Revsion Essay On Political Obligation (Political Theory)
Examine the reasons given for arguing we have a political obligation to obey the government. Are there ever good reasons for disobeying the law?
Plan
1. Pol Oblig Reason 1- Ensuring our own security. Hobbes.
2. PO Reason 2- Social Contract Theory. Hobbes, Locke, and most important development with Rousseuau
3. Within Social Contract Theory Disobey The Law Reason 1- ‘Right to Rebellion’ SCT Locke, US Constitution, French ‘Rights of Man’
4. DTL Reason 2- Non-Violent protest. Gandhi, US Civil Rights and success of some Violent action.
5. DTL Reason 3- Civil Disobedience. John Rawls on CD in good democracy.
Intro.
The main reason given for arguing we have a political obligation to obey the government is that it is the only way of ensuring our own personal security. This led to ‘Social Contract’ theory which I believe is still important in relation to our political obligation to obey the law. There are also good reasons for disobeying the law. I believe that ‘Social Contract’ theory establishes a ‘right to rebellion/revolution’ in response to despotic leadership and an example of this is clearly stated in the US Constitution. Forms of non-violent protest have been very successful in the past, violent revolution can be sanctioned in extreme cases and ‘civil disobedience’ can be used, with conditions, to demonstrate a political point.
1.
The primary reason for having a political obligation to obey the government comes from the understanding that it should result in more personal security for its own people. Thomas Hobbes, an important English political theorist, argued that a ‘state of nature’ (meaning how life would be like without government) would be ‘nasty, brutish and short’ in his famous work ‘Leviathan’ This is where Hobbes argued when he said that without a government in his ‘state of nature’ it would be a ‘war of all against all.’ When he is quoted saying life would be ‘nasty, brutal and short’ in this state he argues that we should give our power away to an absolute monarch who would protect us from ourselves and each other. Regardless of his solution Hobbes’ words have been used to remind people of what life could be, and was in earlier times, like without a government thus enforcing the idea of what could be at stake if we don’t obey our government.
2.
A ‘Social Contract’ is now abstract concept but their development gave us a tangible reason to obey the government. When the Frenchman Jean-Jaques Rousseuau took up these themes in his treatise ‘The Social Contract’ he articulated this as an agreement between all people about how their will be demonstrated to the government. It was not as in Hobbes, where the population pool their individual power and give it over to the ruler/s:with Rousseuau who believed in some sort of direct democracy, and certain not any kind of representative democracy, it was all about finding the ‘general will’ of the people.
3.
Within this development of ‘Social Contract’ theory there was established a ‘right to rebellion/revolution’ if the government was not representing the ‘will of the people’. It was most clearly specified in John Locke’s 1689 work ‘Two Treatises of Government’ where he established this ‘right to rebellion’ where the government was tyrannical. Rousseuau’s idea was that the ‘contract’ would be refreshed and renewed with each demonstration of the ‘general will’ but without direct democracy this had to be achieved in some other way. To this end, Locke introduced the idea of ‘checks and balances’ being put in place to ensure that the executive and legislature have a separation of powers. This ‘right to rebellion/revolution’ was considered so important that it is mentioned in the US Constitution, the French Revolutionary ‘Rights of Man’ proclamation and is still considered by most to be fundamental to the conception of a modern ‘Social Contract.’
4.
In circumstances where the government is seen to be ‘unjust’ (a term that blatantly suffers from relativism) or repressive it could be argued that non-violent protest or in even more dramatic cases revolution, or to some others even terrorism, could be sanctioned. Non-violent protest or ‘Satyagraha’ was famously used by Gandhi to express his dissatisfaction with British rule in India and other non-violent protests like that of Rosa Parks in the black civil-rights movement in the United States of America. The argument for violent revolution or even terrorism is weaker but if the oppression of the people is extreme enough (again relativism is an issue) then I believe more dramatic methods could be employed. In most famous revolutions it is an oppressive dictator or regime that is seen by the people to not represent them that are targeted, but to what lengths people can go in this situation is definitely a matter of opinion. Both Nelson Mandela and the current Sinn Fein leadership had been involved with terrorist activity of some sort and have subsequently enjoyed political power.
5.
