MORAL OBLIGATION, POLITICAL OBLIGATION AND THE RULE OF LAW

There is no point in posing the question whether the law must be obeyed as a legal one. Legal questions are questions whose answers are provided by the law. Were the law to answer the question whether or not it must be obeyed, the question of the duty to obey would simply pop up again, as one might then question the duty to obey the law that had answered this question. The duty to obey the law should thus be understood as an extra-legal duty.

As such it can be understood in many different ways. For instance, it can be construed as pertaining to personal interests or national ones, as a religious duty or a moral one. I shall treat it here as a moral duty. This, I think, is also the attitude taken towards it in the many public contexts that employ it as a tool for preaching and chastisement. When politicians, journalists and public figures wish, at any point, to prod us into actions whose performance is ordained by law, their advice never comes from the standpoint of our personal interests. Neither do they inform us of our religious duties. And when referring to the duty to obey the law as a national one, they do so in the belief that it is morality that requires, justifies, or at least allows for the service of national interests.