Explain why obligation requires the right to dissent.

According to philosophers such as Locke and Hobbes, political obligation can be acquired through consenting to be ruled. However, consent must be given freely for it to become an obligation and not, for example, through threats. For one to consent freely, one must also be given the option to refuse consent i.e. through being able to dissent. This is because individuals are free and equal, but coercion fails to respect the freedom and equality of the individual, so consent is meaningless if it is coerced. Thus, unless one has the right to dissent to someone, one cannot become obliged to do it.

Outline and illustrate different forms dissent takes.

People can dissent from a particular law or laws, as well as from the government as a whole. In democracies there are legal ways to express dissent, for example, voting against the government that currently make the laws, protests or pressure groups. In these examples, dissent remains meaningful. A stronger sense of dissent is to say 'I refuse to obey the law', which involved illegal action - this can take the form of civil disobedience or conscientious objection.

The most famous example of conscientious objection is to refuse to fight for one's country because of their own personal pacifism, which describes refusal to obey a law because of one's individual moral objection. This form of dissent usually means although the individual does not want to fight, they don't necessarily think that others should take the same stance. Many conscientious objectors will also not resist being imprisoned (for example, if joining the armed forces is a legal requirement and they refuse to do so), this is because they don't disrespect or dissent from the authority of the law in general. In many countries where conscientious objection is legal, it is required to perform an alternative, non-violent task as a substitute. However, when conscientious objection is legal, the objector technically isn't dissenting from the law, but dissenting from the taste they are refusing to do (in the example given, they are dissenting from fighting for their country).

Another example of dissent is a revolution, which is to dissent to the state as a whole, and involves a country's rulers being replaces, as well as its structure and institutions being replaced. Hobbes and Locke argued that political obligation comes from consenting to being ruled, which means we must also have the right to dissent from being ruled (or at least from the state as it is).

How can conscientious objection be justified.

A conscientious objector is someone who refuses to obey a certain law, due to moral reasons. The most famous example is to refuse to fight in a war because of their own personal pacifism.

Objector's actions can be justified through explaining how their own moral values conflict with the specific law. To force an individual to do something they don't morally agree with (e.g. fighting in a war) would have an adverse effect on their moral integrity, which could in turn harm the individual, so it is ideal that this is avoided. Furthermore, conscientious objectors' actions can be justified as they tend to be individuals who don't generally disrespect the law or dissent from its authority, furthermore they don't encourage others to break the law. Also, the social and political consequences of their actions are usually minimal, because they are objections based on personal moral principles, rather than disrespect of the law itself.

Therefore, ultimately, it is better to treat this form of dissent leniently - because this form of dissent is still breaking the law, some punishment should be enforced (otherwise conscientious objection would become legal), so it is best to apply a light sentence, for example, doing productive work instead of serving in the army. This would ultimately avoid any adverse and unnecessary effects whilst also maintaining the law itself.

Compare and contrast Hobbes and Locke on the right to revolution.

Both Hobbes and Locke agree that dissenting from the state is justified if the state fails to perform the main function it's supposed to serve, however, both had different ideas on exactly what that purpose was.

Hobbes believed that the purpose of the state is to protect us from violent and threat of violence - it was believed that, in the state of nature, humans have a 'natural right' to do what we need to stay alive, so Hobbes stated that if any law or command threatens our self-preservation, we have the right to dissent from and disobey, because the state would be failing to serve its purpose.

Locke, however, believed that the purpose of the state is to enforce the Law of Nature* - but similarly believed that failing to do so or by losing the support of its citizens means that the people no longer have an obligation to obey as it's not a legitimate authority (as citizens aren't providing their consent). Furthermore, if those in power decide to try and stay in power (without the consent of their citizens), then it is they who are technically 'rebelling' against the people. This means that the people have the right to respond to this assertion of power and overthrow these people, as they are no longer a legitimate authority.

*the Law of Nature: no person subordinate another, harm their life, health, liberty or possessions, except in self-defence.