Political Obligation Argument Analysis

“There is no obligation to obey the law even in a good society where the legal system is just.”
Table of Contents

3. Introduction
3. Social Contract Theory
5. Political Obligations
6. Positivist and Natural Law Theory
8. Civil Disobedience
9. Conclusion

The way in which we interpret what the law is, has a large influence on whether we feel we have a sense of duty to obey it. This essay will examine different legal opinions on what gives the law authority in order to determine the extent to which citizens have a duty to abide by legal demands. I will argue that members of a society should have a duty to obey the law, only if the minimal moral content of natural law is met within that legal system. My argument will
Harris holds that a political obligation to obey the law arises when, “[A]nyone who takes part in democratic processes, for instance by voting, impliedly promises to obey the law.”7 He argues that because politicians have a moral duty to keep their promises, it can be held that obedience to the law on behalf of the voter is also morally required. Singer claims that we may have a duty to obey the law derived from our political obligations because in a liberal democratic society, by taking part in a decision-making process, it gives rise to an obligation to act as if one had consented to be bound by the result.8 Hobbes argues that because we live in a society dependable on each other, we accept our leaders because we know that there would be chaos without them. Thus we should have a political obligatory duty to obey the laws which they
Paul, and St. Thomas Aquinas have all argued against this, claiming that a natural law duty to obey the law does exist. This brings us to the natural law basis to which one will have a duty to obey the law, providing the minimal content of natural law is met. Harris holds that in order to determine whether there is a moral duty to obey the law, one has to affirm, “[T]hat there are moral grounds why one ought to perform any act which the law prescribes or abstain from any act which the law prohibits.”13 Hart has challenged Austin’s positivist definition of law as shown above by arguing that the proper way to understand a true positivist system is that it will not be based on fear, as coercion is suggestive of illegitimacy, but that it will be based on the feeling that one ought to obey the law. Hart’s definition of the law consists of primary rules and secondary rules; primary rules are rules which impose duties on individuals to guide everyday conduct. Secondary rules, such as the minimum protection of the person, protection of property, and rules against harmful inter-group interaction, are those which are designed to place some constraints about the appropriate content of primary rules.14 Therefore, law is properly called law when it has the minimal moral content of natural law, and consists of primary and secondary laws that legal actors feel morally obligated to comply with. One important part of Hart’s argument, however, is