Political Theory Essay 1

Why should we obey the law?

The question of whether we, members of societies and citizens of states, have any reasons to obey the
law stands at the very heart of political theory and has been the object of discussion for many theorists
of the field. And if we do have such reasons, are we really obliged to follow them and abide by the
law? And then, when should this obligation, if at all, be waived?
A main argument in favor of our obligation towards the authority of the state is based on consent.
Consent theory is founded on the notion that the citizen is obliged to follow the laws that a legitimately
selected government forms (ed. McKinnon 2008). Locke, Hobbes and Rousseau offer arguments on the
basis of consent (ed. McKinnon 2008).
For Locke, the natural law is important. In nature all people are born free, equal and independent from
each other and it only comes as a necessity to them to group together and form societies (Locke n.d.,
p.2). In nature Locke argues that there are three basic needs. Firstly, there is a natural law basically
constituting of common sense and rationale. Secondly, everyone wants to be judged objectively
according to this natural law when it comes to their associations with other human beings and thirdly,
everyone wants this law to be enforced, or else stated, punishment to those deviating from the law and
compensation to their victims to be applied. Locke argues that humans in their pursuing of their
individual interests have different potentials of predating over others. This innate inequality and the
fear it accompanies are the forces that lead people into forming political communities that ensure the
satisfaction of the three aforementioned needs. By coming into polities, people endow part of their
natural independence to the society they form and for Locke through this they undertake the
responsibility to obey the authorities of the state. People give their natural right to exercise punishment
to the state which formulates and ensures the impartial enforcement of the law. This is where the power
of the legislator, the government and society as a whole stems from for Locke: the utilitarian need to
ensure one's welfare. And by entering the society, people express their consent to abide by the law in
the social contract and to be concluded by the majority (Locke n.d., p.2). They also express their tacit

consent simply by living in the state's territories (ed. McKinnon 2008).

Are there any occasions then when people should defy their government according to Locke? For
Locke, the natural law answers this question as well. One enters the society and gives up her
independence only to the extent that this ensures her welfare. It is irrational for people to give up more
than needed to ensure the three aforementioned needs (Locke presupposes that people are rational on
that) (Locke n.d., p.5) and it comes from the natural law that one can have only that which the other
person freely and uncoerced consents to give, therefore the government is legitimate only to that extent
(Locke n.d., p.6). On the extreme and unwanted occasion that the government which is selected by the
majority trespasses this natural law, then it is the right of the people to withdraw their trust to the
government and replace it with another that will ensure the protection of the welfare of the society and
the individual within it according to the natural law, which is the actual reason the society was formed
for (Locke n.d., p.7).
Rousseau, like Locke, starts from the same point that has people gathering and forming polities as a
means to ensure their welfare against the dangers existing in nature (Rouseau n.d., p.2). However, he
claims his model of the social contract to maintain and ensure the freedom that the man had in the state
of nature (Rouseau n.d., p.3). For Rousseau, there exists a general will which is associated with the
general good and which is expressed by the Sovereign (the people in other words) (Rousseau n.d. p.3).
For Rousseau, people can have individual interests but as long as they deliberate outside factions and
guilds (citizens had no communication one with another) the general will can be expressed as a sum
of all individual wills (Rousseau n.d. p.5). The general will concerns only common issues and therefore
individual issues should not be a matter of public decision making (Rousseau n.d. p.6). If an individual
has a different opinion from the general will then she simply has the wrong opinion at the time
(Rousseau n.d. p.17). Therefore, for Rousseau, given that the individual will is expressed without
communication between citizens, the general will aims at the general good which ensures the freedom
of the individual and the actual interest of the individual. After such a strong claim, it follows as a
logical conclusion that the individual should be bound by the majority since it is to one's own benefit
(Rousseau n.d. p.16). Rousseau does not believe in representation for law making, rather in immediate
participation (Rousseau n.d. p.14) and it is common sense that people must abide by the law because

