All Citizens Obey the Laws of the Land

The teacher points out that legal obedience in itself is not necessarily a sign of a « good citizen. » Many of the false acts were committed by people who actually obeyed the law and said they were just « doing their duty. » On the other hand, history shows that from time to time, even good people must consider breaking a certain law for a morally good reason. This was usually done in the form of a small pinch of incense on a public altar. For Christians and Jews, such an act was unthinkable. This was clearly the sin of idolatry. Therefore, navigating the laws could be very difficult for believers in the one God of the Bible. The teacher points out to the class that people have a number of reasons to obey the law. Some of them have to do with self-interest, other reasons show concern for others, and others show concern for the well-being of society as a whole (see note below). Theorists have tried to preserve the theory of consent in different ways. Some theorists have tried to identify widespread actions that constitute tacit consent. One option is to vote.

If Jones votes in an election, it could be argued that he agreed to be governed by the winners and thus obey the law (Plamenatz 1968: 168-71). Other similar measures could be proposed, such as the oath of allegiance or the taking of the appropriate oath upon entry into the armed forces. But if we look at the conditions necessary for an act of consent to create a moral requirement to obey the laws, we can see that these and similar actions are overlooked. In Paul`s day, this end was not always attained by the various rulers of the kingdom, but it was always their stated intention–although they did not use the word sin to describe the crimes. In Romans 13:1-7, he exhorts Christians living in the Roman Empire to abide by the laws of the land to avoid unnecessary conflicts with the authorities. We live in extraordinary times, so we may be able to choose between just and secular expectations. While it is true that the Apostle Paul exhorts us to be legitimate citizens, a very careful study of this subject is important for your spiritual life. Hume`s basic position was developed by later theorists in the utilitarian tradition, for example (Bentham 1988-1776, chap.

1). Starting from the voluntarism of the theory of consent, this position has the considerable advantage of being able to bind most or all citizens, regardless of the actions they have performed or not. However, consequentialism faces a central difficulty in requiring certain individuals to obey the law. As H.L.A. Hart argues, the characteristic orientation of political commitments can be seen in the contrast between the obligation to do so and the obligation to do so (Hart 1961: 80-88). If a gunman holds Smith back and threatens to shoot her if she doesn`t give back $50, she`s probably forced to give that money. But by this phrase, we mean nothing more than alternatives to compliance are considerably unpleasant, which gives it a good reason to comply. According to Hart, the commitment to this adds an inner dimension. While Smith`s obligation to do p is analyzed in terms of assessing the consequences of obedience or disobedience, her obligation to do p adds to these concerns the moral legitimacy of what she is forced to do. If Smith is a citizen of a legitimate state that requires her to pay $50 in taxes, she may once again be forced to comply; The consequences of non-compliance may be unacceptable to them.

But in this case, it is right that she gives the money. If he acknowledges commitment, he will believe that it is the right thing to do – although we should note that this is a prima facie moral requirement that can be replaced by additional moral considerations. The citizens of each State are entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the various States. However, this did not mean that Christians simply had to obey unjust laws or laws that violated God`s higher law. This peaceful resistance led to the martyrdom of many Christians. Christians must show due respect for governments and authorities and do their best to obey secular laws. No person who is detained for service or work in a State may be dismissed from that service or work under its legislation which flees to another by reason of a law or regulation devoted to that service or work, but which may be extradited at the request of the party to whom such service or work may be due. Another way to establish political commitments on the basis of consent is to develop political institutions that offer more individuals the opportunity to consent freely. A possible mechanism would allow citizens to consent when they reach a certain age. Various political systems had such mechanisms, including ancient Greek cities (see Kraut 1984: 154-57).

A « reformist consent mechanism » that could be established in the United States would require individuals to apply for official citizenship at the age of 18, the age at which men are currently required to register for military service. An oath of allegiance to the government and/or the Constitution could be part of the process. In his defense of the consent theory, Harry Beran suggests that people who disagree have the opportunity to emigrate to « dissident territory » (Beran 1987: 31-32, 37-42). The moral obligation to obey the law, or as it is commonly called, the political obligation, is a moral obligation to obey the laws of one`s own country. Traditionally, this has been seen as a requirement of some type of obedience to the law for the « content-independent » reason that it is the law, as opposed to the content of certain laws. By characterizing this as a moral requirement, theorists distinguish political obligation from legal obligation. All legal systems purport to bind the persons subject to them; Part of what we mean by a valid law is that the population concerned is obliged to obey it. This requirement is usually supported by coercion, while those who disobey are subject to sanctions. But these aspects of the legal obligation leave open more ultimate questions about the state`s justification for imposing such requirements. If citizens have no moral obligation to obey the law, they may be forced to do so, but by obliging obedience, the state acts unjustly and infringes on their freedom. Peter`s answer is very instructive for us today.

He simply said that we must obey God and not men (Acts 5:29). They knew that the result of their position would lead them to violate the orders of the rulers and that they would be defeated accordingly, but it was still their response. Heather Clark, Christians Deemed Terrorists in Studies Funded by Department of Homeland Security, (Article), Christian News, July 4, 2012. However, if these worldly laws violate God`s higher law, we will have no other choice, just like Peter before the Sanhedrin, to peacefully resist such unjust laws. Some of the students read their examples during the plenary discussion. The teacher then points out the difference between moral responsibility (which people assume on themselves as part of their own values and beliefs) and legal obligations imposed by governments. Tensions between these two types of responsibility can lead citizens to criticize certain laws with which they disagree and work to change them.