Political obligation
Political obligation refers to the moral responsibilities of citizens to obey the laws of their society. It is a foundational concept in political philosophy that addresses why individuals should adhere to the rules established by their government. While there is general agreement among political theorists that some form of political obligation exists, there is considerable debate regarding its nature. Various theories suggest that political obligation arises from transactional relationships, such as fairness, gratitude, or consent, whereby citizens benefit from the state's services and are thus obliged to reciprocate through compliance with the law. Fairness emphasizes the cooperative nature of society, arguing it would be unjust for individuals to benefit without contributing. Gratitude posits that citizens owe a debt to the state for the advantages received, while consent underscores the idea that individuals willingly agree to a social contract that mandates law obedience in exchange for societal benefits. Other perspectives on political obligation include utilitarianism, which focuses on the overall good of society, and human rights, asserting that individuals have a duty to respect the rights of others and support the state to ensure these rights are upheld. This multifaceted discourse reflects varying beliefs about the relationship between individuals and their governing bodies.
On this Page
Subject Terms
Political obligation
Political obligation refers to the obligations of citizens within a state to obey its laws. Though most political theorists agree that some form of political obligation exists, many disagree on the exact nature of that obligation. Some theorists believe political obligation is drawn from fairness, gratitude, or consent. These are all theories based on transactional accounts. Other theorists believe political obligation is based on utilitarianism or human rights.
Overview
Political obligation is the moral requirement that citizens obey the laws of the society in which they live. Some form of political obligation has existed since people first organized themselves into communities and cities. However, different philosophers have proposed various reasons for citizens of a land to obey its laws.
Some theories focus on transactional accounts, meaning citizens who receive a morally significant service from the state should repay that service through obedience. These theories may be broken down into three categories—fairness, gratitude, and consent.
Arguments based on fairness view states and other political communities as cooperatives designed to produce benefits for their members. For this reason, it would be unfair for a member to avoid contributing to the benefit of society or avoid obeying the laws of that society while extracting benefits from that society. For example, if a law mandates that citizens of a state pay taxes to build roads, someone who avoids paying taxes yet still uses those roads would be viewed as acting unfairly.
Arguments based on gratitude are similar to those concerning fairness. In this context, citizens receive benefits from the state and are expected to repay the state in some manner for those benefits. Proponents of this argument believe that the proper way for citizens to repay the benefits they receive is through adherence to the law.
The final type of transactional account focuses on consent. According to this theory, individuals who consent to be part of society, meaning they willingly participate in society, agree to abide by a social contract. This contract involves the state providing some benefits to the people, and the people obeying the state’s laws. By remaining part of the state, citizens consent to be governed by its laws. This requires limiting some personal freedoms in exchange for a functional, orderly society.
Other arguments favoring political obligation are based on a sense of natural duty. Some of these arguments are based on utilitarianism, asserting it is better for the whole society if citizens obey the laws, even if it might be worse for a few members. Other natural duty-based arguments contend that the existence of human rights imposes political obligations. This argument asserts that as people benefit from certain rights, they are required to avoid interfering with the rights of others. They are also required to ensure that any other parties do not violate the rights of more vulnerable people. Proponents of this argument believe the most efficient means for protecting those rights is obeying and supporting the state.
Bibliography
Dagger, Richard. “Political Obligation.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 15 Mar. 2021, plato.stanford.edu/entries/political-obligation. Accessed 25 May 2024.
Dobos, Ned. “Political Obligation.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, iep.utm.edu/poli-obl. Accessed 25 May 2024.
Green, Leslie. “Who Believes in Political Obligation?” Osgoode Hall Law School of York University, 1996, core.ac.uk/download/pdf/232634839.pdf. Accessed 25 May 2024.
Klosko, George. “Political Obligation.” Oxford Bibliographies, 27 May 2020, www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199756223/obo-9780199756223-0121.xml. Accessed 25 May 2024.
Reich, Orsolya. “#ToObeyOrNotToObey: The Problem of Political Obligation.” Liberties.eu, 30 Oct. 2017, www.liberties.eu/en/stories/toobeyornottoobey-the-problem-of-political-obligation/13292. Accessed 13 May 2021.
Renzo, Massimo. “Political Obligation.” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics, 23 Feb. 2021, doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.197. Accessed 25 May 2024.
Scheffler, Samuel. “Membership and Political Obligation,” Journal of Political Philosophy, vol. 26, no. 1, 2018, pp. 3–23. Wiley Online Library, onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jopp.12125. Accessed 25 May 2024.
Valenti, Laura. “The Content-Independence of Political Obligation: What Is It and How to Test It.” Legal Theory, vol. 24, no. 2, 16 Aug. 2018, pp. 135–157. Cambridge Core, doi.org/10.1017/S1352325218000095. Accessed 25 May 2024.