The Theories of Political Obligation: A Map

In one line

Five theories, five answers to one question, and they can be arranged in a single line running from "obey because God said so" to "obey because it has always been so".

In the wording a student can write in an exam: MU sets five theories of political obligation, the divine right theory of kings, the social contract or consent theory, the theory of force, the theory of prescriptive possession, and the Marxist view; the first four are attempts to justify the duty to obey and the fifth denies that any such general duty exists.

The five, in one sentence each

Divine right of kings. The ruler holds power from God, so disobedience to the ruler is disobedience to God. Chapter 290.

Social contract and consent. People agreed, expressly or by implication, to be governed, and are bound by their own agreement. Chapters 300 to 340, which take Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau separately because they contract for different things on different terms.

Force. The state arose from conquest and rests on superior strength; obedience is owed to whoever can compel it. Chapter 350.

Prescriptive possession. The arrangement has stood so long that its origins may no longer be questioned, and long possession itself confers title. Chapter 360.

Marx. The state is an instrument of one class against another, so there is no general duty to obey it at all. Chapter 370.

The line they can be arranged on

Set them out by where the obligation comes from, and the whole module becomes one argument rather than five.

From outside the human world. Divine right. The duty exists because a source above all human beings placed the ruler there.

From the citizen's own act. Social contract and consent. The duty exists because you did something, promised or accepted or took a benefit.

From nothing at all except superior strength. Force. Strictly this is not a theory of obligation but a denial that one is needed, and saying so is worth a mark.

From time. Prescription. The duty exists because the arrangement is old, and its age is what makes questioning it improper.

Nowhere. Marx. There is no general duty; there is a class that rules and a class that is ruled, and calling the relation a duty is part of how it is maintained.

Notice that the middle three answer the four problems from chapter 240 quite differently. Contract explains particularity best, because you contracted with this state. Prescription explains generality best, because age covers the whole arrangement. Force explains none of them, which is its defect. And Marx explains why the question keeps being asked, which is a different kind of contribution.