On what basis (if any) do citizens have a duty to obey the laws of their state? 2500
The question is not one concerning the issue of if one should follow the laws of the state, but rather concerns the issue of why we should obey the law, under what moral obligation, or duty, are we to follow the laws set by the state.
This essay will explore three theories of political obligation, consent, Fair Play, and Associationist Theories, and hopefully, in the end, we shall decide upon which is the most successful in explaining the duty one has to obey the law. One will reach the conclusion that, although all three approaches discussed are flawed, they show that one does have a duty to obey the law of the state, as without this there would be no …show more content…
This is the idea that consent can be passive, and by benefiting from the laws of the state individuals are consenting to follow the laws of the state.
For example, by being privileged to free healthcare and education one is consenting to also follow all the laws of the state, such as to pay one's taxes, because one should not expect the benefits of a state without committing to the drawbacks.
This is an issue because one has to question if passive consent is a form of consent at all, as it is assuming that one is agreeing, but this is not pure consent which Simmons describes as, “given intentionally and knowingly” (Simmons, 1976, p276), meaning freely given fully informed consent,, and as such one questions if assumption is a viable way to verify political obligation. I never agreed to X surely I have no obligation to do X. One must question if silence is the same as a ‘yes’, and one's own immediate reaction is no. This is an issue for political obligation and it seems that the issues of Express consent still stand as one would be inclined to reject Tacit consent as a successful explanation of why one has a political …show more content…
This is often explained by analogizing the state with a family. In a family the children obey the rules of their parents just because this is their role as children, and this is the same way Associations see political obligation, it just is that citizens obey the laws of the state as citizens. This is not to say that citizens are forced to follow the state's laws, only that they naturally are inclined to do so as citizens of the state and the environment that an organised state
The question is not one concerning the issue of if one should follow the laws of the state, but rather concerns the issue of why we should obey the law, under what moral obligation, or duty, are we to follow the laws set by the state.
This essay will explore three theories of political obligation, consent, Fair Play, and Associationist Theories, and hopefully, in the end, we shall decide upon which is the most successful in explaining the duty one has to obey the law. One will reach the conclusion that, although all three approaches discussed are flawed, they show that one does have a duty to obey the law of the state, as without this there would be no …show more content…
This is the idea that consent can be passive, and by benefiting from the laws of the state individuals are consenting to follow the laws of the state.
For example, by being privileged to free healthcare and education one is consenting to also follow all the laws of the state, such as to pay one's taxes, because one should not expect the benefits of a state without committing to the drawbacks.
This is an issue because one has to question if passive consent is a form of consent at all, as it is assuming that one is agreeing, but this is not pure consent which Simmons describes as, “given intentionally and knowingly” (Simmons, 1976, p276), meaning freely given fully informed consent,, and as such one questions if assumption is a viable way to verify political obligation. I never agreed to X surely I have no obligation to do X. One must question if silence is the same as a ‘yes’, and one's own immediate reaction is no. This is an issue for political obligation and it seems that the issues of Express consent still stand as one would be inclined to reject Tacit consent as a successful explanation of why one has a political …show more content…
This is often explained by analogizing the state with a family. In a family the children obey the rules of their parents just because this is their role as children, and this is the same way Associations see political obligation, it just is that citizens obey the laws of the state as citizens. This is not to say that citizens are forced to follow the state's laws, only that they naturally are inclined to do so as citizens of the state and the environment that an organised state