Philosophy: John Locke, David Hume

1130 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Consent theory john locke

This is a philosophical question that has been proven ultimately difficult to answer. I believe it is as a result of the complexity of the consent theory. For a theory that places high emphasis on autonomy and freedom, the most obvious basis for legitimate political authority should be some form of voluntary, self-assumed obligation. However, some philosophers such as John Locke and Charles Beitz argue that tacit consent can ground obligation to obey the state’s law while others such as Hanna Pitkin and David Hume counter this argument with the opinion that tacit consent is not sufficient to ground political obligation. Having an obligation simply put, means something one is bound to do for either legal or moral reasons. Therefore, “To have a political obligation is to have a moral duty to obey the laws of one’s country or state”. Theoretically, there are three types of consent; Tacit, Express and Hypothetical and based on the principles of consent theories I don’t support that consent is explains our obligation to obey the law in the practical world. My reasons would be explained constructively in the course of this essay. My plan in this paper is to outline how the different mode of expression of consent is insufficient in explaining our obligation to obey the state’s law by interpreting and evaluating the defects of the types of consent. I shall aim to show that actual consent theories cannot be made to work, because there are no common grounds of actual consent to obey the law. Although most people assume that their obligation to obey the states laws is explained by a practical basis of their consent, I say, if people morally agree with the laws of the state they obey it. Consent theories do not necessarily explain the motive ...

... middle of paper ...

... voter’s intention as expressed by their vote makes their vote meaningless as a form of consent. It could also be that false promises were made to citizens by participants of the election and so these “potential consenter” were misled. It cannot then be that voting for a supposed legit government who acts contrary to what they promised shows that by voting, people consent to the lies they know nothing about. Once again this does not correlate with the conditions of John Simmons of making the potential consenter aware of what they are consenting to.

CONCLUSION
To conclude, I do not agree that voting and staying in the country are plausible. They do not satisfy the conditions of consent theory. I believe that if there is an absence of free choice for potential consenters, there is an absence of any possible explanation to have an obligation to obey the law.

Show More
Related

  • Thomas Hobbes and John Locke

    706 Words  | 2 Pages

    Hobbes and Locke both abandoned the thought of the divine right of monarchy. Both did not agree with the fact that the ruler or assembly would have all power over its citizens. So basically they were against Absolutism and their views were that of rebels in their time period. Theses two philosophers both held similar ideas but also have conflicting ideas pertaining to the citizens "social contract" with their rulers, "Natural Condition of Mankind," and sovereignty.

    Read More

  • Thomas Hobbes and John Locke

    1018 Words  | 3 Pages

    the purpose to preserve was in vain" and he says they are all in the

    Read More

  • Essay On John Locke And Adam Smith

    616 Words  | 2 Pages

    Andy Smith J. Ward February 17, 2014 History 102 Revolutionary Thinkers Locke versus Smith John Locke and Adam Smith were critically acclaimed to be revolutionary thinkers and their thoughts and reasons have very good reasons backed up with ways to describe the Economy and the Government as inefficient or wrong in their Era of their lifetime. John Locke and Adam Smith are both believers that the government should be active in supporting social and political change in the economy. Both Locke and Smith’s thoughts can be equally said revolutionary in comparison, but in terms of what era they lived in and more history that has happened to see more mistakes to correct what happened and possible future outcomes for a clear revolutionary though I believe Adam Smith’s ideas were more revolutionary and his dominant ideas that have helped what we think is the way we do things in todays economy. Smith's influential work, The Wealth of Nations, was written based on the help with the country’s economy who based it off his book. Smith’s book was mainly written on how inefficient mercantilism was, but it was also written to explain what Smith thought was to be a brilliant yet complicated idea of an economic system based on the population and the social ladder.

