Characteristics of political obligation and authority Consent Theory 1 In order for someone to have political authority there must be others obliged to follow that political authority Poltical obligation and political authority are 2 To be under political obligation there must be a reason for a person to oblige themselves to the authority But it is possible for one to have political obligation correlatives and yet be morally justified in disobeying the state 3 Political Obligation refers to a specific reason to obey the state not covered by just any reason such as promising a loved one to obey the state as that does not give the state the authority to govern over the person who made the promise as the promise is not based on political obligation 4 The existence of a political authority relationship is neither a sufficient nor necessary condition for political obligation If an individual is to agree to the rules of the state then that individual is also agreeing to an obligation to follow it s rules and authority Churches are the same way we implicitly agree to follow the rules and of the church According to Beran giving consent is much the same as giving a promise and therefore when one gives consent to obey a state it is their moral duty to obligate themselves to following that consent The Consent Theory does not seek to answer why should I obey any law and questions such as this that deal with specificity dependent on one s circumstances but rather why should one obey authority to a state A group of people cannot have the authority to govern unless given consent but they may be morally justified in exercising power without consent According to David Hume Consent Theorists ask and claim 1 Why are we bound by our government and answer Because 2 We have promised to obey our government 3 and we are bound to keep our promises 4 Why should we keep our word Because 5 It is necessary for civilized life Hume argues that five is a sufficient answer to one and therefore we can bypass the morally objectifiable promise But this argument only hits that obligation to the state is a necessity for civilized life but does not handle that for some people that may not be the way of life and does not answer why certain individuals should be morally obligated to the state It is not in the utility of the state because as illustrated in my below point in some sense the state is not necessary for individuals already upholding civilized life To further the argument if the idea that we need government to maintain civilized life comes from the people under the government then why do we need government at all if those giving consent to be governed in order to have a civilized life already have in mind upholding a civilized life The reason I believe this is so is because as people we are unsure as to whether others will uphold those same standards Government serves as a moral cid 127 Where it gets corrupt is where people leading the government lose their sense or morality that the people may have or have a warped sense of morality There are three ways in which an individual can avoid agreeing with the constitution of a state Public Declaration where one agrees to the constitution of the state The only people morally bound to follow the constitution of a state are those in a position to make moral decisions Morality is secondary to well being and survival Therefore in a state where not everyone s well being is met not everyone could be morally obligated to follow the rules of the constitution because some namely the poor are not in a position to make choices based on morality but these fall under the secondary reasons why one Peasants and the poor accept their membership in a state not by agreeing to be members but rather by their ignorance and poverty in not knowing any other equalizer over the people Secession cid 127 Migration should not obey a state choice cid 127 cid 127 cid 127 cid 127 cid 127 cid 127 cid 127 cid 127 cid 127 cid 127 cid 127 cid 127 cid 127 cid 127 cid 127