Great changes in the character and interrelations of western political societies were in progress during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Early modern philosophers either directly witnessed these changes or were able to reflect upon them from no great distance, as crucial elements of their recent political history. Unsurprisingly, then, early modern political philosophy was in important respects preoccupied with the theoretical underpinnings of the emerging political order, with its new institutions and new expectations of citizens and public officials. The theories advanced by political philosophers of the period in turn played their own modest roles in influencing the development of the modern political institutions with which we are familiar today. Their questions and problems were thus importantly related to our own, which allows early modern political philosophy to speak to many of us in a way that is perhaps not fully possible for the political philosophies of earlier periods.
I will stress here two great “divides” or transitions within the period that can help us to understand some of the most salient features of early modern political philosophy. The first of these divides is the theoretical divide between what we can call “political naturalism” and “political antinaturalism.” The second is the historical transition (mirrored by a corresponding transition in political theories) from political societies that existed as complex, hierarchical structures of overlapping religious and contractual relationships (such as those that characterized empire and the feudal order) to political societies that began to take the form of modern, sovereign, territorial states.
The Basic Argument
The failure of Transactional and Associative theories to explain the source of a general duty to obey domestic law pushes us to explore other possibilities. In particular, since the moral duty to obey seems to many a relatively basic, natural, nonvoluntary feature of social life, it seems initially promising to suppose that the moral principle that accounts for this duty belongs to that group of principles that specifies our natural moral duties. Natural Duty theories of the duty to obey the law, as we have seen, are those that ground our duty to obey not in who we are (as in Associative accounts) or in what we've done or enjoyed (as in Transactional accounts), but rather either (a) in the moral importance of advancing some impartial moral good or (b) in some moral duty thought to be owed by all persons to all others as moral equals, regardless of roles, relationships, or transactions. Thus, the natural duty in question, from which the duty to obey is to be derived, could be a consequentialist moral duty to promote or maximize the occurrence of some good property or state of affairs – such as happiness (utility, preference satisfaction, etc.), moral perfection, or justice.
Even if there is a general moral duty to obey the just laws of a legitimate regime, it remains an open question how one should respond when confronted with either an unjust law or an illegitimate regime. The answer to this question will in many cases be quite complicated. At a minimum, though, I contend that there is a general obligation to obey neither unjust laws nor any law of an illegitimate regime. More ambitiously, I submit that there are potentially weighty moral reasons to actively resist unjust laws and illegitimate regimes.
In developing my argument for the duty to obey the law, I have been assuming throughout that the laws in particular were just and that the regimes in general were legitimate. In this section, I want to explore whether we are similarly obligated to obey the legal commands of an illegitimate regime. I will advance a number of theses, but the two most basic are that (1) there is no general duty to comply with the laws of an illegitimate regime, and (2) there are actually moral reasons to resist illegitimate governments.
Here I will restrict my discussion to two countries: Iraq under Saddam Hussein, which I will assume was an illegitimate military dictatorship, and apartheid South Africa, which I understand to have been an illegitimate regime that wrongly oppressed blacks.
Even if the considerations offered in the preceding chapter conclusively defeat political anarchism, they are not by themselves sufficient to refute philosophical anarchism because they do not explain why one has a duty to obey the law. A citizen's political responsibilities have yet to be established because the focus to this point has been exclusively upon the permissibility of a state's coercing its constituents, not the political duties of those coerced. I am hopeful that we can develop an adequate account of our duty to obey the law, however, by building upon the defense of statism offered earlier. In particular, I think that just as samaritanism is crucial to justifying the state's coercion, it is the key to explaining our political duties.
Samaritan Duties and Fairness
The first thing to notice is that the peril of others can explain not only why one may permissibly be coerced, it can also explain why one is obligated to assist those who are imperiled. (Indeed, if anything, it is more common and less controversial to posit samaritan duties than to defend the existence of a samaritan right to coerce.) Thus, just as I invoked samaritanism to explain why Beth may permissibly commandeer Cathy's car if it is the only way to get Amy to the hospital in time to save her life, samaritanism can help explain why Beth has a duty to take Amy to the hospital and/or why Cathy has a duty to loan her car to the cause.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.