‘Civil Disobedience’ as a concept was popularised by an essay by Henry David Thoreau in 1849 and, as mentioned above, this type of non-violent resistance has been widely used to make a political point. Thoreau was objecting to paying taxes to a government that allowed slavery and was credited by Gandhi as being “the chief cause of the abolition of slavery in America”. It was argued by John Rawls in his 1971 work ‘A Theory of Justice’ that ‘Civil Disobedience’ could, and should, be part of a fair democracy. He says that as long as it is done right(i.e. within the general conception of law), it shows a certain respect for the established political authority and is a way of people expressing their moral objection to something that they feel is ‘unjust’ without causing direct violence. What happens when you have something that is clearly ‘unjust’ to you but it attracts no popular support even after the issue has been raised by civil disobedience? Maybe Roussaueu’s argument for disassociating yourself with your political peer group would be applicable but it is in practice not easily achieved.
Conc.
The most important reason given for arguing that we have a political obligation to obey the government is that without a functioning government we would be in a, so called, ‘state of nature’ where, with no laws, it would be a war ‘of all against all.’ In this state, it has also been famously said that life would be, ‘nasty, brutish and short’, so the implication is that we need to submit to a greater ‘social order’ of some sort, for our own security. These ideas we first articulated by what political theorist call ‘social contract theory’. This is the now implicit understanding that there is an abstract ‘social contract’ between the people to ensure that the government respects the ‘general will’ of the electorate. Put very crudely, these ‘contracts’ are meant to ensure that the people’s interests will be served by the government in return for people obeying the law. The ‘right to rebellion’ was an essential part of John Locke’s social contract theory, explicitly mentioned in the US constitution and the ‘Rights of Man’ from the French Revolution and I will argue is still important to any healthy democracy. Non-violent resistance has been famously used by people like Gandhi, South African Anti-Apartheid protesters and the US Civil-Rights movement. Even violent revolution or terrorist actions could be seen by some to be legitimate in certain circumstances. ‘Civil Disobedience’ was first encouraged by Thoreau in the late nineteenth century to show solidarity with the movement to abolish slavery in America by non payment of taxes and more recently the political theorist/philosopher John Rawls argued that ‘Civil Disobedience’ could and in fact should be part of a functioning democracy.
Sebastian O’Brien April 2007
Plan
1. Pol Oblig Reason 1- Ensuring our own security. Hobbes.
2. PO Reason 2- Social Contract Theory. Hobbes, Locke, and most important development with Rousseuau
3. Within Social Contract Theory Disobey The Law Reason 1- ‘Right to Rebellion’ SCT Locke, US Constitution, French ‘Rights of Man’
4. DTL Reason 2- Non-Violent protest. Gandhi, US Civil Rights and success of some Violent action.
5. DTL Reason 3- Civil Disobedience. John Rawls on CD in good democracy.
Intro.
The main reason given for arguing we have a political obligation to obey the government is that it is the only way of ensuring our own personal security. This led to ‘Social Contract’ theory which I believe is still important in relation to our political obligation to obey the law. There are also good reasons for disobeying the law. I believe that ‘Social Contract’ theory establishes a ‘right to rebellion/revolution’ in response to despotic leadership and an example of this is clearly stated in the US Constitution. Forms of non-violent protest have been very successful in the past, violent revolution can be sanctioned in extreme cases and ‘civil disobedience’ can be used, with conditions, to demonstrate a political point.
1.
The primary reason for having a political obligation to obey the government comes from the understanding that it should result in more personal security for its own people. Thomas Hobbes, an important English political theorist, argued that a ‘state of nature’ (meaning how life would be like without government) would be ‘nasty, brutish and short’ in his famous work ‘Leviathan’ This is where Hobbes argued when he said that without a government in his ‘state of nature’ it would be a ‘war of all against all.’ When he is quoted saying life would be ‘nasty, brutal and short’ in this state he argues that we should give our power away to an absolute monarch who would protect us from ourselves and each other. Regardless of his solution Hobbes’ words have been used to remind people of what life could be, and was in earlier times, like without a government thus enforcing the idea of what could be at stake if we don’t obey our government.
2.
