The Issue of Consent Theory as It Relates to Political Obligation and Political Awareness - Essay Example

Consent theory Humans are extremely controversial creatures, but I'm sure all of them have in some sense natural political freedom and equality. In the present essay I would like to examine the issue of consent theory as it relates to political obligation and political awareness. Looking through the works of various political science theorists, I have shaped my viewpoint, but first of all, it is important to analyze carefully their studies. In brief, consent theory proclaims domination of social consent in law and political freedom of individual, who should regulate his or her behaviour according to self-organized moral obligations. Searching consent implies first of all the ability to communicate about the most advantageous results of their discussion. Deliberate behaviour by consent with coercion is a contradictoriness in its roots, since nobody can make a consent compulsory or obligatory. Each action should by controlled by moral principles (which have naturally come from Rousseau's philosophy of 'kind' human nature). Thus, theory of consent is related to some kind of convergence among people as well as inner consent, which leads to creation of stable moral obligations (Lennartz, 2005). Rawls, who is an outstanding scholar, speaks about the obligations that people identify as "self-imposed," as if each person her or himself really participates in the creation of the principles of righteousness. In addition, Samuel Freeman, who defends Rawl's concepts, writes: "In committing themselves to these principles, free and equal citizens willingly impose upon themselves certain constraints on future decision-making . . . This precommitment is general, because it is made by and applies to everyone" (Freeman, 1993). Consent theory was expected to offer a concept of political autonomy, such that one can state that their obligation to a state was to some extent consequent from their free action as a personality among politically equal personalities. Such self-sufficiency demands that the philosophy one follows be the product of their deliberative development. "It is not enough simply for it to be the deliberative process that someone exactly like me would use, in other words, indicative of my unique experiences and faculties, because this would allow the deliberation of someone who knew me incredibly well to count as mine. It must be the deliberation that I actually intentionally undergo" (Cushing, 2001). In order to exemplify the awareness of making choice, let's imagine the following two 'methods' of shopping. The first way is common: a person picks the goods out him/herself and pays the bill at the end of shopping, as this person has gained an obligation by one's deliberate action. The second way is more complicated: one's robot double, programmed with all experiences and tastes of this person, goes shopping, chooses exactly what the human would choose in similar conditions and picks the goods out for this person. In the latter case, it is clear that the person has no obligation to pay for the goods, since he/she does not choose them. The person would have chosen, but in fact the person did not make a choice. Similarly, the consent theory required actual act of consent or choice, which is followed by entire awareness of one's actions. The most important limitation of consent theory (which probably rubs out the most part of its significance) is its conceptual utopicity. The level of public political culture in our society is quite low, and people follow rules and legislative obligations due to the fear of being punished. People could not rely on the way others adopt common consent, as based on the principle of personal freedom, the theory rejects law enforcement of the consent. As Cushing correctly notes, "there would be a similar assurance problem with Rawls's duty-based account because citizens will not believe that others will comply simply because the relevant institutions "apply" to them" (Cushing, 2001). Thus, an essential perception of our society's political culture is that a person cannot be bound accept certain rules and behave correspondingly without the clear and firm legislative basis. I'm sure, altruists would claim that human, being 'not evil' creature, will develop specific moral obligations once being given political freedom. But what can we see from existing evidence Let's remember the beginning of the 19th century in fallen Russian empire, where different political parties were struggling for different ideologies and values and where anarchists were trying to create the society, similar to those described by the creators of consent theory (Locke, Rawls and others). What can we see there Total moral degradation of an individual, the ruination of central humanistic values, such as value of life, privacy, family and property. That uncontrolled microcosm was simply moving to its nemesis, similarly to a car without a driver What can we say about moral obligation among those who treated 'murder', 'robbery', 'deprivation', 'rape', 'deception' as normal everyday routine My initial psychological knowledge prompts me that this state of affairs is a logical consequence of creation such microworld of anarchy, which knew no rules except the rule of physical power. Human natural inner organization and inner culture (adoption of social norms) are formed during the early years by various external factors, the complex of which is called 'upbringing' and 'education'. It is hard to predict therefore the situation of the absence of such organizing and controlling factors. Rawls states that "a reasonably just political society is possible, and for it to be possible, human beings must have a moral nature, not of course a perfect such nature, yet one that can understand, act on, and be sufficiently moved by a reasonable political conception of right and justice to support a society guided by its ideals and principles" (Rawles, 1996). Nevertheless, this assumption does not take into account several important sociopolitical aspects, some of which were listed above. In addition, it doesn't need to be low morality or imperfection of a sense of righteousness that provokes a person to question one's duties to one's "own" country to the exclusion of duties to others. As a result, a person may very well question particularly societal duties not out of self-centeredness, but out of a doubt about the strength of societal and cultural demarcations. Then, it is not a fact that everybody can establish the principles of righteousness using practical reasoning "Rawls's theory is forbidding even to the most committed student of philosophy, and although it might in theory be possible to convey it to the committed every person" (Cushing, 2001), psychologists and sociologists would argue that people have different intellectual levels and comprehend information in different ways. Each citizen is entitled to vote, but it is difficult to prove that everyone is able construct principles of righteousness. In my opinion, human-beings need external 'censorship' in order to maintain internal self-organization, so consent theory would rather destruct than construct human society. I think this concept is addressed to those individuals who have ideal viewpoint regarding fairness and justice and are ready to follow moral obligations even if there is no other punishment except the conscience. Bibliography 1) Cushing, S. Rawls and 'duty-based' accounts of political obligation, 2001. http://www.apa.udel.edu/apa/publications/newsletters/v99n1/law/articles-cushing.asp 2) Freeman, J. The Lockean theory of rights. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993 3) Lennartz, R. Theory of consent -a philosophy of natural order, 2005. http://home.arcor.de/danneskjoeld/Inf/T/Consent.html 4) Rawls, T. Moral principles and moral obligations. Columbia: Columbia University Press, 1996. Read More