Authority and Political Obligation: When Are Laws Binding?

1) Concept Clarification: What Authority Claims

Political authority is not just the ability to get people to comply. It is a normative claim: the state (or a governing body) claims (a) the right to rule and (b) a corresponding right to be obeyed (or at least a right that subjects treat its directives as binding in a special way).

Authority vs. Mere Power

Mere power is the capacity to produce outcomes (through force, threats, incentives, propaganda, or control of resources). A gang can have power over a neighborhood; a corporation can have power over workers; a state can have power over residents. None of that, by itself, establishes that their commands are binding.

Authority adds a further claim: that subjects have a reason to comply that is not reducible to fear or self-interest. In many theories, authority also claims to generate content-independent reasons: you should do X not only because X is good, but because the legitimate authority directed X.

Two Questions to Keep Separate

• Legitimacy question: Does this institution have the right to rule (in general)?
• Obligation question: Do I have a moral duty to obey this particular law (in this case)?

A government might be broadly legitimate yet issue an unjust directive; conversely, an illegitimate regime might issue some directives that are still prudent or morally advisable to follow (e.g., “do not drive drunk”). The chapter focuses on when laws are morally binding, not merely enforceable.

2) Four Bases for Political Obligation (and Their Limits)

Philosophers propose different grounds for why citizens might owe obedience. Treat these as candidate explanations with conditions; none automatically covers every case.

Continue in our app.

• Listen to the audio with the screen off.
• Earn a certificate upon completion.
• Over 5000 courses for you to explore!

Or continue reading below...

Download the app

A) Consent

Core idea: If you voluntarily agree to be governed, you incur an obligation to comply with the rules of that scheme (within limits).

Forms of Consent

• Explicit consent: Clear agreement (e.g., oath of office, naturalization oath, signed contract to join a political community).
• Tacit consent: Alleged agreement inferred from behavior (e.g., residing in a territory, using public services, voting).

Conditions for Consent to Bind

• Voluntariness: Real option to refuse without severe penalty (not “agree or be harmed”).
• Information: Reasonable awareness of what one is agreeing to.
• Competence: Capacity to consent (age, mental capacity).
• Specificity: What exactly is consented to (general obedience? only constitutional essentials? only fair laws?).

Limits

• Consent does not usually bind to grave injustice: even if you consented, there are moral limits on what you can authorize.
• Problem of non-consenters: many residents never explicitly consent; tacit consent is controversial when exit is costly.

Practical Check

Ask: “Did I (or my representative in a way that plausibly binds me) voluntarily and knowingly undertake a commitment to treat this law as binding?” If not, consent may not explain the obligation.

B) Fairness / Reciprocity (The Principle of Fair Play)

Core idea: When people cooperate under a scheme that produces benefits, it is unfair to take the benefits while refusing the burdens. Obedience can be owed as a matter of reciprocity.

Conditions for Fairness to Generate Obligation

• Non-excludable benefits: You receive benefits you cannot reasonably avoid (e.g., public order, clean air regulation).
• Reasonably just scheme: The cooperative system must be sufficiently fair; otherwise “reciprocity” can look like forced participation.
• Relevant burdens: The law must be part of the burden-sharing needed to sustain the benefits (not arbitrary or exploitative).

Limits

• Unrequested benefits: If benefits are imposed on you, it is disputed whether you “owe” anything in return.
• Unfair distribution: If the scheme systematically disadvantages some, the fairness argument weakens for those asked to carry disproportionate burdens.

Practical Check

Ask: “Am I free-riding on a cooperative practice that is reasonably fair, where compliance with this law is part of doing my share?”

C) Natural Duty

Core idea: People have a general moral duty to support just institutions and help create/maintain them. Obedience is owed not because you agreed, but because justice requires sustaining institutions that secure basic rights and public order.

Conditions

• Institutional justice threshold: The institutions must be sufficiently just (not perfect, but not deeply oppressive).
• Necessity/importance: Compliance must be important for maintaining the just institution (or preventing serious harm).
• Proportionality: The cost to you should not be extreme relative to the moral importance of compliance.

Limits

• Unjust regimes: Natural duty does not straightforwardly require sustaining institutions that violate basic rights.
• Particular unjust laws: Even in a generally just system, a law can be wrong enough that natural duty does not require compliance.

Practical Check

Ask: “Would disobedience undermine a basically just system in a way that threatens others’ security or rights?”

D) Associative Ties (Membership, Solidarity, and Special Obligations)

Core idea: Membership in a political community can generate special obligations similar to those in families or close associations: loyalty, mutual concern, and willingness to bear burdens for one another.

Conditions

• Genuine membership: Not merely living under coercion, but being recognized and treated as a member (equal standing, inclusion).
• Reciprocity of concern: The community shows concern for you; obligations are not one-way.
• Non-oppressive identity: The association must not be structured around domination of some members.

