Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

TMA06 - Is philosophical anarchism defensible? - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Attach to one view and assess from anarchist perspective
        
        Parental analogy P18 "state is like parent so should be thankful"
        
        What about self determination and you were not asked to be brought into the world so what moral thankfulness should you give. If your upbringing was traumatic, then one could argue that there is nothing to be thankful for? This can apply to the state.
        
        P22 - looks at the moral obligation of family and that for "most" people it comes without question. But why?
        
        P24 looks at the obligations to parents and that out of a duty perspective. Supererogatory. But one can say that making life is not really a duty but a gift. Whether this is morally obliged is open to interpretation. How does one define what a duty is? P 25 medical student breaks car
        
        P27 draws on the affection argument on how a parent treats you. Showing affection. The state does not show that affection. What is affection. Love? caring nature. I am not sure the state can do that so i think the comparisons fall short of convincing me of this argument. The socrates example talks about education and being in existance. Which can ultimately benefit the state. Not love
        
        Fair play argument P28 - State has given you benefits so you owe it your allegience.
        
        Free-riding - takes the benefit without paying something back. In essence taking a free ride ( hopping on bus argument ). This is not "fairplay" and could be classed as morally wrong as others will be paying so you should too.
        
        Such benefits can inlcude, police force to keep safe, welfare system to help in times of hardships, libraries to increase knowledge and schooling. The obligation we have therefore is to pay taxes to ensure that it is mutual.
        
        Argument for a free ride - if that person has no money but is using that opportunity to go a job interview to better his/her life. Is the free-riding justified? has the state the right to impose obligation on those that are less fortunate? If a genuine reason exists why the rules could not apply then does that mean they are free of obligation, or will that lead to a dysfunctional system??
        
        P 34 talks about voluntarily benefits, did that person actively saught those benefits. The person had a choice to get on the bus? or did they? If we talk about morality then what morality supercedes the state. Does the individual have the right to circumvent the obligation based on the life that has been imposed upon them, is there a line to draw? If a person cannot payback the benefit and does break the law in a way in which has left them no choice should they be punished for it?
        
        Consent theory - Chp 1 AUDIO 2. Citizens have consented to follow the law. ( have they or not )
        
        A Citizen doesnt leave the state therefore they consent. You can argue that a person may not be able to leave the state? one can claim asylum, but can a British travel to America and live, without money or a means to get there. Does that mean that one is forced into an obligation? Therefore the consent argument is invalid as i have not consented.
        
        An immigrant however (such as a citizen ceremony) does make a pact to the state, but a person born here does not make that same allegiance. What if one does not make that allegiance? are they obliged?
        
        P60 - Lockes Tacit consent means that one consents without knowing the nature of consent and explicitly understanding what is being consented. This goes against the initial idea of voluntarily being aware of what one is consenting to and by "walking down the road" you have consented is almost imposing something without understanding which gives a weak argument to why one should morally be obliged.
        
        P642 - Hume suggests that there was no means of original contract by the state and that this falls out of the way states are created, normally by force and imposition. Back to the argument of those that can leave (plato in crito) those that cannot are bound by such obligations.
        
        Being born into such areas of life and status, the contract does not benefit everyone and those that do not consent, are labelled criminals and as such are bound by the dictates of the state. Is that free and fair??
        
        P644/5 - talks about obligation under necessity or survival rather than moral mutual obligation. Due to the way new states form? this then goes from fear and becomes accepted until another change happens?
        
        Hume on P68 - says that there are "preferrable" reasons why some laws should be followed but in turn does not explicitly say that one should not be able to break them.
        
        What if everyone did that (dire consequences) P 69
        
        Getting away with it - Very few people do this law breaking so no one is losing out much and it does not affect society as a whole and pleases me in the process.
        
        The tipping point - if one other person does it then the whole thing would drastically unravel and does me doing this law breaking result in that "tipping point"
        
        Chaos is come again - No one take the law seriously and everyone flouts it, because they all do then nothing gets done about it and it just becomes acceptable. (standing at football game to obscure view etc)
        
        When looking to change laws, the act of disobedience can be a modification of an obligation rather than directly refute it. P 74
        
        Chp 2 Audio 2 - Israel movement is a public refusal of serving in the occupied terrorises. Because it was public they are receiving jail time and seen as a bad thing. They are maybe doing something morally wrong. Are the actions of these soldiers morally wrong or are they allowed to object. There are limits to consent of the state. Unjust objections are morally accepted? so can they not consent.?
      - What actually is the relationship between the state and a person to oblige to its laws? Where does it come from?
        Socrates 3 considersations. P24 benefits, you can leave and a pact between them
      - P14 talks about the 3 arguments for state obligation. About parental, fairplay and contract& dire consequences
      - What is the moral obligation. Just because something benefits me does not mean i have to follow it by law ( drinking alcohol ). So what moral authority does exist that said i should not drink alcohol?
      - Risk of offending? If the law says one shall not offend ( gender pronoun equalities ) goes against the freedom of speech of an individual. A states laws could also be morally wrong, so therefore one should not obey them? but if not then there is fear of death?
      - What form of obligation are we are talking about?
      - In what manner does an obligation exist? a rule of state is by foundation an imposition of one set of ideals, normally acquired through force. There will be people that dont abide by the notion of those rules but are powerless to change them initially. Therefore one must succumb to the law? This could lead to a collapse in society? but what is that ?
      - There seems no one overarching obligation theory
      - Who creates this law, why should i obey? more about morality not the idea of going to prison etc
      - Plurist argument is that there are multiple reasons to obey or not obey