Do we owe the state obedience?

The big idea: Here's a question you've probably never been asked out loud: why should you obey the law?

Not 'or you'll be punished' — that's just fear. The real question is whether you have a genuine political obligation — a moral duty to obey — and if so, where it comes from.

Checkpoint — the duty: In one line: you owe the state obedience because you take its benefits and rely on others obeying — so it's only fair to keep your side. Hold that — but a duty isn't the same as 'obey no matter what'.

A real duty to obey can still have limits — the hard question is where they fall.

Civil disobedience — breaking the law to fix it: Between meek obedience and violent revolution sits civil disobedience: you break an unjust law openly and peacefully, and you accept the punishment — precisely to show respect for law in general while protesting one unjust law. It's a way of saying 'this law is wrong' without tearing down the whole state.

Checkpoint — the limit: In one line: the duty to obey is real but conditional — a badly unjust law can be openly, peacefully disobeyed, with the bar set high to protect order.

Go further — higher-level insight: Notice how the whole topic connects. Where authority comes from (7.1.2) sets what makes it legitimate (7.1.3), which sets when we owe obedience (7.1.4). So an essay on obedience can reach back: if authority rests on a contract to protect us, then a state that stops protecting us loses both its legitimacy AND our duty to obey. Showing that chain is a top-band move.

The move that scores: In Paper 1 Section B you don't pick the 'right' answer. You argue for and against a claim, weigh the views, and reach a reasoned conclusion. That doing philosophy is what the markbands reward.

How Section B works: Section B gives you a set of essay questions on the optional themes; you pick ONE and write an essay [25]. There's no stimulus — just a claim to evaluate. Political philosophy is one of the strongest themes to prepare, and 'do we owe the state obedience?' is right at its heart. Use the same 5-step method as Section A.

Common mistakes: 1. Describing views instead of arguing. 2. Ignoring 'always' — the claim's strong word is the whole target. 3. Only one side — top bands need tension. 4. No conclusion — decide, with a reason. 5. Name-dropping — a name earns nothing without its argument.