Political Obligation Essay ⋆ Political Science Essay Examples ⋆ EssayEmpire

The term political obligation generally means a moral requirement to obey the laws of one’s country. Such a requirement must encompass more than self-interested or prudential considerations, especially concern that one will be punished for violations. In addition, political obligations are generally viewed as requirements to obey the law because it is the law, that is, because of the authority of the lawmaking body as opposed to the content of particular laws.

History

Throughout much of the world and for much of Western history, the dominant view has been that political authority is part of the God-given or natural order, simply to be obeyed. Ideas along these lines dominated medieval Europe, based especially on the belief—forcefully expressed in Chapter 13 of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans—that every soul must submit to political authorities, which are instituted by God.

Questions of political obligation assumed a central role in Western political theory in roughly the sixteenth century, with the rise of liberal political theory and its criticisms of what were viewed as unjust governments. Within the liberal tradition, obligations have been traditionally believed to be rooted in the consent of the governed, which is closely related to the theory of the social contract or contract of government, into which citizens supposedly entered upon leaving the state of nature. Opponents of political authority commonly argued that if individuals have not consented to government or if the conditions of their consent have been violated, political obligations either do not exist or cease, and resistance is justified.

Consent Theory

In the locus classicus of consent theory, The Second Treatise of Government (1689), John Locke argues along these lines, in order to justify resistance to the English monarchy. Strongly affirming individual freedom, Locke argues that political authority can be based only on consent—and the consent of each individual, as opposed to a one-time agreement at the founding of society. Locke recognizes that few members of society have “expressly” consented to government. He therefore introduces a doctrine of tacit consent, according to which individuals can incur obligations through additional means, such as owning property in the community or merely being within the state’s territory. However, David Hume called tacit consent into question in his essay “Of the Original Contract” (1752). Hume argues that poor peasants, who know only the language and customs of their own country and are without financial resources, lack the means to leave their own country for another. Because they do not voluntarily choose to reside in their own countries, continued residence can hardly constitute consent.

Since Hume’s time, theorists have struggled to explain how people have consented to government. A range of additional actions have been proposed as constituting consent, such as voting or otherwise taking part in the political system, but all of these are subject to criticism. In the late eighteenth century, Immanuel Kant achieved a considerable theoretical advance in viewing the contract of government as purely hypothetical, rather than an actual historical occurrence. According to this line of argument, the decisive consideration is that one would consent to government, if given the opportunity.

Consequentialism

With actual consent called into question, theorists have attempted to provide other bases for political obligations. The consequentialist, or utilitarian, tradition, epitomized by Jeremy Bentham, bases requirements to obey on the benefits of obedience. According to this approach, people are bound to obey the law in most cases, even though they have not agreed to do so, because a smoothly working society requires obedience. However, this account has difficulties requiring the compliance of given individuals. In many cases, the consequences of some individual’s disobeying the law are undetectable, while the individual receives tangible benefits from disobedience. Consequentialist reasoning, then, will often require that people disobey.

Recent Developments

In the light of problems with consent and consequentialist explanations, scholars have introduced additional lines of argument to account for political obligations. Recent years have witnessed new theories of obligations based on principles of consent and also gratitude, while additional arguments have been developed based on a so-called natural duty of justice and, simply, the fact that one is a member of a given community. In 1955, H. L. A. Hart developed an influential line of argument based on the principle of fairness, or fair play. According to this view, if individuals receive benefits from the cooperative efforts of others, it is only fair that they make similar sacrifices themselves. Since everyone benefits from general obedience to the law, it is only fair that everyone obeys as well.

So-called philosophical anarchism has also highly influenced contemporary debates about political obligation. Unlike traditional anarchists, such as Mikhail Bakunin, who declare themselves enemies of the state, these theorists support much that the state does, in spite of the absence of requirements to obey the law because it is the law. Although they reject political obligations, they argue that the state may still be legitimate, that is, justified in taking morally appropriate actions. These theorists argue that questions of obedience should be decided on a case-by-case basis. They contend that there are moral reasons to obey many laws, not because they are laws but because of the benefits of obedience, mainly so as not to harm or inconvenience other people.

In recent years, scholars have increasingly questioned the need for political obligations in the traditional sense. Many scholars now agree with the philosophical anarchists about the importance of distinguishing between a state’s having legitimacy and authority. As noted, the former refers to the state’s ability to take morally appropriate action, for instance, to aid people in need or to punish moral malefactors .Although in pursuing these tasks, the state cannot claim rights to anyone’s obedience merely because it passes laws; people are morally required to comply with specific laws because of the value of the laws themselves. Authority adds to legitimacy the state’s right to claim obedience because it commands this, without appeal to other moral considerations. These scholars argue that authority is not necessary, and that important state functions can be accomplished without political obligations in the traditional sense.

In spite of the influence of philosophical anarchists, scholars have come to criticize their approach. Theorists skeptical of political obligations generally proceed by criticizing the traditional theories from a particular perspective, examining and rejecting them seriatim, one after another. What this strategy overlooks is the possibility that general reasons to obey the law can be established by combining different principles, and thus overcome the weaknesses of theories based on a single principle. As scholars have moved away from traditional conceptions of political obligation, the future of the subject has opened to new possibilities.

Bibliography:

Beran, Harry. The Consent Theory of Political Obligation. London: Croom Helm, 1987.
Green, Leslie. The Authority of the State. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988.
Klosko, George. Political Obligations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Simmons, A. John. Moral Principles and Political Obligations. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979

This example Political Obligation Essay is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need a custom essay or research paper on this topic please use our writing services. EssayEmpire.com offers reliable custom essay writing services that can help you to receive high grades and impress your professors with the quality of each essay or research paper you hand in.