Ever since humans have gathered for their mutual benefits there has been some form of government. It varies from culture to culture and from society to society, but each is made up of core attributes. One core principle is the idea of the social contract, each member has agreed or tacitly agreed to follow the rules set forth by the group in order to further a common goal. They agree to respect certain freedoms of others and to have their freedoms respected, or in some cases agree to not have them respected. However, the terms of this contract have been in debate for as long as it has been implemented, and some of the greatest minds of the all-time have weighed in on the debate, from recent people such as John Rawls, to Plato and Socrates debating with the Athenian senate. This debate has become more heated as societies begin to evolve and move into longer periods with larger amounts of wealth and freedoms, the ideas of a perfectly just and free society have been debated, constructed, critiqued, and reconstructed. In the past 100 years, some of the most influential in the subject have written extensively and debated their points in the face of criticism. Examples being, John Rawls, a man who described and laid the foundation of what he believed a perfectly just society is and looks like, Alan John Simmons, a philosophical anarchist discussing the idea of political obligation and consent, and Robert Nozick, a critic of Rawls who discussed disagreed with the idea of inalienable rights landing him more in the libertarian or anarchist camp of political thought. These three philosophers all have extremely cogent arguments regarding the ideas of human rights, human’s duty to obey the government, and the idea of a perfectly just society. In this essay I will attempt to the best of my ability to express their beliefs, where their critics have decided to attack their logic, and which of the three rhetorics seems to be the most successful.
Firstly, I will describe the ideas of political obligation, or legitimate authority, and consent as they apply to political philosophy and this context. Political obligation is the obligation a member of society feels to comply with an authority, and why one should or should not feel this obligation. Is it based on a consent, a uniform goal shared across the members of the group, or an understanding that such an authority knows best? Already we have stumbled upon a heavily debated topic in the trying to simply define the idea of political authority. Who, when, and why would an entity have such an authority over any one person or a group of people? This leads into the second definition of legitimate authority. This concept is normally broken down into four parts, with some believing all four are necessary, some believing parts, and some, like Simmons, believe that none are sufficient conditions for a duty to obey an authority. The first is the idea of justified coercion, meaning that the authority or state does not use threats or force in an incorrect way (as it has powers that ordinary members of the group would not ordinarily have). The second is the members of the state have a duty to not interfere with the state’s “coercion”. The third is the duty to obey, meaning that if the state passes a law or bans an action citizen have a duty to obey the decree, assuming the laws are just by a universal understanding of fairness. The final is the state has an exclusive right to rule over the land inside its jurisdiction.[i] The three members of the political philosophy I mentioned above all have differing opinions regarding these two ideas, the conception of justice, and their effects on a reasonable and just society.
Rawls makes the distinction that in his ideal society, most citizens have no general obligation to obey the law, in virtue of it simply being the law. On the surface this appears to be counter to his approach to the issue of a just society and freedom, however he clarifies his point stating that its simply because they should feel a moral desire to follow the law.[ii]Rawls defines a just society as one that can be created under a set of conditions, the original position, and using the justice as fairness principle, as opposed to utilitarianism, libertarianism, or any other. Rawls defines the original position as a group of people, under a veil of ignorance, dividing the duties of the state without any prior knowledge to their place in society or what their life could turn out to be. In this way the members of the original position create a binding contract or one that works as a means of representation, for their own beliefs and others in the state, in which they optimize moral equality, social goods, freedoms, and values they wish to have. Each member is said to not know their place in society, be completely blind to their economic welfare, and act as a representor of some group of people. This goes along with the principle of justice as fairness. Rawls defines this based on two things, each person should have the same right to the most extensive system of liberties compatible with liberty for all and social and economic inequalities are arranged in such a way that office and positions are based on fair equality of opportunity and to the greatest advantage of the least advantaged.[iii] With these definitions he attempts to solve problems that he, Simmons, and Nozick see with the idea of utilitarianism and concepts that attempt to even the playing field among all members of a society. Rawls believes the idea of reciprocity or fairness principles is more important than merit-based theories of justice because he deemed the fairness principle to be the most apt to solve the issues of the modern day society.
