Philosophy: John Locke, David Hume

1130 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: consent theory john locke

This is a philosophical question that has been proven ultimately difficult to answer. I believe it is as a result of the complexity of the consent theory. For a theory that places high emphasis on autonomy and freedom, the most obvious basis for legitimate political authority should be some form of voluntary, self-assumed obligation. However, some philosophers such as John Locke and Charles Beitz argue that tacit consent can ground obligation to obey the state’s law while others such as Hanna Pitkin and David Hume counter this argument with the opinion that tacit consent is not sufficient to ground political obligation. Having an obligation simply put, means something one is bound to do for either legal or moral reasons. Therefore, “To have a political obligation is to have a moral duty to obey the laws of one’s country or state”. Theoretically, there are three types of consent; Tacit, Express and Hypothetical and based on the principles of consent theories I don’t support that consent is explains our obligation to obey the law in the practical world. My reasons would be explained constructively in the course of this essay. My plan in this paper is to outline how the different mode of expression of consent is insufficient in explaining our obligation to obey the state’s law by interpreting and evaluating the defects of the types of consent. I shall aim to show that actual consent theories cannot be made to work, because there are no common grounds of actual consent to obey the law. Although most people assume that their obligation to obey the states laws is explained by a practical basis of their consent, I say, if people morally agree with the laws of the state they obey it. Consent theories do not necessarily explain the motive ...

... middle of paper ...

... voter’s intention as expressed by their vote makes their vote meaningless as a form of consent. It could also be that false promises were made to citizens by participants of the election and so these “potential consenter” were misled. It cannot then be that voting for a supposed legit government who acts contrary to what they promised shows that by voting, people consent to the lies they know nothing about. Once again this does not correlate with the conditions of John Simmons of making the potential consenter aware of what they are consenting to.

CONCLUSION
To conclude, I do not agree that voting and staying in the country are plausible. They do not satisfy the conditions of consent theory. I believe that if there is an absence of free choice for potential consenters, there is an absence of any possible explanation to have an obligation to obey the law.

Show More
Related

  • Essay On John Locke And Adam Smith

    616 Words  | 2 Pages

    Andy Smith J. Ward February 17, 2014 History 102 Revolutionary Thinkers Locke versus Smith John Locke and Adam Smith were critically acclaimed to be revolutionary thinkers and their thoughts and reasons have very good reasons backed up with ways to describe the Economy and the Government as inefficient or wrong in their Era of their lifetime. John Locke and Adam Smith are both believers that the government should be active in supporting social and political change in the economy. Both Locke and Smith’s thoughts can be equally said revolutionary in comparison, but in terms of what era they lived in and more history that has happened to see more mistakes to correct what happened and possible future outcomes for a clear revolutionary though I believe Adam Smith’s ideas were more revolutionary and his dominant ideas that have helped what we think is the way we do things in todays economy. Smith's influential work, The Wealth of Nations, was written based on the help with the country’s economy who based it off his book. Smith’s book was mainly written on how inefficient mercantilism was, but it was also written to explain what Smith thought was to be a brilliant yet complicated idea of an economic system based on the population and the social ladder.

    Read More

  • Locke and Rousseau

    1787 Words  | 4 Pages

    Locke and Rousseau present themselves as two very distinct thinkers. They both use similar terms, but conceptualize them differently to fulfill very different purposes. As such, one ought not be surprised that the two theorists do not understand liberty in the same way. Locke discusses liberty on an individual scale, with personal freedom being guaranteed by laws and institutions created in civil society. By comparison, Rousseau’s conception portrays liberty as an affair of the entire political community, and is best captured by the notion of self-rule. The distinctions, but also the similarities between Locke and Rousseau’s conceptions can be clarified by examining the role of liberty in each theorist’s proposed state of nature and civil society, the concepts with which each theorist associates liberty, and the means of ensuring and safeguarding liberty that each theorist devises.

    Read More

  • Hobbes and Locke

    869 Words  | 2 Pages

    In many ways Hobbes and Locke’s conclusions on man and society create a polarizing argument when held in comparison to each other. For instance the two make wildly conflicting assertions concerning mankind’s capacity to foster and achieve organized society. Hobbes asserts humans cannot be trusted to govern themselves lest they fall into war and chaos; Locke, on the other hand concludes almost the exact opposite. Despite the polarity in each man’s train of thought, both philosophies share a common ancestor: a state defined by total equality where no human is superior or holds dominance over another. Although this is the base of both theories, it is the only similarity between the two. This commonality can be illustrated when tracing each argument deductively from their conclusions, the comparison reveals that the heaviest and most base opposition in each mans philosophy is his assertions regarding the nature of human beings.

