When we are obligated to obey?
Answers
ʙᴜᴛ ᴀ ʟᴇɢᴀʟɪsᴛɪᴄ ᴠɪᴇᴡ ᴛʜᴀᴛ ʜᴀs ᴘʀᴏᴘᴏɴᴇɴᴛs ɪs ᴛʜᴇ ᴏɴᴇ ᴛʜᴀᴛ sᴛᴀᴛᴇs ᴛʜᴀᴛ ᴛʜᴇʀᴇ ɪs ᴀᴘʀɪᴍᴀ ғᴀᴄɪᴇ ʟᴇɢᴀʟ ᴏʙʟɪɢᴀᴛɪᴏɴ ᴛᴏ ᴏʙᴇʏ ᴛʜᴇ ʟᴀᴡ ʙᴇᴄᴀᴜsᴇ ᴛʜᴇ ʟᴀᴡ ɪs ᴛʜᴇ ʟᴀᴡ ᴀɴᴅ ɪᴛ ᴏᴜɢʜᴛ ᴛᴏ ʙᴇ ᴏʙᴇʏᴇᴅ ᴇxᴄᴇᴘᴛ ɪɴ ᴄɪʀᴄᴜᴍsᴛᴀɴᴄᴇs ᴡʜᴇʀᴇ ᴛʜᴇ ʟᴀᴡ ᴘᴇʀᴍɪᴛs ᴅɪsᴏʙᴇᴅɪᴇɴᴄᴇ. ɪɴ ᴇɪᴛʜᴇʀ ᴄᴀsᴇ, ɪᴛ ɪs ᴀ ʟᴇɢᴀʟ ᴅᴜᴛʏ ᴛᴏ ᴏʙᴇʏ ᴘᴏʟɪᴛɪᴄᴀʟ ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀɪᴛʏ ᴛʜᴀᴛ ᴡᴇ ʜᴀᴠᴇ.
Answer:
There are a variety of positions that might be taken concerning the question of whether or not there is a duty to obey the law. First, there is the view that there is an absolute legal obligation to obey the law, one which holds that we ought always to obey the law no matter what because the law is the law and it ought always to be obeyed. This naïve legalistic notion of the duty to obey the law has few, if any, takers. But a legalistic view that has proponents is the one that states that there is aprima facie legal obligation to obey the law because the law is the law and it ought to be obeyed except in circumstances where the law permits disobedience. In either case, it is a legal duty to obey political authority that we have. A position equally extreme to that of the naïve legalistic one is the skeptical legalistic position that denies that there could ever be a legal obligation to obey the law. One reason why this position is problematic, if not nonsensical, is that it seems to hold that no legal system or body of law would bind citizens to it by way of obedience. Yet it appears that most, if not all, legal systems do precisely that.