    Read More

  • John Locke and Thomas Hobbes

    1073 Words  | 3 Pages

    John Locke and Thomas Hobbes both believe that men are equal in the state of nature, but their individual opinions about equality lead them to propose fundamentally different methods of proper civil governance. Locke argues that the correct form of civil government should be concerned with the common good of the people, and defend the citizenry’s rights to life, health, liberty, and personal possessions. Hobbes argues that the proper form of civil government must have an overarching ruler governing the people in order to avoid the state of war. I agree with Locke’s argument because it is necessary for a civil government to properly care for its citizens, which in turn prevents the state of war from occurring in society. Locke also has a better argument than Hobbes because Hobbes’ belief that it is necessary to have a supreme ruler in order to prevent the state of war in society is inherently flawed. This is because doing so would create a state of war in and of itself.

    Read More

  • argument defending political authority

    796 Words  | 2 Pages

    In Huemer’s The Problem Of Political Authority an argument is made against the idea of a political authority. The idea in this argument is that the government has certain rights that do not pertain to the citizens as well. The purpose of this paper is to show that Huemer’s argument fails by arguing a consent-based response to Huemer’s criticisms, which shows that the government does not actually violate a “social contract” made with society. The idea behind this is that we have actually consented to the government’s authority in several ways without being explicit.

    Read More

  • Required To Vote Dbq

    1321 Words  | 3 Pages

    In Document D, it tells us that although Italy has a compulsory voting system in place, it “ranks low” in political satisfaction among western countries. In addition, many voters have “unfavorable attitudes towards their electoral system”. When citizens are required to vote, their attitudes towards voting can become negative. In addition, in places like the US, where voting is optional, voters have the “highest voter satisfaction rates with their political institutions”. So, citizens are much happier with their government when they are given the choice to vote, not when they are forced to do it. The government doesn’t want their citizens to be unhappy; in the past, unhappy citizens has lead to revolts against the government. Citizens being unhappy about compulsory voting is shown in Document E. In Peru, citizens are required to vote and will receive a penalty of US$35 if they do not vote. Because of this penalty, 13% of ballots cast are blank or null. These citizens either “spoiled” their ballots or refused to vote for any of the candidates. It is clear that these citizens were unhappy about being forced to vote and they were unhappy about the penalty for not voting, so they voted, but they voted by casting ballots that were blank or null. Is it really better to have citizens that vote when they are submitting blank or null ballots? No. If citizens are so against voting that they will submit blank or null ballots, they should just be allowed to not

    Read More

  • Locke and Rousseau

    1787 Words  | 4 Pages

    Locke and Rousseau present themselves as two very distinct thinkers. They both use similar terms, but conceptualize them differently to fulfill very different purposes. As such, one ought not be surprised that the two theorists do not understand liberty in the same way. Locke discusses liberty on an individual scale, with personal freedom being guaranteed by laws and institutions created in civil society. By comparison, Rousseau’s conception portrays liberty as an affair of the entire political community, and is best captured by the notion of self-rule. The distinctions, but also the similarities between Locke and Rousseau’s conceptions can be clarified by examining the role of liberty in each theorist’s proposed state of nature and civil society, the concepts with which each theorist associates liberty, and the means of ensuring and safeguarding liberty that each theorist devises.

    Read More

  • Compare and Contrast Locke and Rousseau

    570 Words  | 2 Pages

    The turmoil of the 1600's and the desire for more fair forms of government combined to set the stage for new ideas about sovereignty. Locke wrote many influential political pieces, such as The Second Treatise of Government, which included the proposal for a legislative branch of government that would be selected by the people. Rousseau supported a direct form of democracy in which the people control the sovereignty. (how would the people control the sovereignty??) Sovereignty is the supremacy or authority of rule. Locke and Rousseau both bring up valid points about how a government should be divided and how sovereignty should be addressed.

    Read More

  • John Locke's Consent Theory

    1132 Words  | 3 Pages

    John Locke’s consent theory outlines what true consent should look like, but not what specific acts indicate consent. A significant number of institutions claim to have authority over any given individual: landlords, universities, local, state, and federal governments. When does a person consent to these authorities? For some it is obvious but for others it is not, for example, when does someone consent to the government? If one were to join the military, that would be a clear sign of consent. Contrarily, voting is not an act of consent because it does not follow Locke’s outline for consent theory: it is not intentional, informed, or voluntary.