Nozick found many problems with Rawls’s theories. He began with dissecting the original position and posited, with good rhetoric, that the original position was a false premise since its purely hypothetical. Who says there is an obligation to obey it as a law? Even when people sit and agree in a setting, in practice, this could be completely different. This bring about what Nozick believed to be the effective way of defining one’s duty to obey an authority. Nozick believed that each person inherently will attempt to make themselves better off than they were before, within their morals. Landing him more in the camp of an anarchist. In fact, he takes it a step farther and discusses the idea that it is morally acceptable for someone to further their own standing amorally as long as your actions do not adversely affect another. This theory was labeled the entitlement theory of justice. Any inequal amount of justice that has been distributed by legitimate means, is therefore legitimate. He broke the idea of legitimate means into three parts: the first is the appropriation of something that is unowned that wouldn’t disadvantage another, the second is voluntary transfer from another, and the third is the rectification of past injustices. [iv]His theory can be broken down to, a society is just if everyone is entitled to the holdings they have and can be distributed unequally otherwise. This is tied to his belief on redistributive taxation which is one he and Rawls argued ad nauseum following Rawls publication of the Theory of Justice. His argument goes as follows: since one does not owe the government any amount of money except that used to better the individual (like taxes needed for road upkeep or necessities provided for by the government), redistributive taxation, to benefit other individuals, is akin to forced labor. He equates money to time in a capitalistic society, one only gains money by spending one’s time doing a service that others value.[v] Therefore, equating all goods and services a time value rather than a dollar value, as he argues that money is a construct based upon a service (how difficult it is, how specialized, how long it takes, etc.) Those with more money do not inherently have any advantage rather then they can spend their time how they choose more freely. If the government would tax someone solely in order to redistribute the wealth to another, by Nozick’s logic, it is forcing you to work for someone else for no wage. This has one glaring flaw in that in an unjust society money can take the form of more than just time, and actually surpass it. In a capitalistic society where many activities are behind a pay wall, not having enough to enjoy these services due to lack of time or lack of money can be two different things. His argument also does not account for children and their costs, as what makes one child more entitled to something in a society simply other than where they were born, not something ever discussed by Nozick. As one could argue that breeding within a society is beneficial as it increases the amount of people in the work force and amount of people available in order to get the best person for the job, a strict utilitarian outlook. I will next discuss Simmons’ ideas on political obligation and why it further differs from and disagrees with Rawls’ views.
Simmons’ arguments focus less on the duty of the state as a harbinger of justice and more on the idea of should there even be a state at all. “The fundamental question of political philosophy is whether there should be any state at all”[vi] (Robert Nozick) a question that Simmons had given much of his life to answering. He focuses less on the ideas of the legitimacy of a state but rather the justification of the state itself. He argues Locke’s consent-based theories of political obligation fall flat and that that Rawls’ theories presuppose the necessity of a state, not arguing why their needs to be a state but rather just offering why a state would be legitimate. Rawls lays down as a fact that “membership in a society is a given” however this is not from consent or any other political theory. It is from social embeddedness, each member of a given society is born into a society and forced to be a part of it from birth. There is no consent, as Locke’s theories of a political obligation often entail, and Rawls seemingly inserts that the simple belief of being a part of a society can give the society certain powers of oneself.[vii] Simmons believes that only a form of complete consent, given by the person to the state has an obligation to obey it and brings up one of my favorite arguments, the particularity problem. I am going to describe Simmons’ deconstructions of Locke’s ideas of political obligation, based in consent, and how he disagreed. The first is simple consent to the government, which is tied to tacit consent. Simmons disagreed with either of these claims as no person is ever explicitly consents to being a part of a society in the modern world. This is evident above when it’s stated that societies are socially embedded into the world as a whole and no one person has a choice at birth. This moves into tacit consent which falls short due to the fact that tacit consent being the reason one should follow the law can easily morph into, because you did not openly object to following the law you are obligated to follow it. Nozick shows this in things like his PA neighborhood test.[viii] A neighborhood has a PA system that each person talks over it for a day for the good of the neighborhood. You moderately enjoy it but when it comes to be your turn you don’t want to give up an entire day to talk over the PA. Should you be forced to participate. If the answer is yes, then theories based on the Fair play account, those who do their part have the moral right to demand compliance from those who benefit, of obligation slip into simple consent-based theories. If the answer is no, then the members of the neighborhood don’t have the moral right to demand the same compliance to the rules from those who may benefit, meaning an overarching principle of the theory fails. Simmons shows that most political philosophers argue in following a particular legal system but can never generalize the claim , that argument has already become to specific and failed to justify the necessity of an overarching obligation. Simmons argues that the only way for all these objections and rejoinders to be satisfied is if there is an agreement that no person has the moral obligation to follow the law, in virtue of it simply being the law.[ix] This idea does not hold true for things that are simply morally wrong, like murder, as these actions have extreme adverse consequences for others and it is the moral duties of others not to purposefully infringe on others basic rights, if one believes that those exist.
