Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    28 Nov '18 13:07
    Recent justification of political actions by #45 as promise-keeping make me want to learn more about the role of promise-keeping in politics, so I am digging in to

    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/political-obligation/

    Here are some opening lines:

    To have a political obligation is to have a moral duty to obey the laws of one's country or state. On that point there is almost complete agreement among political philosophers. But how does one acquire such an obligation, and how many people have really done what is necessary to acquire it? Or is political obligation more a matter of being than of doing — that is, of simply being a member of the country or state in question? To those questions many answers have been given, and none now commands widespread assent. Indeed, a number of contemporary political philosophers deny that a satisfactory theory of political obligation either has been or can be devised. Others, however, continue to believe that there is a solution to what is commonly called “the problem of political obligation,” and they are presently engaged in lively debate not only with the skeptics but also with one another on the question of which theory, if any, provides the solution to the problem.

    Whether political obligation is the central or fundamental problem of political philosophy, as some have maintained (e.g., McPherson), may well be doubted. There is no doubt, however, that the history of political thought is replete with attempts to provide a satisfactory account of political obligation, from the time of Socrates to the present. These attempts have become increasingly sophisticated in recent years, but they have brought us no closer to agreement on a solution to the problem of political obligation than the efforts of, say, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke in the seventeenth century. Nor have these sophisticated attempts made it unnecessary to look back to earlier efforts to resolve the problem. On the contrary, an appreciation of the troublesome nature of political obligation seems to require some attention to its place in the history of political thought.
  2. SubscriberSuzianne
    Misfit Queen
    Isle of Misfit Toys
    Joined
    08 Aug '03
    Moves
    35839
    28 Nov '18 17:09
    @js357 said
    Recent justification of political actions by #45 as promise-keeping make me want to learn more about the role of promise-keeping in politics, so I am digging in to

    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/political-obligation/

    Here are some opening lines:

    To have a political obligation is to have a moral duty to obey the laws of one's country or state. On that point there is ...[text shortened]... litical obligation seems to require some attention to its place in the history of political thought.
    I do not believe that "political obligation" is the same thing as "promise-keeping". One seems a moral obligation while the other is just opportune back-room deal-making, or even just an excuse for horrible behavior wrapped up in the classic "people's mandate" where one pre-supposes that your constituents want you to do something, "otherwise they wouldn't have voted for me. "
  3. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    28 Nov '18 21:591 edit
    @js357 said
    Recent justification of political actions by #45 as promise-keeping make me want to learn more about the role of promise-keeping in politics, so I am digging in to

    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/political-obligation/

    Here are some opening lines:

    To have a political obligation is to have a moral duty to obey the laws of one's country or state. On that point there is ...[text shortened]... litical obligation seems to require some attention to its place in the history of political thought.
    Morality?

    In politics?

    Mwhahahahaha!

    No matter how much you are lied to, you will vote "D" and like it.
  4. Joined
    07 Feb '09
    Moves
    138551
    28 Nov '18 22:58
    @whodey said
    Morality?

    In politics?

    Mwhahahahaha!

    No matter how much you are lied to, you will vote "D" and like it.
    You mean "R", don't you ?
  5. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    80055
    29 Nov '18 02:42
    @JS357

    The difficulty is that I think a different thing is meant by political promise keeping than the Plato site's article you've cited (although it looks interesting so thanks for bringing it to my attention). By political obligation I think they mean things like paying taxes and doing jury service when called upon. Political promise keeping seems to me to mean the duty of elected officials to keep the promises made during their campaign, or at least make a fair effort. So you need a different article.
  6. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    29 Nov '18 02:42
    @suzianne said
    I do not believe that "political obligation" is the same thing as "promise-keeping". One seems a moral obligation while the other is just opportune back-room deal-making, or even just an excuse for horrible behavior wrapped up in the classic "people's mandate" where one pre-supposes that your constituents want you to do something, "otherwise they wouldn't have voted for me. "
    A reasonable distinction.
  7. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    29 Nov '18 03:002 edits
    @deepthought said
    @JS357

