political obligation and consent II

Assess the view that political obligation is based on tacit consent.

Because explicit consent is hard to gain, Locke developed the theory of tacit consent which is consent that is not actually spoken, but is implied. Locke believed that simply living under a state means that tacit consent is given.

We can first object that tacit consent doesn't allow much room for dissent, therefore doesn't involve political obligation - the only form of dissent we can express, if Locke is right, would be to leave the country. However, Hume argues that it is unreasonable to expect people (e.g peasants or artisans) to have a free choice to leave their country when they know no foreign language, or manners and enough money to live; just because they remain in the country and under the state should not imply that they give their consent to the state itself. Therefore, as there is no room for all to dissent, then there is no political obligation as, without the option to dissent, consent is meaningless. Furthermore, Locke's explanation may not be easily understood or recognised generally, for example, walking on a road (according to Locke) probably doesn't express consent to obey all the various laws a government has passed, thus consent is meaningless unless it's understood by the person consenting.

... (all above irrelevant idk?)

Assess the view that political obligation is based on tacit consent. (2)

It could be argued that to vote in itself is an expression of tacit consent to that system, therefore one is agreeing to abide by the rules, one of the rules being to accept the result of the vote. However, it could be argued that in certain situations this isn't true - for example, if a person votes for a party that has promised a revolution it would be wrong to say that someone who has initially voted for the abolition of the state then consents for its continuation, simply because they voted in the first place. To say that by voting in the first place, without taking into consideration the intention the voter was trying to express, makes the vote meaningless as a form of consent, therefore it could be argued that the individual has no political obligation as there is no consent.

Furthermore, being able to express dissent is what makes consent meaningful in the first place - however, tacit consent essentially says that a person cannot express consent through voting (e.g. for a revolutionary party), therefore the consent is meaningless and one has no political obligation. However, it could be argued that dissent from a current political system can alternatively be expressed through not voting at all, therefore dissent is still an option and thus political obligation remains.

It could also be said that those who don't bother at all are also giving tacit consent, because they have the opportunity to vote (but just aren't taking it) - this also makes it impossible to dissent as every person at least has the opportunity to vote, thus again, making the consent meaningless as the option to dissent is unavailable, thus making this form of consent meaningless.


Explain and assess the view that political obligation is based on hypothetical consent.

Hypothetical consent is the idea that actual consent (e.g. tacit or explicit) is not necessary for political obligation to exist, and if consenting would be (hypothetically) rational or deserved (for example, some philosophers argue that in the state of nature it would be rational to create the state and obey its law), then consent is being given. This then means that political obligation exists regardless of any "actual" consent being given by the people.

However, this idea is flawed, primarily because just because it would be rational for someone to consent doesn't mean that they consent; hypothetical consent ignores the free equality of a person in that it fails to respect a person's choices (even when we believe they are irrational). Secondly, some philosophers justify this idea with the idea that if we existed under the state of nature then it would be rational to create a state and obey it - however, just because it would be rational to do so in the state of nature, doesn't mean in other situations that the same would apply; decisions have to be made taking into consideration the type of state a person lives under and what the real alternatives to this state are. Lastly, many philosophers define 'rationality' to mean to appeal to the individuals self-interest - if this were the case, then being rational would not establish a secure and stable society as people are likely to withdraw their consent once it becomes in their interests to do so. Therefore, hypothetical consent is not an effective basis for political obligation, as people need to believe that they have a duty to obey the state, rather than simply thinking it's a good idea.