they actually made it. It is a just thing to do so, since no rational being is unjust to herself (Rousseau
n.d. p.8). Expressed consent is given by the citizens unanimously at forming the social compact while
tacit consent to abide by the state's laws is given by residing in its territories (Rousseau n.d. p.16). Like
Locke, Rousseau insists on the importance of the citizen to abide by the laws, even if that means that
she will be punished.
When should the citizen withdraw her support to the government and not obey its authority according
to Rousseau? The government is just the intermediary between the people and the individual with the
main purpose of executing the law ensuring the welfare of the people (Rousseau n.d. p.10). Therefore,
although turmoils are dangerous for the political system (Rousseau n.d. p.14) when the government,
whichever form it has, ceases to perform this function, the people are no longer bound by the social
contract to obey it (Rousseau n.d. p.12).

Comparison between Locke and Rousseau

Both Locke and Rousseau begin from the same idea of why people form polities, both recognize the
conclusion of the social contract as expressed consent and residence as tacit consent to abide by the
law and both insist on citizens abiding by the laws of the majority even if this means being punished.
Locke however has natural law at the very center of his theory, while Rousseau has the will of the
people. Finally, Rousseau allows people to defy the authority of a government that opposes the general
will of the people, while Locke allows room for defiance if the government does not respect the natural
rights of the citizens.

Critique on the assumptions of Locke and Rousseau and other contract theories
Locke's core assumption that people are only bound by the natural law and are willing to sacrifice that
much could be contested. There are other rights that an individual might be willing to sacrifice in
entering a society which are worth making laws for and abiding by them. For instance, Locke or maybe
mostly his descendant liberal thinkers would probably not be satisfied with the idea of a heavily
redistributive and highly regulated taxation system. This is basically a social construction which is not
provided by the natural law assumption. However, citizens might be highly willing to have legislation

and abide by it in a socialistic society or a non liberal model of democracy. Rousseau on the other hand
would allow for it since it is the general will that his theory is centered around. However, Rousseau's
value of the general will which is associated with the general good can and has actually been contested
by Schumpeter(Schumpeter n.d). The notion of a misconceived citizen who has a different opinion and
not a real interest (since she does not really know her interest which is in accordance with the general
will) might be a too strong argument to support the infallibility of the laws and the logical assumption
that all must follow a correct law.
Other arguments against the notion of consent are presented by Keith Hyams (ed. McKinnon 2008).
According to Hyams most consent theories are based on tacit consent since it is rather hard to have
expressed consent in modern societies. Tacit consent is the uncoerced consent given by the citizen to
the authorities for a useful act that the authorities have the right to prohibit the citizen from performing
if she does not give her consent (ed. McKinnon 2008). Residence in the state's territories and
participation in the voting process are considered tacit consent. The former an argument of both Locke
and Rousseau can be contested on the ground of choice whether to stay or leave the state. The point to
consider is whether citizens really have this choice to leave and let family friends and other social
factors behind, or even in terms of financial ability to leave one's country and whether it remains
uncoerced in such grounds. Another point to consider is whether the state actually has any right of
refusing residence if consent is not given by the citizen which is highly unlikely since right of property
might even precede the formation of a state (ed. McKinnon 2008).
As far as participation in elections is concerned it could be alleged that since the state organizes them
for legislative reasons, it has the right to refuse participation unless the citizen tacitly consents to abide
by the law. But what happens then to the people who disagree with the outcome of the voting or do not
want to participate in the first place? If they are forced to participate simply for the shake of choosing
the least of two evils then a matter of coercion comes into play (ed. McKinnon 2008). Still, one might
claim that it might be dangerous to consent to every law an elected government might legislate as other
reasons are important for abiding or not by laws.

