인문학
사회과학
자연과학
공학
의약학
농수해양학
예술체육학
복합학
DBpia AI
AI 에이전트
AI 아이디어
AI 리더
AI 뷰어
Citeasy
크롬 서지관리 다운로드
지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
Consent theory has provided us with a more appealing account of political obligation than any other tradition in modern political theory. Since Locke’s impassioned defense of the natural freedom of man, the doctrine of personal consent has dominated both ordinary and philosophical thinking on the subject of our political bonds. The heart of this doctrine is the claim that no man is obligated to support or comply with any political power unless he has personally consented to its authority over him. It has greatly influenced the political institutions of many modern states. But there are manifold difficulties inherent in a consent theory approach to the problem of political obligation.John Locke’s political theory is a source for proponents of both individual rights and popular sovereignty. The interpretation of Locke as a typical individualist has long been accepted. According to C. E. Vaughan, for Locke, the state is the prince of individuals, and therefore no more than a Limited Liability Company: the real sovereignty resides in the individual. For Vaughan, Locke is the prince of individualists. W. Kendall, in effect, reverses this image of Locke. He argues that, so far from safeguarding the rights of individuals, Locke sets up a government which demands their entire obedience, and cannot be removed unless conditions become so bad that the majority of the people are driven to revolt.But Kendall, Vaughan too, went too far. Where apparently contradictory views are put forward, each expresses one side of the truth, but falsifies the truth as a whole when it emphasizes its own side to the exclusion of the other.Another interpretation is that consent plays no necessary role in Locke’s theory of obligation at all. In H. Pitkin’s view, the original contract is simply an agreement to limit any subsequent government to act within the bounds of the law of nature, which requires respect for natural rights to property. Then people’s obligations to obey depend on the character of the government, that is, whether it is acting within the bounds of the contract. This view is plausible; but it is not Locke’s. Locke’s doctrine of consent is excessively vague and of limited use as an explanation of political obligation. Still, his commitment to what he called ‘consent’ is unassailable. What Locke sought was a means of basing political authority on the voluntary actions of free individuals; that he might not have succeeded in no way detracts from his intentions.In contrast to Pitkin, R. Ashcraft maintains that Locke defended the natural right of every man to give his personal consent to the government as a condition of his definition of political society. In his view, Locke establishes a much closer empirical link (than has generally been assumed by interpreters of his political thought) between his notion of consent and the institutional practice of elections. Yet Locke is not an apologist for a particular form of government. He does not attempt to establish a connection between the giving of consent and the choosing of representatives. He does not use the notion of consent to make a case for representative government.
#존 로크
#개인적 동의
#정치적 의무
#다수 지배
#대의정부
#John Locke
#Personal Consent
#Political Obligation
#Majority-Rule
#Representative Government
상세정보 수정요청해당 페이지 내 제목·저자·목차·페이지정보가 잘못된 경우 알려주세요!
목차
등록된 정보가 없습니다.
참고문헌
참고문헌 신청최근 본 자료
