Consent and Political Obligation Consent is defined as “an act of permitting something to be done or of recognizing some authority” (Britannica, n.d.). Almost all political theorists share this definition of consent, however the boundaries surrounding this definition leave us asking many questions: how do we consent, to whom do we consent and when do we consent? Most importantly, did we consent at all? When we go back to the fundamentals of defining how, when, and if we gave consent, it is to be derived that we never consented. The following will define the boundaries of consent, give a summary of the various philosophical arguments given for political obligation, and disseminate these arguments. Political Obligation There are five main theories to political obligation: Fairness Theory, Community Theory, Morality Theory, Consent Theory and Philosophical …show more content…
A person gives expressed consent when we announce, either through speech or in writing that, we consent to something. Tacit consent however refers to subtle forms of consenting where one makes no expressed announcement. Nevertheless, there are different views for defining tacit consent. Within this essay, tacit consent will be referred to as “actions that serve no other purpose than merely for the reason to consent” (McKinnon, 2015, p. 11). With this definition we can explore the arguments for political obligation and break down their foundations. Voting. The first argument for consent theory, voting, is given by John Plamenatz who writes, “where there is an established process of election to an office, then, provided the election is free, anyone who takes part in the process consents to the authority of whoever is elected to the office” (McKinnon, 2015, p. 15). Therefore, Plamenatz argues that if we vote freely, we are giving consent to the chosen party because we have the option to vote or not to
Nye, Howard. PHIL 250 B1, Winter Term 2014 Lecture Notes – Ethics. University of Alberta.
Authority can only become an issue once the rights of the individual are being impinged, a concept represented in both V for Vendetta and the Stanford Prison Experiment. These two texts, along with the study of the concept of authority and the individual, have expanded my understanding of myself, individuals and the world. It has especially broadened my knowledge on the crossover of the concept, the ability for the individual to have authority and the ability for both sides to be perceived as good or bad and the power of a person’s individuality. “The line between good and evil is permeable and almost anyone can be induced to cross it when pressured by situational forces.”
The founding principles of democracy are the will of the people and the rule of law. The former meaning that the citizens' beliefs, desires, etc. are translated into the government. The latter meaning that all individuals have equality under the law and that each individual has equal influence; this is frequently interpreted into the idea of one person, one vote (Garner, 2009). A third principle may be added to first two meta-principles as an offshoot, that the government must be transparent in its functions to achieve true democrac...
away workers’ ability to consent. It could easily be argued that consent cannot be given within
Somewhere near the heart of much contemporary liberal political theory is the claim that if the state restricts an agent's liberty, its restrictions should have some rationale that is defensible to each of those whose liberty is constrained. Liberals are committed to the "requirement that all aspects of the social order should either be made acceptable or be capable of being made acceptable to every last individual." But there are many kinds of claim which are particularly controversial, many about which we expect reasonable disagreement. Coercive policies should not be justified on the basis of such controversial grounds; rather, they should enjoy public justification. That coercive policy should enjoy public justification implies that political actors are subject to various principles of restraint, that is, that they should restrain themselves from supporting policies solely on the basis of excessively controversial grounds. The point of advocating restraint is to achieve a minimal moral conception, a core morality, which is rationally acceptable to all and which provides the ground rules for political association.
Each day, billions of people throughout the world affirm their commitment to a specific idea; to be part of a society. While this social contract is often overlooked by most citizens, their agreement to it nevertheless has far-reaching consequences. Being a member of society entails relinquishing self-autonomy to a higher authority, whose aim should be to promote the overall good of the populace. While making this decision to become part of a commonwealth is usually performed without explicit deliberation, there is a common consensus amongst philosophers that something unique to the human experience is the driving force behind this decision. Contained within this something are highly contested points of debate amongst both past and contemporary political philosophers. Two such philosophers are Thomas Hobbes and Thomas Aquinas. Each of these political writers provide detailed arguments regarding the concept of natural law, the role that reason plays in this law, whether some laws are considered truly rational, and why some people choose not to follow certain principles even when they recognize them to be rational. By analyzing each of these arguments, we will arrive at the conclusion that even though the rational principles that reason provides us can easily be disregarded by the populace, that we can still find a common good within promulgating rational doctrine.
Are we morally obliged to obey even unjust laws? Think about what this means. This means that laws, regardless of how unfair, unjust, or immoral they may be, must be followed with no better reason that they are the law. To the thesis that we are obliged to obey even unjust laws, I will argue that the standard objections to Civil Disobedience, given by Singer, are incorrect
Immanuel Kant addresses a question often asked in political theory: the relationship between practical political behavior and morality -- how people do behave in politics and how they ought to behave. Observers of political action recognize that political action is often a morally questionable business. Yet many of us, whether involved heavily in political action or not, have a sense that political behavior could and should be better than this. In Appendix 1 of Perpetual Peace, Kant explicates that conflict does not exist between politics and morality, because politics is an application of morality. Objectively, he argues that morality and politics are reconcilable. In this essay, I will argue two potential problems with Kant’s position on the compatibility of moral and politics: his denial of moral importance in emotion and particular situations when an action seems both politically legitimate and yet almost immoral; if by ‘politics’, regarded as a set of principles of political prudence, and ‘morals’, as a system of laws that bind us unconditionally.
Beauchamp, T. L.(2003). A Defense of the Common Morality. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 13(3), 259-274.
They are not only its inert or consenting target; they are always also the elements of its articulation” (Foucault, “Two Lectures” 34). Power may take various forms, all of which are employed and exercised by individualsand unto individuals in the institutions of society. In all institutions, there is political and judicial power, as certain individuals claim the right to give orders, establish rules, and so forth as well as the right to punish and award. For example, in school, the professor not only teaches, but also dictates, evaluates, as well as punishes and rewards.
The conclusion presented by Nagel is that the theory of obligation can explain special features of public morality. Also those individuals can take steps to restrict certain choices. Nagel also concluded that the institutional structure shields indi...
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.
Authority cannot exist without obedience. Society is built on this small, but important concept. Without authority and its required obedience, there would only be anarchy and chaos. But how much is too much, or too little? There is a fine line between following blindly and irrational refusal to obey those in a meaningful position of authority. Obedience to authority is a real and powerful force that should be understood and respected in order to handle each situation in the best possible manner.
The idea of consent is a key element in the works of John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. In the "Second Treatise of Government," Locke puts forth his conception of the ideal form of government based on a social contract. As Locke develops his theory of consent, he also incorporates theories of political obligation on the part of all citizens of his state as well as his theory of revolution and the conditions under which rebellion is permissible. Though Locke may appear to have explored the notion of consent completely, there are some problems with his theory that weaken its impact. Despite the possible problems encountered with Locke's idea of consent in a political society, Rousseau, in his essay "On the Social Contract," seems to agree with Locke with regards to the concept of consent as it applies to the use of money. The works of Locke and Rousseau explore political foundations that depend on a social contract which requires consent above all things in order to secure liberty for the people.
“No body doubts but an express Consent, of any Man, entring into any Society, makes him a perfect member of that Society, a Subject of that Government” (Laslett 1988, p.119). Thus, in a Lockean view, the very presence of one on the ‘soil’ shows that s/he has given, more specifically, tacit consent. Yet, Locke fails to give any examples that could illustrate this notion and support it any further. As a result, it is inevitable that many questions arise. For instance, one could not know w...