    Read More

  • Comparing John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau

    2030 Words  | 5 Pages

    Compare John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau all dealt with the issue of political freedom within a society. John Locke's “The Second Treatise of Government”, Mill's “On Liberty”, and Rousseau’s “Discourse On The Origins of Inequality” are influential and compelling literary works which, while outlining the conceptual framework of each thinker’s ideal state, present divergent visions of the very nature of man and his freedom. The three have somewhat different views regarding how much freedom man ought to have in political society because they have different views regarding man's basic potential for inherently good or evil behavior, as well as the ends or purpose of political societies. In order to examine how each thinker views man and the freedom he should have in a political society, it is necessary to define freedom or liberty from each philosopher’s perspective.

    Read More

  • Compare And Contrast John Locke And Machiavelli

    1447 Words  | 3 Pages

    Machiavelli believed that, ethics and morality were considered in other categories than those generally known. He does not deny the existence of, but did not see how they can be useful in its traditional sense as in politics and in the government of the people. According to Machiavelli, a man is by nature a political angry and fearful. Machiavelli had no high opinion of the people. It is assumed that a person is forced to be good and can get into the number of positive features, such as prudence and courage. The prince can only proceed gently and with love, because that would undermine the naivety of his rule, and hence and the well-being of the state. He thought that, the Lord must act morally as far as possible, immorally to the extent to

    Read More

  • The Lifeboat Theory Of Voting

    1445 Words  | 3 Pages

    Each voter would have to take a test prior to voting to assess whether or not they are actually voting for what they want or just voting because they now are required. Otherwise, the vote of the informed citizens will be cancelled out by the vote of those who are not informed and that would not properly reflect on any group’s desires. Many forced votes would be picked randomly, or whoever comes first on the ballot. Recent work suggests that compulsory voting has no noticeable effect on political knowledge or interest, (Engelen and Hooghe, 2007) nor any evident effect on electoral outcomes (Selb and Lachat, 2007). Democratic rights are founded upon the belief in people’s ability to make rational judgments. If a citizen is rational, and voting is in their own best interest, then there isn’t a need to force them to vote.

    Read More

  • David Hume And Spinoza

    1816 Words  | 4 Pages

    David Hume in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding and Benedict De Spinoza in The Ethics run noteworthy parallels in about metaphysics and human nature. Spinoza and Hume share opinions of apriori knowledge and free will. For human nature, similar concepts of the imagination and morality arise. Although both philosophers derive similar conclusions in their philosophy, they could not be further distanced from one another in their concepts of God. Regarded as an atheist, Spinoza argues that God is the simple substance which composes everything and that nothing is outside of this simple substance. Hume rejects this notion completely and claims that nothing in the world can give us a clear picture of God. Hume rejects the argument from design

    Read More

  • A Comparison Of Aristotle And David Hume

    2051 Words  | 5 Pages

    Aristotle and David Hume share very clashing views on morality. Aristotle and Hume both believe in the possibility of being a virtuous person and both emphasize importance when it comes to reason, but their respective definitions of what virtue and reason actually mean differ drastically. Aristotle believes all human actions aim at some good, while Hume believes the reason behind everything is arithmetic and that human passions rule over reason. There is one supreme good according to Aristotle, but Hume believes what is good and bad all depends on perception. Both Aristotle and Hume take on the same topics in regards to morality, but take very different approaches.

    Read More

  • Compare And Contrast Locke And Socrates

    1169 Words  | 3 Pages

    John Locke and Socrates both have two distinctive and compelling arguments about what the social contract is. While government’s today extract ideas from both theories of the social contract, it’s is hard to determine which is the just and appropriate. While there is little comparison between the two theories other than fact that there must be a relationship between the government and the people for a society to exist, there are several opposing ideas in these arguments. First, the Socrates idea of an implicit social contract versus Locke’s explicit social contract. Secondly, Socrates believes laws make the society and in contrast, Locke believes society makes the law. Finally, Socrates believes the very few educated persons or minority

    Read More

More about Philosophy: John Locke, David Hume

Open Document