Obedience

"We must now fear the person who obeys the law more than the one who breaks it." (MacDonald) Discuss.

Essentially the reasoning behind the social contract is the same for most authors; it is the creation of Sovereign for the purpose of protecting the individual's interests. However, there are many discrepancies between the continuation of the relationship between the citizen of the state and the Sovereign. For Hobbes the social contract is of a perpetual nature, and cannot be revised, for Locke this was not the case, instead it was thought that if the Sovereign discontinued to fulfil its purpose in defending the individual's interests the social contract was breached and the individual had the right to deny the Sovereign's authority. Authors since tend to fall into either the Hobbes group or the Locke group, Rousseau's opinion falls within the latter believing the governed were free to disobey and establish a new political contract if they did not feel the Sovereign is delivering its side of the contract. Kant believed that there was no right to revolution due to the Sovereign being indivisible, as did Hobbes.

I find that not only in theory but also in practical terms I will have to agree with the theories of Locke, Rousseau and Fuller. I feel that Hobbes contradicts himself when he claims that law is reason subject to interpretation and amendment by equity ; if we see equity as being natural justice and then asserts that law is none the less law even if it is unjust law, would the lack of equity not be fatal to legislation being classed as law would it not destroy the very character of what law is?

If we do follow the Locke standpoint law is seen as less robust or solid, it is subject to the constraints of justice, fairness and morals, and without such law is no longer law and the social contract is dissolved. I also believe that the nature of any contract is - if one party does not fulfil their obligations and thus breaks the terms of the contract there is no need for the other party to fulfil their obligations granted under the contract.

I find that this opinion has been evidenced by a history of revolutions, the destruction and remaking of social contracts has repeatedly occurred throughout the history of man. Showing that although the social contract may be intended to be continuous, it is not unconditionally continued.

Although it appears that discussing the social contract may be straying from the point at hand, namely whether those obedient to the law should be feared more than those disobedient to the law or not, I assert that it is fundamental for the following reason. If one is entitled to dissolve the current Sovereign under the terms of the social contract, then surely that would entail that any law passed by such a Sovereign is no longer law, thus if we consider the disobedient citizen, with our focus not on law breaking in the context of cold-blooded murderers, or rapists or thieves. Instead it is disobedience that the usually law-abiding citizen can be brought to. Then, surely as there is no longer any law to be broken, there can be no such thing as a disobedient citizen (if our definition is confined to the aforementioned bounds).

Under Hobbes this problem does not arise, as if there is no right to revolt then law should be obeyed even if its paper form does not conform to the constraints of justice, and thus the existence of the disobedient cannot be questioned.

Where does this lead us? No matter what social contract theory is believed to be true, the question must be asked as to what it is that the "Disobedient" relies upon to disobey the laws delivered by the Sovereign that he or she is subject to the authority of.

To exemplify such a situation, I find the story