1. What does the concept of political obligation mean?

Explain some of the

consequences of its presence and absence in a state.
A state or country is mandated to govern its people in a way that brings them net
happiness, which is usually achieved through benefits that are either exclusive or vital to them,
or both. Assuming that said state is legitimate, it therefore has the authority to rule over its
constituents; in exchange, the people who profit from these advantages are also expected to do
their fair share in following the rules set by their state. Such premise, which has been around
since the Age of Antiquity, and has been argued endlessly by social philosophers since then, is
known as political obligation.
In Layman’s terms, political obligation may refer to the required obedience from the
state’s citizens to the rules of their land. This can come in many forms, such as paying of taxes
or avoiding crime, but it can be as simple as adhering to their laws. Consequently, the state is
also expected to provide them benefits in exchange for such obedience. These benefits can be
in the form of basic rights and privileges, such as access to healthcare, among others. All of this
can be found in the Social Contract, where the rulers, together with its people who agreed to
grant them authority, are to provide a set of rules that the ruled should observe, which is, again,
in accordance to their agreement.
But, if that were the case, wouldn’t the phrase ‘legal obligation’ be a better fit? The
answer, I believe, lies with the concept of morality and how it should be applied. In other words,
someone who has a political obligation owes their state more than just obeying its laws; it also
involves taking steps that will ensure its betterment, such as being well-informed on who to vote
during elections season, amplifying marginalized voices within society so that they can be
heard, and basically providing active contribution towards the masses. An obligation, therefore,
becomes political when it is treated as a moral duty.
As stated earlier, the presence of it in a state should provide benefits such as
organization and order among its citizens, albeit in theory. For in the real world, there are
injustices done by the government of such states (e.g., Philippines). This is because the
governing body itself is usually the one that creates these laws; they have the power to control
the people below them. Although in some instances, especially in Democratic governing bodies,
there are different sectors in charge of legislation, but still, self-serving is very much possible. It
is also likely because of political officials whose responsibility should be serving the citizens in
their country, but instead serve other political officials with much more power.
On the other hand, with the absence of political obligation in the state, chaos and
disorganization will most likely occur. There would still be laws, however citizens would
ultimately deem these as useless and do whatever they want to since they are not restricted;
this has also been evident in the works of Hobbes. According to him, this state of nature, where
everyone is naturally equal and independent due to the lack of obligation, is also a state of war
for the “restless desire for power will result in a warre of every man against every man”. A
similar conclusion, although slightly different, was also drawn by Locke, putting the same
concepts to work.
2. What gives the ruler the right to rule according to Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau?
Thomas Hobbes was an English philosopher who is regarded as one of the Founders of
Modern Political Philosophy, having contributed greatly to what is now known as the Social
Contract Theory. His masterwork, Leviathan: The Matter, Forme, & Power of a Commonwealth
Ecclesiastical and Civill, is also considered to be on par with political literature of other great
philosophers. However, he is infamously known for arriving at a conclusion least palatable to
most academics today – the submission of man to the authority of an absolute sovereign power.
Hobbes asserts that the ideal government is one who has absolute authority, whatever
its form may be. He also believes that the ruler/s with supreme power would be most effective,
as they are fully capable of maintaining order and security within the nation (i.e.
Commonwealth), and, according to him, serve as the collective will of its people. Moreover,
Hobbes subscribes to the belief that rulers claim their authority and their right to rule by the
virtue of the divine right. This means that rulers of a state, as mostly seen in monarchies, are
given the power to rule by a higher being, usually a God.
On the other hand, John Locke, who was also one of the most influential thinkers of the
Enlightenment period, argues against what Hobbes subscribed to in more ways than one.
Known as the author of The Second Treatise of Government, in which he states there that
sovereign power lies within and from the people, it would be natural for him to believe of an
individual’s universal rights to life, liberty, and property. He says that political legitimacy is
determined by the explicit and implicit concern of the governed; what gives the ruler the right to
rule is the consent given by the ruled or the people. As such, he favors a government that
appointed representatives from the masses, albeit mostly men of age who owns private property
and business, which is a stark difference to Hobbes’ ideal government.
Locke was privileged; he was able to afford quality education due to his father’s
connections and became a physician. Unlike him though, Jean-Jacques Rousseau lived a
penniless life because of his parents’ situation – the early death of his mother and the
abandonment of his father to escape imprisonment. As one of the influential thinkers of his time,
he was the least academic yet, in many ways, most influential.
Having fled to Paris in hopes for a better living, he was able to form relationships with
several wealthy people, who would later provide him quality education in music and philosophy.
Eventually, he is known for the general will in political theory, which refers to the collective will of
the people that aims at their best interests. In a way, his idea is quite similar to Locke’s, who
treasures the importance of the people. Furthermore, Rousseau, through his idea of the social
contract, believes that voting to choose a leader shows the separation of the individual from
their subordination to the decision of the many and the general will itself. He also asserts the
importance of a local direct democracy, where a group of people would form assemblies in
order to make decisions. For him, this is his ideal form of government.
