Christopher Wellman, a self-avowed statist argues that we do have a moral duty to obey just laws of a legitimate regime. Simmons counters that this, and all other attempts to explain our duty to obey the law, fail. Hart explains the existence of a legal system by the reunion of two perspectives usually respectively attributed to naturalist and positivist. This paper provides a defense of the following thesis: When there is reasonable disagreement over the design of morally necessary collective action schemes, it would not be reasonable to reject the authority of a democratic decision procedure to settle these disputes. These theorists indeed tried to argue that the moral obligation to obey the law depends on features that are not essential to the existence of a legal system and that when missing then do not affect the effectiveness of such a system. On the other hand, given the extraordinary powers of the state, the conditions under which I become obliged must surely be stronger than merely being a member of that society.
This article i shows that the literature does not have the resources to answer, ii develops a pragmatist answer, and then iii closes by suggesting that, properly understood, the problem of political authority calls not for more permutations of, say, consent theory, but concrete, genuinely democratic political systems. Resting on natural rights, such arguments can be no more persuasive than the underlying arguments for the existence of such rights, which are notoriously weak. The second example calls for that. This is neither implausibly morally demanding, nor commits one to the view that justice licences legally coercive job allocation. Environmental legislation is a means restricting access to the commons.
It is argued that the traditional efficiency of the common law arose in the context of a particular historical institutional setting and that changes in that institutional framework have made the common law more susceptible to rent-seeking pressures and thereby undermined its pro-efficiency orientation. And as Raz points out, some terrible violations of law only bring the rest of the community together in considering the law to be important, so sometimes breaking a law even in a horrific way will not bring the whole legal system crashing down — it makes it stronger 7. The most pernicious laws, and therefore those which are most opposed to the will of God, have been and are continually enforced as laws by judicial tribunals. According to him, it does not matter if the cooperation is maintained by a law or any other means. Indeed being legally obliged does not entail being morally obliged.
In such a case, the moral duty is grounded on the consequences of disobedience. Philosophical Studies Series, vol 101. For instance, though certain democracies have legalized gay marriage, some citizens of these democracies tend to bemoan the legalized act with inspiration from religious morality and in effect, portray hostility and bigotry to those who tend to validate or practise an act legalized. Cite this chapter as: Corlett J. Philosophers from Socrates to H. Even if these actions can be held to constitute consent, does that mean the individual has to obey whatever laws the government makes from that day onwards? And yet the principle of fair play would suggest you are so obliged.
In short, running a red light at 3am is not going to harm anyone and it is certainly not going to start a revolution. First, we need to be clear that the focus is on a prima facie moral obligation to obey the law — on face of it we should obey the law, but in certain situations we may be morally justified in breaking the law. I defend the following central claims. Agreement, gratitude, and fair play are the three main arguments that can be used for obeying the laws of one 's own country. He advocated that just laws be obeyed and went on to say that one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.
Author: Christopher Heath Wellman; A John Simmons Publisher: Cambridge ; New York : Cambridge University Press, 2005. In this article, I provide and account of both customary and modern common law. Coordination appears through a legitimate authority to promulgate valid laws which and offer a necessary clarity and the identification of practical solutions due to the variety of actions available for one person. Frey Subject: Duty Subject: General Philosophy Subject: Law and ethics Subject: Political ethics. Joseph Raz, a follower of Smith in so many points, opposed to Finnis on the connection between authority of law and moral considerations. St Michael defeats the Devil by Eugène Delacroix Would you ignore a red traffic light at 3am when absolutely nobody else was around, or would you sit and wait at the junction? However, they legitimately opposed one counter-argument to that theory based on the principle of utility. As a civil libertarian he should know better.
In essence, he says that the fact that a law exists is not morally significant on its own and that no moral obligation to obey the law is grounded simply in the fact that a law exists. Everyone on the street enjoys the lights enormously. Thus, I claim that there is a distinction, largely unappreciated, between the question of whether we have a duty of fairness to obey the law and the question of whether we can be permissibly treated as if we had one. The E-mail message field is required. However, in our society, no one has the a genuine option which puts them in a position to choose whether to accept or not these benefits then I hardly seen how one has to show its gratitude for something that is imposed on them, no matter how supposedly beneficial it is. Or do you just want to stay with your family? Although an 1901 Words 8 Pages underprivileged humans acting in a moral way towards mankind, while person B is a dedicated vegan, donates to charity and lives a lifestyle which is 100% friendly to the earth.
The article first describes the traditional demand-side explanation for the rise and fall of efficiency in the common law. So the question still stands, is it our duty to assist the poor? This debate continues to rage on the pages of political philosophy journals and blogs. Wellman bases his argument on samaritan obligations to perform easy rescues The central question in political philosophy is whether political states have the right to coerce their constituents and whether citizens have a moral duty to obey the commands of their state. A Hart to whom an obligation is general demand for conformity in addition to a social pressure on the deviants and the requirements of sacrifices on the law-abiding. Christopher Heath Wellman and A.