    Read More

  • Argument Against Mandatory Voting In Canada

    673 Words  | 2 Pages

    In fact, according to Elections Canada, during the 2011 federal elections, only 61.1% of Canadians exerted their duty as citizen. Hence, some think compulsory voting can remediate the situation. However, mandatory voting is what really could hurt democracy. By forcing every eligible voter to go to the polls, misinformed voters will randomly cast their ballot. Sceptics may believe that by fining individuals who refuse to go to the polls, there will be less ignorant voters. For example, in Australia, where voting is compulsory, Australians who do not cast their ballots have to “pay a 20$ penalty” (Australian Electoral Commission). However, by financially penalising citizens who do not exert their duty, many will be so dissatisfied by the incumbent government that they will simply vote for a party that would not make voting an obligation. These people would ignore the party’s other policies instead of being informed on all the challenges that the country faces and how each party plans on solving them. Nonetheless, the elections are an occasion to elect a leader whose ideologies on many aspects, from immigration to the environment, matches the voter’s most. As a responsible voter, one has to know the policies of each party and has to try to obtain enough “social-scientific knowledge to [assess] these positions” (Brennan 11), which takes a lot of time. Therefore, compulsory voting would make voters more informed, but only on a narrow aspect while ignoring the other issues that should be taken into consideration when choosing the party they will vote for. All in all, mandatory voting would hurt democracy despite the higher participation

    Read More

  • John Locke and Thomas Hobbes

    1073 Words  | 3 Pages

    John Locke and Thomas Hobbes both believe that men are equal in the state of nature, but their individual opinions about equality lead them to propose fundamentally different methods of proper civil governance. Locke argues that the correct form of civil government should be concerned with the common good of the people, and defend the citizenry’s rights to life, health, liberty, and personal possessions. Hobbes argues that the proper form of civil government must have an overarching ruler governing the people in order to avoid the state of war. I agree with Locke’s argument because it is necessary for a civil government to properly care for its citizens, which in turn prevents the state of war from occurring in society. Locke also has a better argument than Hobbes because Hobbes’ belief that it is necessary to have a supreme ruler in order to prevent the state of war in society is inherently flawed. This is because doing so would create a state of war in and of itself.

    Read More

  • Political Anarchy

    999 Words  | 2 Pages

    Next, is the argument of tacit consent. Those upholding this argument say that we consent to government through some action such as voting, paying taxes, or even just by living in its territory. It even goes as far to saying that we consent simply by remaining silent. Does this mean that we consent to something when we choose an option that is forced upon us? We have more options than the ones given to us by the government. It’s just that they have the power to punish us if we don’t choose from their palette of choices. The fact that we make a choice does not necessarily make it voluntary. Can one say then that if someone believes they make a choice voluntarily it constitutes consent?

    Read More

  • Hypothetical Consent and Political Legitimacy

    3550 Words  | 8 Pages

    A commonly accepted criticism of the social contract approach to justifying political authority targets the idea of hypothetical consent. Since only actual agreements are binding, the argument goes, citizens are not bound to obey their governments on the ground that, under circumstances different from the ones in which they now find themselves, they would have agreed to submit to its authority. (1) The purpose of this paper is to rescue hypothetical consent from this objection. I begin by distinguishing political legitimacy from political obligation. (2) I argue that while hypothetical consent may not serve as an adequate ground for political obligation, it is capable of grounding political legitimacy.

    Read More

  • Compare And Contrast John Locke And Jefferson

    1172 Words  | 3 Pages

    Have you ever heard of the Enlightenment era in history? It was a significant period in time where people started to have new ideas in technology, science, politics, and philosophy. The Enlightenment also brought about a lot of memorable thinkers who still continue to influence us today. Among those thinkers included the very wise John Locke and Thomas Jefferson. John Locke was an excellent Enlightenment philosopher who actually influenced Thomas Jefferson’s writings for the Declaration of Independence. Their writings helped to create the unity in America, and justify the break from Great Britain. As a result, together these two famous philosophers helped our country become independent with the Declaration

    Read More

  • Compare and Contrast Locke and Rousseau

    570 Words  | 2 Pages

    The turmoil of the 1600's and the desire for more fair forms of government combined to set the stage for new ideas about sovereignty. Locke wrote many influential political pieces, such as The Second Treatise of Government, which included the proposal for a legislative branch of government that would be selected by the people. Rousseau supported a direct form of democracy in which the people control the sovereignty. (how would the people control the sovereignty??) Sovereignty is the supremacy or authority of rule. Locke and Rousseau both bring up valid points about how a government should be divided and how sovereignty should be addressed.

