03a. political obligation and authority

8/11/2019 03a. Political Obligation and Authority

1/25


2/25

Why should we obey the law? Should we always obey the law or obey it only

when it is just? Should we only obey those laws we have

agreed to?

Is it important that we have a particulargovernment that meets certain criteria beforewe obey the law?


3/25

Consent

All this boils down to consent. Socrates

Hobbes

Locke

Rousseau


4/25

Active and Tacit consent

Tacit -voting

-residing -using the schooling system or the water

Action and omission


5/25

Consent theorists claim that we should obeythe law coz we have consented to do so.


6/25

Modern consent theorists rely on the loceannotion of tacit consent .

Tacit consent has been interpreted in differentways:

consent by doing something that youwould not otherwise be permitted to do becausesomeone has a right that you not do that thingwithout thereby consenting


7/25

Some consent theorists argure that residence in ageographical area counts as tacit consent to obey the law

One object ion to this claim is that we are not freeenough to leave our county of birth for our residence tocount as a effective consent.

Another objection suggests that residing on ones ownland is not a prohibited act and cannot therefore count astacit consent


8/25

Some consent theorists argue that voting in ademocratic election counts as tacit consent toobey the law, but as long as those who do notvote are forced to obey the law despite theirabstention, it seems reasonable to treat votingas coerced and therefore ineffective consent.


9/25

Hypothetical consent

If the state did not exist we would set up astate and consent to obey its laws (Hobbes etal)

But a hypothetical contract is as good as nocontract.

Does not answer the question whyhypothetical consent would lead us to obeythe law


10/25

Counter argumnet: It is rational to do so. But why should we wish to be rational

Because it is in out best interests to do so.

But if this is the case then what is the

requirement for hypothetical consent. Political obligation is directly linked then, to

benefits.


11/25

Utilitarianism

Obedience of the law allows state to exist States existance results in benefits for people.

Are these benefits sufficient justicifaction forpolitical authority.

Yes and no.


12/25

For those who want to act in ways that benefitsociety: the benefits that the state brings willbe sufficient reason to obey the law.


13/25

But those who are less motivated to benefitsociety

or those who want to gain benefits withoutpaying costs,

will not regard the benefits the state brings asa reason to obey the law.


14/25

If we want to show that everyone has a dutyto obey the law

Then we must show not only that obedienceto the law (by permitting state to exist)benefits society

But more importantly that everyone has a dutyto act in a way that benefits society.


15/25

Utilitarianism helps create this moral claim.

Everything we do should help to maximize theamount of pleasure and minimize the amountof pain in the world.


16/25

Doesnt matter whose pain or pleasure Every act must always choose the option that

best fulfills this aim.


17/25

But are all laws based in this principle. Can I use utilitarianism to justify the breaking

of laws (even factoring in punishment)


18/25

Rule utiliatrianism

In order to over come this some thinkinershave proposed that

Potential rules are judged against the utilitarianrequirement to maximize pleasure and minimizepain and the best rules are chosen accordingly.

Individual actions are judged right or wrong

against these rules regardless of how each actionperforms in terms of its direct influence on theamount of pleasure or pain in the world.


19/25

Problems. How do we compare pleasure andpain.

What happens when it is useful to dosomething but may be against other ideassuch as fairness or rights.


20/25

Fairness

Hart suggests that since we are alreadybenefiting from the state, then it is only fairthat we continue to obey the law.

The question is not about future benefits butof past benefits.


21/25

If those who obeyed the law in the pastallowed the state to function and thereby giveme benefits I have a duty to obey the law toallow these benefits to go to others.


22/25

Problems: If I have not requested this benefit Iam not duty bound to reciprocate it.


23/25

Morality

The law is only an extension of morality andpeople are bound to follow their morality andtherefore the law should be obeyed.

But what happens when the law is not moral. Or when the law is adjudicating about things

that have nothing to do with morality.


24/25

This brings us to morality of the state andwhat kind of moral authority a state has.


25/25

03a. political obligation and authority

Documents