Limits

• Exclusion and second-class status: If the community denies equal membership, associative obligation is weakened.
• Conflicts with universal morality: Loyalty cannot justify serious wrongdoing to outsiders or vulnerable insiders.

Practical Check

Ask: “Does my relationship to this community plausibly create special duties of compliance, and is that relationship reciprocal and non-oppressive?”

3) How to Reconstruct Arguments About Obligation (Exercises)

To evaluate whether a law is binding, practice reconstructing the underlying argument. Use this template:

Conclusion: I am (morally) obligated to obey law L in situation S.  Because: (Ground)  If: (Conditions)  Unless: (Defeaters/limits)

Exercise 1: Consent Argument

Prompt: “Citizens must obey tax law because they chose to live here and vote.”

• Identify the ground: tacit consent.
• Make conditions explicit: meaningful exit; informed choice; voting/residence counts as consent to this kind of law.
• Test defeaters: Is exit realistically available? Is the tax system used for unjust ends? Is the citizen coerced or misinformed?

Exercise 2: Fairness Argument

Prompt: “You should comply with jury duty because you benefit from the legal system.”

• Ground: reciprocity/fair play.
• Conditions: legal system is reasonably just; jury service is a necessary burden; burdens are not unfairly concentrated.
• Defeaters: systemic bias; exclusion from equal protection; disproportionate hardship.

Exercise 3: Natural Duty Argument

Prompt: “Even if you didn’t agree, you must follow public health rules to protect others.”

• Ground: natural duty to support just institutions / prevent serious harm.
• Conditions: rule is necessary and effective; institutions are not using the rule as a pretext for oppression; costs are proportionate.
• Defeaters: rule is arbitrary, discriminatory, or grossly ineffective; severe rights violations.

Exercise 4: Associative Argument

Prompt: “You should accept conscription because fellow citizens do their part.”

• Ground: associative obligation and reciprocity.
• Conditions: equal membership; war is just; burdens shared fairly; conscientious alternatives exist.
• Defeaters: unjust war; discriminatory drafting; denial of equal civic standing.

4) Structured Case Analysis

Case A: Civil Disobedience

Civil disobedience is a deliberate, public, nonviolent breach of law aimed at changing law or policy, typically while showing respect for the broader legal order (e.g., accepting legal penalties, appealing to public reason).

Step-by-Step Evaluation

• Step 1: Identify the target. Is the disobedience aimed at a specific unjust law/policy or at the regime as a whole?
• Step 2: Diagnose the injustice. Does the law violate basic rights, equal standing, or core procedural fairness? Or is it a reasonable disagreement about policy?
• Step 3: Check normal channels. Are legal/political avenues available and not systematically blocked? If blocked, the case for disobedience strengthens.
• Step 4: Proportionality and harm. Will disobedience impose serious risks on others (e.g., endangering safety)? If yes, justification requires stronger reasons and careful mitigation.
• Step 5: Fidelity to law (optional but common). Is the act designed to communicate and persuade rather than to coerce or terrorize? Public, nonviolent, and conscientious action often signals this.

How the Four Bases Apply

• Consent: Even if you consented to the system, consent may not extend to obeying a law that violates the moral limits of what can be authorized.
• Fairness: If the scheme is unfair in the relevant domain (e.g., systematically denies equal protection), reciprocity may not require compliance with the unjust part.
• Natural duty: You may still have duties not to destabilize a basically just order, but civil disobedience can be compatible with supporting just institutions by correcting serious wrongs.
• Associative ties: Loyalty to fellow members can support disobedience when it aims to secure equal membership for all.

Case B: Unjust Laws

Not every unjust law has the same moral status. Distinguish at least three categories:

Step-by-Step Evaluation of an Unjust Law

• Step 1: Identify the wrong. Is the injustice about outcomes, procedure, discrimination, or rights violations?
• Step 2: Identify your role. Are you being asked to participate in wrongdoing (e.g., enforcing, reporting, excluding), or merely to comply with a rule that is unfair?
• Step 3: Consider complicity. Would compliance make you a causal contributor to harm, or a symbolic endorser, or both?
• Step 4: Consider systemic effects. Would disobedience likely reduce harm or instead trigger backlash that worsens conditions?
• Step 5: Choose a response type. Options include compliance with protest, legal challenge, civil disobedience, refusal, or exit (if feasible).

Case C: Conscientious Refusal

Conscientious refusal is noncompliance grounded in deep moral or religious conviction, often seeking exemption rather than broad legal change (e.g., refusing military service, refusing to perform certain professional tasks).

Key Distinctions

• Refusal vs. disobedience: refusal aims at personal exemption; civil disobedience aims at public reform.
• Private vs. public: refusal may be private; civil disobedience is typically public and communicative.
• Burden shifting: exemptions can shift burdens to others; this matters for fairness.