A ‘Social Contract’ is now abstract concept but their development gave us a tangible reason to obey the government. When the Frenchman Jean-Jaques Rousseuau took up these themes in his treatise ‘The Social Contract’ he articulated this as an agreement between all people about how their will be demonstrated to the government. It was not as in Hobbes, where the population pool their individual power and give it over to the ruler/s:with Rousseuau who believed in some sort of direct democracy, and certain not any kind of representative democracy, it was all about finding the ‘general will’ of the people.
3.
Within this development of ‘Social Contract’ theory there was established a ‘right to rebellion/revolution’ if the government was not representing the ‘will of the people’. It was most clearly specified in John Locke’s 1689 work ‘Two Treatises of Government’ where he established this ‘right to rebellion’ where the government was tyrannical. Rousseuau’s idea was that the ‘contract’ would be refreshed and renewed with each demonstration of the ‘general will’ but without direct democracy this had to be achieved in some other way. To this end, Locke introduced the idea of ‘checks and balances’ being put in place to ensure that the executive and legislature have a separation of powers. This ‘right to rebellion/revolution’ was considered so important that it is mentioned in the US Constitution, the French Revolutionary ‘Rights of Man’ proclamation and is still considered by most to be fundamental to the conception of a modern ‘Social Contract.’
4.
In circumstances where the government is seen to be ‘unjust’ (a term that blatantly suffers from relativism) or repressive it could be argued that non-violent protest or in even more dramatic cases revolution, or to some others even terrorism, could be sanctioned. Non-violent protest or ‘Satyagraha’ was famously used by Gandhi to express his dissatisfaction with British rule in India and other non-violent protests like that of Rosa Parks in the black civil-rights movement in the United States of America. The argument for violent revolution or even terrorism is weaker but if the oppression of the people is extreme enough (again relativism is an issue) then I believe more dramatic methods could be employed. In most famous revolutions it is an oppressive dictator or regime that is seen by the people to not represent them that are targeted, but to what lengths people can go in this situation is definitely a matter of opinion. Both Nelson Mandela and the current Sinn Fein leadership had been involved with terrorist activity of some sort and have subsequently enjoyed political power.
5.
‘Civil Disobedience’ as a concept was popularised by an essay by Henry David Thoreau in 1849 and, as mentioned above, this type of non-violent resistance has been widely used to make a political point. Thoreau was objecting to paying taxes to a government that allowed slavery and was credited by Gandhi as being “the chief cause of the abolition of slavery in America”. It was argued by John Rawls in his 1971 work ‘A Theory of Justice’ that ‘Civil Disobedience’ could, and should, be part of a fair democracy. He says that as long as it is done right(i.e. within the general conception of law), it shows a certain respect for the established political authority and is a way of people expressing their moral objection to something that they feel is ‘unjust’ without causing direct violence. What happens when you have something that is clearly ‘unjust’ to you but it attracts no popular support even after the issue has been raised by civil disobedience? Maybe Roussaueu’s argument for disassociating yourself with your political peer group would be applicable but it is in practice not easily achieved.
Conc.
The most important reason given for arguing that we have a political obligation to obey the government is that without a functioning government we would be in a, so called, ‘state of nature’ where, with no laws, it would be a war ‘of all against all.’ In this state, it has also been famously said that life would be, ‘nasty, brutish and short’, so the implication is that we need to submit to a greater ‘social order’ of some sort, for our own security. These ideas we first articulated by what political theorist call ‘social contract theory’. This is the now implicit understanding that there is an abstract ‘social contract’ between the people to ensure that the government respects the ‘general will’ of the electorate. Put very crudely, these ‘contracts’ are meant to ensure that the people’s interests will be served by the government in return for people obeying the law. The ‘right to rebellion’ was an essential part of John Locke’s social contract theory, explicitly mentioned in the US constitution and the ‘Rights of Man’ from the French Revolution and I will argue is still important to any healthy democracy. Non-violent resistance has been famously used by people like Gandhi, South African Anti-Apartheid protesters and the US Civil-Rights movement. Even violent revolution or terrorist actions could be seen by some to be legitimate in certain circumstances. ‘Civil Disobedience’ was first encouraged by Thoreau in the late nineteenth century to show solidarity with the movement to abolish slavery in America by non payment of taxes and more recently the political theorist/philosopher John Rawls argued that ‘Civil Disobedience’ could and in fact should be part of a functioning democracy.
Sebastian O’Brien April 2007
posted by Seba at
1:59 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home