Morality

Moral issues might be some of the other reasons one might obey or not the laws of her state. Theorists
of this argument claim that laws are merely an official representation of moral laws and since moral
laws are likely to be followed by most people, laws should be followed too (ed. McKinnon 2008). This
argument is not a lot against Locke or Rousseau. Locke's natural law presupposes that there exists a
natural law which stems from common sense. Common sense and natural fairness can be associated
with moral laws and the way each human wishes to be treated by others. Accordingly, Rousseau's
general will pursues the general good which can have moral traits. The difference between this theory
and consent is that it puts morality in the center of reasoning why people should abide by the law. The
theory does not explain what happens with morally neutral or immoral laws (ed. McKinnon 2008). For
instance, taxation laws as seen before are rather neutral, while Apartheid laws were totally immoral.

Fairness
The theory of fairness is based on the notion of fair trade between citizens on the grounds of the
benefits they enjoy due to their living in a society (ed. McKinnon 2008). The theory claims that since
the citizen enjoys the benefit of safety for instance because of the existence of a national army, she
should offer her services to the state when asked to join the army. Traits of this notion are also visible
in both Rousseau and Locke. Locke underlines the benefits and conveniences people enjoy in joining a
society (Locke n.d., p.5) while Rousseau stresses the moral obligation of people to offer back what they
receive in a society (Rousseau n.d. p.8). It should also be stated that both consent and fairness theories
have a voluntary character from the point of the individual (ed. Bellamy 2003). They are based on the
voluntary engagement of the citizen in consenting or offering something in return respectively. Again,
however, the fairness theorists put fairness instead of consent in the center of their arguments to
provide reasoning for obeying the laws.

Communities
Finally, some theorists propose the mere participation of the individual in the society as a sufficient
reason to abide by its laws (ed. McKinnon 2008). These theorists claim that participation in a
community gives rise to political obligation to obey the community's laws. It is not important if the

individual chooses to be part of the community which is a subtle difference from both Rousseau and
Locke. The core of this theory comes from the notion of family (ed. McKinnon 2008). By being a
member of a family the individual assumes obligations towards other members. Likewise by being part
of a nation or a state the citizen must assume responsibilities. The major objection to this theory comes
from the morality theory and has to do with abiding by immoral laws simply because they are the laws
of the community (ed. McKinnon 2008). Of course, it is also a different thing to talk about families and
nations; the scales are different and the bonds between the members of these communities might not be
very comparable.

Conclusions
Rousseau's and Locke's reasoning on why the citizens should abide by the law of the state are the most
influential as it can be alleged that all other theories are in most of their parts critics and scrutinizers of
these consent theories. What is more, as seen above, these two theories have room for the inclusion of
morality and fairness theories. It could be alleged that the differences between all these theories are on
what they base their core argument on: consent or the reasoning behind consent. In other words should
the citizen obey the law because she has given her consent or because she has reasons to give her
consent? In these grounds, one might find it fruitful not to reject any of the theories, but rather choose
the ones that apply best to the specific democratic institution or group or society in question.

References
1. Hyams, K., 2008. Political authority and obligation. In C. McKinnon, ed. Issues in political

theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

2. Locke, J., Extract from a web edition of John Lockes Second Treatise of Government, PDF.
Available from: https://mondo.su.se/access/content/group/2eb795df-e624-40fa-b257c5be12ccc58d/PT03/Extra%20texts/1.%20Political%20authority%20and
%20obligation/Locke.pdf [Accessed February 8, 2016].
3. Rousseau, J., J., Extract from a web edition of Jean-Jacques Rousseaus The Social Contract,
PDF. Available from: https://mondo.su.se/access/content/group/2eb795df-e624-40fa-b257c5be12ccc58d/PT03/Extra%20texts/1.%20Political%20authority%20and
%20obligation/Rousseau.pdf [Accessed February 8, 2016].
4. Schumpeter, J., Extract from Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, PDF. Available from:
http://deakinphilosophicalsociety.com/texts/schumpeter/c_s_d-short.pdf [Accessed February 8,
2016].
5. Martin, R., 2003. Political obligation. In R. Bellamy & A. Mason, eds. Political concepts.
Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.