Step-by-Step Assessment

• Step 1: Sincerity and depth. Is the conviction stable, serious, and identity-defining (not opportunistic)?
• Step 2: Harm to others. Would refusal deny others basic services or expose them to serious risk?
• Step 3: Availability of alternatives. Can the person be reassigned, or can the duty be met in another way (e.g., alternative service)?
• Step 4: Fair distribution. Would granting the exemption create unfairness (e.g., many opt out of a burdensome duty, leaving a few to carry it)?
• Step 5: Institutional integrity. Does the exemption undermine the institution’s core purpose (e.g., equal access, non-discrimination)?

5) Decision-Tree: Is Obedience Morally Required Here?

Use this decision-tree as a practical tool. It does not replace judgment; it organizes the main considerations.

START: You face a directive/law L in situation S.

Step 1: Is L within the institution’s proper domain?

• If NO (e.g., an official order outside legal authority, corruption, arbitrary command): obligation to obey is weak; treat as mere power.
• If YES: go to Step 2.

Step 2: Does L require you to violate serious moral constraints?

• If YES (e.g., direct participation in violence against innocents, severe discrimination, suppression of basic protections): obedience is typically not morally required; consider refusal and protective action for those harmed.
• If NO: go to Step 3.

Step 3: How unjust is L (if at all)?

• Gravely unjust: strong presumption against obedience; consider conscientious refusal or civil disobedience.
• Moderately unjust: obligation is contested; go to Step 4 and Step 5 to weigh grounds and defeaters.
• Minor injustice / reasonable disagreement: strong presumption for obedience (coordination and fairness reasons); go to Step 6.

Step 4: Do you have a consent-based obligation here?

• Check: explicit commitment? meaningful option to refuse? informed undertaking?
• If YES: adds weight toward obedience (unless Step 2 applies).
• If NO: move on; other grounds may still apply.

Step 5: Do fairness/reciprocity, natural duty, or associative ties apply?

• Fairness: Are you free-riding if you disobey? Is the scheme reasonably fair in this domain?
• Natural duty: Would disobedience undermine a basically just institution or expose others to serious harm?
• Associative ties: Does membership generate special duties here, and is membership reciprocal and equal?

If these grounds strongly apply, they support obedience; if the scheme is unfair or exclusionary, they weaken.

Step 6: Are there strong defeaters even if some obligation exists?

• Disproportionate burden: Does L impose extreme costs on you compared to others without justification?
• Selective enforcement / discrimination: Is L applied in a way that denies equal standing?
• Bad faith governance: Is L a pretext for oppression rather than a genuine public purpose?
• Availability of lawful alternatives: Can you comply while also challenging the law effectively through legal means?

Step 7: Choose a response type (practical options)

• Full compliance: when obligation is strong and defeaters are weak.
• Compliance + protest: comply to avoid harm while publicly opposing and seeking reform.
• Selective noncompliance: refuse the specific unjust requirement while respecting other laws.
• Civil disobedience: public, nonviolent breach aimed at reform, with attention to proportionality and communication.
• Conscientious refusal/exemption request: seek accommodation, propose alternative service, minimize burden shifting.
• Protective noncompliance: urgent refusal to prevent imminent serious harm to others.

6) Quick Practice Scenarios (Apply the Tree)

Scenario 1: Administrative Rule with Mild Unfairness

A city imposes a confusing permit rule that makes it harder for small vendors to operate, though it is not discriminatory by design.

• Step 2: no serious moral violation required.
• Step 3: likely minor/moderate injustice.
• Step 5: fairness and natural duty may support compliance to maintain order, while advocating reform.
• Response: compliance + protest/legal challenge is often appropriate.

Scenario 2: Order to Participate in Targeted Discrimination

An official directive requires employees to deny services to a protected minority group.

• Step 2: requires serious moral wrongdoing.
• Response: refusal is strongly supported; civil disobedience may be justified; seek protective measures for those harmed.

Scenario 3: Conscientious Refusal with Burden Shifting

A professional refuses a legally required task on moral grounds, but refusal would leave clients without timely access to essential services.

• Step 2: depends on whether the task is itself seriously wrongful.
• Step 4/5: even if conscience is sincere, fairness and harm-to-others constraints matter.
• Response: exemption is more plausible if reassignment/coverage exists; otherwise the refusal may be morally impermissible despite sincerity.

Scenario 4: Civil Disobedience to Challenge a Systemic Wrong

Activists publicly and nonviolently violate a law that blocks equal participation in political processes, after repeated legal attempts fail.

• Step 3: likely grave/moderate injustice depending on severity.
• Step 4/5: consent/fairness arguments may not bind victims of exclusion; natural duty can support reform-oriented disobedience.
• Response: civil disobedience can be justified if proportional and aimed at restoring equal standing.