Natural Duty To Obey The Law
In this essay, I will refute the statement that there is natural duty to obey the law even in reasonably decent democratic societies in order to rescue others from the dangerous conditions of the state of nature. To do this, I will explore a world in which there is a natural duty to obey the law to evaluate if it is the best way to protect us from the dangerous conditions. Next, I will explore the ambiguity in the natural theory to sufficiently justified a duty to obey the law simply because it is a law. Through these analyses, I will address the more important question: under a recent democratic society, what kind of duty do we have to obey the law?
Before addressing the claim of a natural duty to obey the law under recent democratic …show more content…
Theoretically speaking, the natural theorist is correct, and the law is revised: everyone will pays their fair share of taxes based on their income, which is more feasible than the initial law. This power under a reasonably democratic society will weaken my fears that people will be subjected to illegitimate laws. Nevertheless, even by refraining the right to reform unjust laws, this sets up my second argument on the ambiguity of the natural theory. Since the claim in question is to use the natural theory to explain our duty to obey the law simply it is a law, the natural theorists’ answer does not sufficiently answer the question that the duty to obey the law is content independent. By refraining the right to reform unjust laws, natural theorist can not claim that everyone has a natural duty to obey the law simply because it is a law. Reforming the law shows potential flaw in the theory as it has to introduce other variables to make the law just. As a results, this will say people will have a duty to obey the law when the government makes the law justifiable by matching people’s moral values. These moral values is similar to the moral duty because everyone has general requirements that bound themselves as human being. As mention earlier, this moral duty does not have to be nonvoluntary. The response that a natural theorist may make is complete content independence is not necessary required as long as their approach protects society from the state of nature. In making this claim, one has to accept that unjust laws can exists as legitimate laws, but is reversible. This argument may not necessarily defeat my refute as unjust laws being legitimate equates to a restoration of a dangerous state of nature. In this case, one has to balance whether the duty to obey the law simply by
Before addressing the claim of a natural duty to obey the law under recent democratic …show more content…
Theoretically speaking, the natural theorist is correct, and the law is revised: everyone will pays their fair share of taxes based on their income, which is more feasible than the initial law. This power under a reasonably democratic society will weaken my fears that people will be subjected to illegitimate laws. Nevertheless, even by refraining the right to reform unjust laws, this sets up my second argument on the ambiguity of the natural theory. Since the claim in question is to use the natural theory to explain our duty to obey the law simply it is a law, the natural theorists’ answer does not sufficiently answer the question that the duty to obey the law is content independent. By refraining the right to reform unjust laws, natural theorist can not claim that everyone has a natural duty to obey the law simply because it is a law. Reforming the law shows potential flaw in the theory as it has to introduce other variables to make the law just. As a results, this will say people will have a duty to obey the law when the government makes the law justifiable by matching people’s moral values. These moral values is similar to the moral duty because everyone has general requirements that bound themselves as human being. As mention earlier, this moral duty does not have to be nonvoluntary. The response that a natural theorist may make is complete content independence is not necessary required as long as their approach protects society from the state of nature. In making this claim, one has to accept that unjust laws can exists as legitimate laws, but is reversible. This argument may not necessarily defeat my refute as unjust laws being legitimate equates to a restoration of a dangerous state of nature. In this case, one has to balance whether the duty to obey the law simply by