Prima Facie Moral Obligation To Obey The Law
Many philosophers have pondered the immense question surrounding the prima facie moral obligation to obey the law. Do we have a moral obligation to do as the law tells us, outside of the fact that the law deems it illegal? There are many opinions on this, such as Wolff’s idea that there is in fact no moral obligation for anyone to obey the law because there is no legitimate state with control over people. This is one of the many viewpoints discussed throughout time, but there is a more level headed approach to this highly debated concept. In terms of a prima facie moral obligation to obey the law, John Rawls most effectively speaks to this idea by stating that a person has an obligation when they are accepting the benefits of membership of
…show more content…
These requirements are that the enterprise is just and mutually beneficial, the success of the enterprise needs nearly everyone to comply with the rules, the compliance of these rules requires some sort of sacrifice, one wants to keep receiving the benefits from the enterprise, practically everyone else obeys the rules, and one can continue to receive benefits without following the rules. These all still apply even if one person not participating would not destroy the program and even if one did not explicitly consent to these rules. These stipulations are set up by the principle of fair play, saying that when these conditions are met, there is a prima facie obligation to obey the law. This is important because it is trying to eliminate the appearance of ‘free-riders’ which are people who reap the benefits without giving anything back. Rawls sets up his argument in the way that everyone must participate and do their share for the good of everyone else. Many legal systems in the world meet the conditions set up by Rawls, and therefore their people all have the moral obligation to obey the law. His principles are not exclusive to certain people, because the specifications apply to so many different situations. Thus, all citizens have this obligation and the commitment applies to all legal systems and even situations outside of
These requirements are that the enterprise is just and mutually beneficial, the success of the enterprise needs nearly everyone to comply with the rules, the compliance of these rules requires some sort of sacrifice, one wants to keep receiving the benefits from the enterprise, practically everyone else obeys the rules, and one can continue to receive benefits without following the rules. These all still apply even if one person not participating would not destroy the program and even if one did not explicitly consent to these rules. These stipulations are set up by the principle of fair play, saying that when these conditions are met, there is a prima facie obligation to obey the law. This is important because it is trying to eliminate the appearance of ‘free-riders’ which are people who reap the benefits without giving anything back. Rawls sets up his argument in the way that everyone must participate and do their share for the good of everyone else. Many legal systems in the world meet the conditions set up by Rawls, and therefore their people all have the moral obligation to obey the law. His principles are not exclusive to certain people, because the specifications apply to so many different situations. Thus, all citizens have this obligation and the commitment applies to all legal systems and even situations outside of