3. Describe the relationship between the rulers and the ruled in the ideas of Hobbes,
Locke, and Rousseau.
As mentioned in the first question, the relationship between the ruler and the ruled has
been established already – the rulers have the responsibility to prioritize their people, and the
ruled (the people) are mandated to follow them because of the explicit and implicit consent they
have given to their rulers. This, therefore, is the idea of political obligation; they are obligated to
follow the rules set by their government which, in the first place, are set ideally for the good of all
of its constituents.
Hobbes, who believes that an absolute, sovereign power – usually by a king or a
monarchy – is the best form of government, asserts that giving all the responsibilities of ruling to
the monarch would result to a more effective and consistent exercise of political authority. This
is because in a monarchy (and its similar forms), there would be no competition for power, and
that there is unity in communication for the protection of the subjects. On the other hand, the
people who are ruled will have no right to revolt against the authority for, again, they are
guaranteed total protection. Therefore, in order for the relationship between the two to work, the
ruled must lay down their natural rights of freedom and equality to give absolute power to their
ruler. The ruler is the one who would then enforce laws which ensure the people’s security and
peace, and that the people, in accordance to their agreement, will follow them.
Locke, on the other hand, believes in the power of the people, that the people build the
government, and without them such government would be nonexistent. Consequently, he
believes that the ruled are the ones who have the right to judge on whether the rulers have
overstepped their boundaries – usually through injustices such as corruption and state neglect.
He states that should they refuse to be judged by the ruled, whenever they think that they have
done something against their interests, a war will break down between them. He supports this,
unsurprisingly, saying that the people have the power to ostracize their rulers because of the
justification that the same people built the government in the first place.
Last, but not the least, Rousseau believes that the ideal government must provide
freedom and happiness to all of its citizens and set this as its most fundamental objective.
What’s important to him, he explains, is that this collective, who, by their full consent, enter into
a civil society, should express the general will of all its people, and should discard their selfish
interests; in other words, the collective action of the people serves as its sovereign. However,
some form of government is necessary to enforce their laws, and that the ruled must consent to
be governed by the ruler in order for the government to exist in the first place. In a way, this is
synonymous to Locke’s ideal ruler-ruled relationship. Furthermore, he, just like Locke, highly
rejects the idea of the divine right to rule, which was Hobbes’ ideal.
4. What answer would Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau give to the question: Do people
have the right to resist or rebel against a government? Explain your answer.
All the three political philosophers have various perspectives on what their ideal type of
government is and on how should society be governed. This also means that they would
provide different answers to the said question.
For one, Hobbes believes in the idea of the divine right to rule, in which a godly being or
an institution in association with God, chooses the ruler and provides them absolute sovereign
power, therefore, granting them unlimited rights to control their people, with or without their
consent. Furthermore, he believes that the ruled do not have the right to resist or rebel against
their government, and that any form of sedition is highly discouraged. According to him, the
greatest threat when it comes to the state’s interests is that of people trying to decide what is
good for them; it doesn’t make sense to him for it is the sovereign’s (ruler) place to determine
what’s right or wrong to the people. Despite history proving how monarchies from time to time
abuse their power, it would still be wrong to disobey them for the sovereign cannot do anything
unjust, as Hobbes’ would say.
As for Locke, the people or the ruled have the right to rebellion against their state. He
believes that such disobedience can be justified when the government oversteps its proper
bounds, by failing to protect the rights of its citizens. Although we surrendered some of our
rights to the state as part of the social contract, the state itself has no right that we didn’t have
for ourselves. In other words, it can never treat us in a way that is immoral for an individual to
treat another individual in the state of nature (from the Social Contract). However, we should
also do our part in obeying the rules set by the state, as long as these rules are just and ethical;
hence, we should only practice disobedience or rebellion against the state otherwise.
Of all the three, Rousseau was the one who had the greatest influence to later
philosophers. In modern political philosophy, for example, he is largely credited in many liberal
theories, and also in democratic theories, among others. One could even say that his works
served as the spark that ignited the powder keg of what is known in history as the French
Revolution. It comes to no surprise, therefore, that he would believe in the right to freedom of
the people, and that they have the utmost right to disobey their state if the general will, which is
catered at the preservation and overall welfare of the community, is ever violated or least
prioritized. It is similar to Locke’s view on disobedience, in which it is justified when the state
deviates from the interests of its people. However, one major difference between the two
perspectives can be observed in terms of one’s submission to the sovereign. Unlike Locke’s,
which practices absolute submission to the state - assuming it to be a just institution, Rosseau’s
submits to no one, for the general will is the one to be followed at all times.