his own consent, which is done by agreeing with other men, to join and unite into a community for their comfortable, safe and peaceable living…they have thereby made that community one body, with a power to act as one body, which is only the will and determination of the majority…

— Modern day form of explicit consent extend to voting — But – What if you vote for the opposition or your party

loses? — Do you still have the obligation to obey laws – which you may have tried to prevent through voting for a particular political party

— Indirect (tacit) theories of consent — Who have physically given consent to the be governed

by the South African state? (Raise hands)

— Indirect (tacit) consent — Locke realised that we are born into a society — Therefore, many of us would not have given our

permission or consent to obey the laws or have some form of political obligation. — Tacit consent – Not spoken, but rather understood as being given through being born a citizen of a particular state — ‘every man that hath any possession or

enjoyment of any part of the dominions of any government doth hereby give his tacit consent…

— But, we also have to look at dissent — Tacit consent is only viable if we have avenues to air

areas where we may disagree — Consent is only possible if you have a choice to consent or not to consent — Does this mean we can choose to obey the law? Or we can choose which laws we obey?

— We may argue that to vote is to voluntarily take part in a system

of governance, so it expresses tacit consent to that system.

— You are taking part in a social institution that has — certain rules; just in taking part, you are agreeing to abide by the rules – rather like playing a game.

— One of those rules is that you accept the result of the vote. — But what if I cast my vote for a party that promised revolution?

— Second, if voting is consent, then I cannot express dissent from

the current political system through voting for a revolutionary party. We could reply that you can express dissent by not voting or by deliberating ruining my ballot paper. — But then, third, what about people who simply don’t bother to vote?

— Rational or hypothetical consent — Goes back to a state of nature where man lives in a

chaotic environment with absolute freedom — To create order, we decide on a body of law to regulate society for the greater good — Thus, not actual consent, but rational or deserved

consent

— E.g. it would be rational to agree to laws if we didn’t

have any.

— Reciprocal Theories of Obligation — No theory of consent has provided grounds for

political obligation for everyone — It is only fair that whoever receives a benefit from the state owes obedience to its laws: — Receiving versus accepting benefits

— Is obligation proportional to benefits received? — What if the laws are unfair?

— Utilitarianism: we are better off with society — Overall, yes, but it would also depend on context and basic principles of liberty and freedom — In other words, choice

— Utilitarianism is a general ethical theory which states that the

rightness or wrongness of an action is determined by the amount of happiness or well being it produces.

— we have an obligation to the state and its laws because they

contribute more to human well being than any alternative.

— Without a state life would be in a state of nature — Problem: Utilitarianism is a theory which is based on

maximizing overall happiness or well being.

— However an overall increase in well being may be at the expense of

individuals. example suppose that, after a terrorist bombing, punishing scapegoats (assuming the terrorists had escaped) could satisfy a community's demand for justice. — If this could be done efficiently and in secret, then it may well increase the overall level of happiness and thus be justified

— Theories of Fairness

— Political obligation is based on the idea that since citizens derive

benefits (security, orderly government, public services, for example) from living in a state then they owe allegiance to the state and its laws.

— You owe it to your fellow citizens (and they owe it to you) to play your —
—
—
—

—

part in an arrangement from which you derive a benefit.

Consent is not the concern, but fairness You get something out of living in a state and being protected and serviced by its laws, so you have an obligation to obey those laws.

The obligation is like a payment for a service. Problem: Even though you may benefit from a state and its laws you haven't actually given your consent. The benefits of the state have been imposed on you without you asking for them.

So why are you under an obligation?

— Morality — Rawls: show that the state is rational, necessary and

legitimate — Obligation then becomes a moral duty (of justice) — But for this, we need a just state

— These are one of the main puzzles and links with

authority and legitimacy