    The difficulty is that I think a different thing is meant by political promise keeping than the Plato site's article you've cited (although it looks interesting so thanks for bringing it to my attention). By political obligation I think they mean things like paying taxes and doing jury service when called upon. Political promise keeping seems to me to mean the ...[text shortened]... he promises made during their campaign, or at least make a fair effort. So you need a different art
    The article does define political obligation in terms like paying taxes and doing jury duty but it logically covers duties like obeying all laws applicable to the person’s acts, including laws addressing the legality of executive orders and commitments to constitutional obligations, due process, international treaties, etc. it’s just that the political obligations of the person involved vary with the station that he or she has been elected or appointed to hold.
  8. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    80055
    29 Nov '18 03:431 edit
    @JS357

    But the duties entailed by citizenship are obligatory, one cannot opt out - emigration merely exchanges one set of obligations for another, and abandoning civilization is not a viable option. The duties entailed by political office are voluntary, since one chooses to run for office.

    The question the article is examining is why obligations should exist for someone who hasn't signed up for them.
  9. Standard membershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    56264
    29 Nov '18 05:30
    @js357 said
    Recent justification of political actions by #45 as promise-keeping make me want to learn more about the role of promise-keeping in politics, so I am digging in to

    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/political-obligation/

    Here are some opening lines:

    To have a political obligation is to have a moral duty to obey the laws of one's country or state. On that point there is ...[text shortened]... litical obligation seems to require some attention to its place in the history of political thought.
    Keeping promises seems, to me, completely unrelated to obeying the laws of the land.

    The latter would mean you can’t stand on a law changing platform.
    The former suggests that if you promise to adhere to democracy, you shouldn’t undermine it if elected.

    I agree that it should be a political obligation to do that which one promises. And it’s up to an electorate to judge this.

    I think politicians should be allowed to stand with policies which would upset the current laws of the land.

    Then there’s a third group: people who stand on a ‘support of the laws of the land’ promise, but when in power opt to circumvent these laws or dramatically change them.

    This is a difficult group. The electorate has been misled. To counter this:
    - it is important that the media do proper scrutiny before elections. Making sure that politicians positions are clear to the electorate.
    - if a politician tries to dramatically change the laws of the land, without having claimed to want to do so (making his intentions clear before election), there has to be a method to stop this; you can’t wait for a next election (there might not even be one).
  10. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    80055
    29 Nov '18 05:513 edits
    @shavixmir said
    Keeping promises seems, to me, completely unrelated to obeying the laws of the land.

    The latter would mean you can’t stand on a law
    Edit: For some reason the excerpt from your post I'm responding to is being over deleted. The sentence I take issue with is:

    The latter would mean that you can't stand on a law changing platform.

    It's not necessary to disobey the law to change it.
  11. Standard membershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    56264
    29 Nov '18 08:23
    @deepthought said
    Edit: For some reason the excerpt from your post I'm responding to is being over deleted. The sentence I take issue with is:

    The latter would mean that you can't stand on a law changing platform.

    It's not necessary to disobey the law to change it.
    Say you want to stand on an undemocratic platform. That you want to have politicians executed and yourself proclaimed the general leader of the whole world.

    You can't do that within the framework of, say, the US constitution.

    So, I feel that you should proclaim these intentions before hand.
  12. Joined
    18 Jan '07
    Moves
    7285
    29 Nov '18 13:29
    @mghrn55 said
    You mean "R", don't you ?
    You both mean 'A'. It's inherent in the system.
  13. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52851
    29 Nov '18 14:30
    An example would be the right of women to vote. If you go to vote as a women when it is unlawful to do so, you would just be rejected so there isn't much way to break that law. If you persisted with non-violent protests you might be arrested but under a different law, or violent protests and yet another law covers that but none of that has anything to do directly with the fact a hundred years ago in the US women were not allowed to vote.
Back to Top