wolffconsent - On consent (wolf pgs. 34-46) The Social...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
On consent (wolf pgs. 34-46) The Social Contract: Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau all seem to think that we are obligated to obey the law because we are contractually obligated. Why is this an attractive theory? We want a theory of political obligation to be universal (binding for all citizens within the state’s borders) and voluntary (I can only have political obligations if I have acted so as to assume them). 2 advantages: Every citizen is obligated Obligation is taken on voluntarily through consent Problem: What kind of ‘consent is required? Actual (explicit) consent: 1. It’s implausible that there should have ever been some historical instance of mass consent. a. Even if there were, it wouldn’t show that subsequent generations were bound—so existing citizens wouldn’t be bound 2. Consent would need to be ongoing to be really voluntary (consent is retractable, after all) a. But most modern citizens never explicitly consent to be governed b. Naturalized citizens are an interesting counterexample
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 01/12/2012 for the course PHIL 02 taught by Professor Toñoramirez during the Winter '11 term at DeAnza College.

Page1 / 2

wolffconsent - On consent (wolf pgs. 34-46) The Social...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online