    Read More

  • John Locke's Consent Theory

    1132 Words  | 3 Pages

    John Locke’s consent theory outlines what true consent should look like, but not what specific acts indicate consent. A significant number of institutions claim to have authority over any given individual: landlords, universities, local, state, and federal governments. When does a person consent to these authorities? For some it is obvious but for others it is not, for example, when does someone consent to the government? If one were to join the military, that would be a clear sign of consent. Contrarily, voting is not an act of consent because it does not follow Locke’s outline for consent theory: it is not intentional, informed, or voluntary.

    Read More

  • Comparing John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau

    2030 Words  | 5 Pages

    Compare John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau all dealt with the issue of political freedom within a society. John Locke's “The Second Treatise of Government”, Mill's “On Liberty”, and Rousseau’s “Discourse On The Origins of Inequality” are influential and compelling literary works which, while outlining the conceptual framework of each thinker’s ideal state, present divergent visions of the very nature of man and his freedom. The three have somewhat different views regarding how much freedom man ought to have in political society because they have different views regarding man's basic potential for inherently good or evil behavior, as well as the ends or purpose of political societies. In order to examine how each thinker views man and the freedom he should have in a political society, it is necessary to define freedom or liberty from each philosopher’s perspective.

    Read More

  • The Lifeboat Theory Of Voting

    1445 Words  | 3 Pages

    Each voter would have to take a test prior to voting to assess whether or not they are actually voting for what they want or just voting because they now are required. Otherwise, the vote of the informed citizens will be cancelled out by the vote of those who are not informed and that would not properly reflect on any group’s desires. Many forced votes would be picked randomly, or whoever comes first on the ballot. Recent work suggests that compulsory voting has no noticeable effect on political knowledge or interest, (Engelen and Hooghe, 2007) nor any evident effect on electoral outcomes (Selb and Lachat, 2007). Democratic rights are founded upon the belief in people’s ability to make rational judgments. If a citizen is rational, and voting is in their own best interest, then there isn’t a need to force them to vote.

    Read More

  • John Locke: Founding Father of Modern Era Liberalism

    1432 Words  | 3 Pages

    Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and John Locke are all great thinkers who were greatly influential in forming philosophies that would affect the future of politics. By analyzing each philosopher’s ideology, we can identify which thinker’s theory reflected modern era liberalism the most. For this paper I will be arguing that, John Locke provides a more compelling framework of modern era liberalism because of his perception of the state of nature, the social contract and the function of government.

    Read More

  • David Hume And Spinoza

    1816 Words  | 4 Pages

    David Hume in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding and Benedict De Spinoza in The Ethics run noteworthy parallels in about metaphysics and human nature. Spinoza and Hume share opinions of apriori knowledge and free will. For human nature, similar concepts of the imagination and morality arise. Although both philosophers derive similar conclusions in their philosophy, they could not be further distanced from one another in their concepts of God. Regarded as an atheist, Spinoza argues that God is the simple substance which composes everything and that nothing is outside of this simple substance. Hume rejects this notion completely and claims that nothing in the world can give us a clear picture of God. Hume rejects the argument from design

    Read More

  • John Locke, George Berkeley and David Hume

    1235 Words  | 3 Pages

    John Locke, Berkeley and Hume are all empiricist philosophers. They all have many different believes, but agree on the three anchor points; The only source of genuine knowledge is sense experience, reason is an unreliable and inadequate route to knowledge unless it is grounded in the solid bedrock of sense experience and there is no evidence of innate ideas within the mind that are known from experience. Each of these philosophers developed some of the most fascinating conceptions of the relationships between our thoughts and the world around us. I will argue that Locke, Berkeley and Hume are three empiricists that have different beliefs.

    Read More

More about Philosophy: John Locke, David Hume

Open Document