l Social Atomism: as rational, self-interested individuals, we are interested in promoting the social good through a contract because it benefits us personally (Hobbes, Locke) l Communitarianism: we are obligated to obey the law because it reaffirms our inherently social nature (Wolgast, Sandel) What is the Basis of Political Obligation? Why Obey the Law?

Human beings are naturally sociable and are obligated through God-given laws of nature to do what is necessary to survive We form and must respect civil governments as means to achieve our natural (and rational) ends Natural Law: Samuel Pufendorf ( )

Social Contract Theory: Thomas Hobbes Fear of others in the state of nature (i.e., apart from society) prompts people to enter into a social contract Governmental authority is based on our decision to give up our rights and abide by the social contract in order to achieve peace ( )

We have God-given rights to our life, liberty, and property (gained through labor) We establish governments to clarify and protect our freedom and natural rights (especially the ownership of property) State authority is based on the explicit or tacit consent of the majority of a people Natural Rights: John Locke ( )

Communitarianism: Michael Sandel u We do not form governments or follow laws simply to promote individual self-interests; such a view assumes that our commitment to community is only a means to avoid conflict (Hobbes) or to protect our rights (Locke) u The purpose of government is to encourage us to recognize how we are constituted in our communal relations to one another ( )

Limits on Political Authority 1)Morality: laws obligate only if they are moral, that is, if they are consistent with reason or the natural law (Stoics). Civil disobedience is permitted if laws violate the common good, are based on illegitimate authority, distribute burdens inequitably, or challenge religious beliefs/conscience (Aquinas) l Response: laws are obligating not because they are moral but simply because they are enacted by a legitimate authority (Positivism)

Limits on Political Authority (continued) 2)Liberty: laws should respect freedom by regulating only actions that harm others. Where behavior is merely offensive, only social pressure is permitted. Where self- improvement or the development of personal preference or conscience is concerned, only persuasion is permitted (J. S. Mill) l Objection: the lines between public and private, or between harmful, offensive, and personal preference, are difficult to identify

Limits on Political Authority (continued) 3)Human rights: laws are binding only if they protect justified claims and acknowledge the duties of others to respect those claims Legal rights are based on civil laws; moral or human rights are based on nature Negative rights (e.g., to privacy) presume that individuals should be allowed to act without interference; positive rights (e.g., to education or health care) presume that society has obligations to help individuals

Limits on Political Authority (continued) 4)International relations: nations are regulated a)only by force or power (political realism) Objection: this makes morality irrelevant b)by principles of peace (pacifism) Objection: pacifism is unworkable practically c)by principles of self-defense (just war) Objection: excuses for war = justifications

Justifications for Political Coercion 1.To prevent harm to others (harm principle) 2.To prevent offense to others (offense principle) 3.To prevent harm to oneself (legal paternalism) 4.To prevent immoral conduct (legal moralism) 5.To force people to improve their own conditions (extreme paternalism) 6.To force people to improve the conditions of others (welfare principle) (592-93)

Limits on Political Coercion: The Harm Principle Governments are justified in restricting liberty only to prevent harm to others Where behavior is merely offensive, or where self-improvement, preferences, or conscience is concerned, persuasion—not law or social coercion—is permitted: this is to prevent the tyranny of the majority But what distinguishes harm vs. offense? J. S. Mill

Limits on Political Coercion: The Offense Principle Profound offenses differ from mere nuisances in virtue of their intensity, duration, extent, and avoidability Governments are justified in prohibiting by law profoundly offensive behavior—that is, unavoidable behavior, the very thought of which is widely and impersonally considered as violating deep moral sensibilities Joel Feinberg