A Multiple Principle Of Political Obligation

The problem of political obligation is about whether there is a moral reason to obey the law.And an acceptable political obligation theory must meet four criteria:[1]the generality of the obligor;[2]the limited validity of the obligation;[3]The comprehensiveness of the range of the obligation;[4]the particularity of the obligation.This paper first argues that the associative political obligation theory can not meet the standard[1][2][3];consent theory can not meet the standard[1];classical utilitarianism can not meet the standard[1][2][3];natural duty theory can not meet the standard[1][4];classic version of the fair-play theory can not meet the standard[1][3].After arguing that the previous theory of political obligation is a failure,the author tries to continue to argue that:1,How the presumptive benefit version of Fair-play theory responds to the consent argument and limiting argument so as to meet the criteria[1].2,How the justificating gap argument which raised recently to criticize fair-play theory is failed;3,How the principle of samaritanism be raised to prove that citizens have the obligation to support the modern government's social welfare functions and fair-play theory can not explain this;4,How the associative theory of political obligation gives us a stronger reason to support the principle of samaritanism,which combined with the fair-play theory to meet the standard[4];5,How the multiple principles of political obligation combines the principle of samaritanism,the principle of associative political obligations and common good theory to meet the standards[3].6,the author tried to put forward a"necessity test" to re-understand the standard[1][3].