Since I have now given a brief overview of all these philosophers beliefs, I will give my own opinion on why I believe that Rawls’ arguments are the strongest. While Rawls’ does presuppose the existence of society and our inherent place in it, I think Nozick and Simmons miss a key aspect when simply trying to justify the existence of a society. In Rawls’ theories he focuses on creating a completely just society created by its members beliefs on social justices, freedoms, social and political goods, etc., as mentioned above, in order to fit the criterium outlined above. These criterium are extremely important as it is one place where Nozick strongly disagrees, in particular the idea of the least difference principal, the least advantaged have the greatest opportunity maximized along with the greatest liberties. This is where Nozick attacks Rawls’ argument using his rhetoric around redistributive taxation. However, I think Nozick let slip a fatal flaw into his argument that can be shown in full force today. The idea of entitlement theory when discussing exorbitant amounts of wealth. By Nozicks logic the founder of Amazon Jeff Bezos would be entitled to all of his wealth by his first principle of entitlement theory. He attempts to reconcile this with the Wilt Chamberlain argument, but I feel it falls short of truly realizing the inequity it has created.[x] While yes, Bezos has acquired his wealth because of the way society has valued him. Is a single Jeff Bezos worth more than 60% of the population combined? And is this vast amount of wealth collection not to the disadvantage of others in the society? I would argue that, yes, this vast amount of wealth collection is in disadvantage to others in the society, as in many capitalistic societies once you have acquired extreme wealth it becomes easier and easier to acquire more. This also can be seen in the stories coming out about Amazon’s workers and stories of overworking. However, Nozick may disagree with this whole claim stating that Bezos didn’t follow his first principle and therefore is not protected by his later arguments based on the entitlement theory. Simmons disagrees with Rawls on the basis that Rawls believes that if a society is just and good, we have a simple moral virtue to follow its laws. I believe Simmons misses Rawls’ point here, as by Rawls’ own definition, the criterium to fall under such a category is extremely narrow and created in such a way that no one member would wish to disagree by design of the original position and justice as fairness principle. It is created such that any member in the society should feel happy with their place inside it.[xi]
These three are some of the most influential political philosophers of the 21st and 20th century. These three men have changed the discourse around political duty to obey, the ideas of a just society, and of the parameters a just society is allowed to operate in. I believe Rawls’ ideas are the most cogent, least disagreeable, and most optimistic and I tend to agree with his rhetoric. While I think that Nozick and Simmons’s arguments are strong, I think they fall flat when compared and contrasted with the society created under the conditions Rawls specifies.
Dagger, Richard, and David Lefkowitz. “Political Obligation.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University, 15 Mar. 2021, plato.stanford.edu/entries/political-obligation/.
Ekmekci, Perihan Elif, and Berna Arda. “Enhancing John Rawls's Theory of Justice to Cover Health and Social Determinants of Health.” Acta Bioethica, U.S. National Library of Medicine, Nov. 2015, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4915381/.
John Rawls, caae.phil.cmu.edu/Cavalier/Forum/meta/background/Rawls.html.
Nozick, Robert. Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Blackwell Publishing, 2017.
Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Universal Law Publishing Co Ltd, 2013.
Taylor, Isaac. “Political Obligations and Public Goods.” Res Publica, Springer Netherlands, 2 Feb. 2021, link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11158-020-09496-8.
Wellman, Cristopher Heath, and A. John Simmons. Is There a Duty to Obey the Law? Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Professor Jonathan Quong, Professor of Philosophy USC.
Comments