To understand the background of Joseph Raz’s essay about the obligation to obey the law, the reader

should be aware that the text was written in the year 1960 when the rise of civil-rights movements and
civil strife are slowly taking its peak because people are now questioning about the duties of the people
to society and the duties of the society to the people. But before the discussion of the theory of Justice
comes to fruition, some political theorists and moral theorists found a common ground regarding the
issue of the people's duties to society and the duties of the society to the people. They establish certain
orthodoxy that says; “Every citizen has a prima-facie moral obligation to obey the law of a reasonably
just state”. According to them, a denial of the obligation to obey the law is a denial of the justice of the
state. This is even adopted by the instrumentalists on the grounds of fairness where they contend that
the state will not function if the citizens are not obligated to obey its laws and respect the obligation to
obey. Denying the obligation to obey is unfair to those who are obeying it.

Raz wants to challenge this belief by joining several theorists. Some are even saying that even in a just
state if there can be such, there is no general obligation to obey the law. Raz then contends that if there
is no general obligation to obey, then the law does not have authority, for to have authority is to have
the right to rule those who are subject to it. And a right to rule entails a duty to obey.

Raz is clear in his essay that people have a general obligation to obey the law even if there or without
authority. According to him, “Let us assume that in its sole proper function, the law prohibits murder,
neglect of children by their parents, and other similar immoralities. On this assumption, it is plausible to
claim that the law's direct function is to motivate those who fail to be sufficiently moved by sound moral
considerations. The conscientious, knowledgeable person will do what the law requires of him
regardless of whether the law exists or not. The law is not for him. It is for those who deny their moral
duties. It forces them to act as they should by threatening sanctions if they fail to do so. By addressing
the self-interest of those who fail to be properly moved by moral considerations, the law reassures the
morally conscientious. It assures him that he will not be taken advantage of, will not be exploited by the
unscrupulous.” The picture states the good a government without authority can do. One can threaten,
issue threats or penalize people without having authority over them. Law enforcement agencies, for
example, are being paid to administer the law. The personnel in charge need not necessarily be
subjected to the authority of the government or its laws, they may be just doing the job under contract.
This clearly shows that even with or without the authority of the government, still, the obligation to
obey the law is there regardless if the person is knowledgeable or not. The person under these laws still
needs to decide if the law is for them or not.

The essay is clear in the stand that, people have a general obligation to obey the law but this obligation
must be taken voluntarily depending on the circumstances given. As for Raz, the extent of the duty to
obey the law in a relatively just country varies from person to person and from one range of cases to
another. There is probably a common core of cases regarding which the obligation exists and applies
equally to all. Some duties based on the coordinative argument (e.g. duty to pay tax) and on the bad
example argument (e.g. avoiding political terrorism) are likely to apply equally to all citizens. Beyond this
core, the extent of the obligation to obey will vary greatly. Next, the extent of the obligation depends on
factors other than whether the law is just and sensible. It may depend on the expertise of the individual
citizen, as in cases of the first kind, or the circumstances of the occasion for the violation, as often in
cases of the third kind. Raz uses 3 scenarios where this duty to obey is evident towards the person
obeying the law that will be discussed in the succeeding discourse.

Raz’s very idea of the obligation to obey is still in line with the political theorist’s idea that the general
obligation to obey the law is a must but this obligation should be taken voluntarily. Consent to obey the
law of a relatively just government indeed establishes an obligation to obey the law. The well-known
difficulty with consent as the foundation of political authority is that too few have given their consent.
This argument in its customary form can be right and wrong at the same time. Consent or agreement
requires a deliberate, performative action, and to be binding it has to be voluntarily undertaken.