- A new global government is established by a consortium of powerful nations. This government is extraordinarily effective, succeeding in ending poverty, curing diseases, and maximizing global happiness. However, it was imposed without a popular vote, and a significant minority of the population explicitly states they do not consent to its rule. How would a consent theorist and a utilitarian most likely differ in their evaluation of this government's legitimacy?
Answer: The utilitarian would likely grant it legitimacy based on its positive outcomes, while the consent theorist would deny its legitimacy due to the absence of the governed's consent.
The correct answer is A. This scenario creates a direct conflict between the core tenets of utilitarianism and consent theory. A utilitarian evaluates legitimacy based on consequences, specifically the maximization of overall welfare or happiness. Since this government is highly effective at achieving this, a utilitarian would likely view it as legitimate. A consent theorist, however, grounds legitimacy in the will of the governed. The fact that the government was imposed and that a significant minority explicitly does not consent would be a fatal flaw for this theory, regardless of the positive outcomes. B is incorrect because hypothetical consent is a specific and distinct argument, not the default for consent theory, and explicit dissent contradicts it. Utilitarians are concerned with aggregate happiness, not necessarily protecting minority happiness as a separate principle. C is incorrect because utilitarianism is not concerned with whether happiness is 'chosen' and most consent theories do not require unanimity. D is incorrect because explicit dissent overrides any potential argument for tacit consent.
- A law is passed requiring all citizens to perform one month of community service. The law was approved by a fair, majoritarian democratic process. A citizen who voted against the law refuses to comply. A utilitarian would most likely argue that the citizen's obligation to comply is based on:
Answer: the fact that her disobedience would, if universalized, undermine a system that produces great overall utility.
This question tests your understanding of how different ethical theories justify political obligations. When you see questions about why citizens should obey laws, focus on which philosophical framework is being applied—each theory has its own distinctive reasoning.
A utilitarian approaches this dilemma by asking what produces the greatest good for the greatest number. The correct answer is B because utilitarians focus on consequences and systems. If everyone disobeyed democratically-enacted laws whenever they disagreed, the entire democratic system would collapse. Since democratic systems generally produce better outcomes than alternatives (more responsive governance, peaceful conflict resolution, protection of rights), undermining this system would cause massive disutility. The utilitarian argument isn't about this specific law's merits, but about maintaining beneficial institutions.
Choice A reflects social contract theory, particularly the idea that democratic participation creates binding consent—not utilitarian reasoning. Choice C invokes the principle of fairness from philosophers like H.L.A. Hart, which focuses on reciprocity and fair play rather than maximizing utility. Choice D describes something closer to John Rawls' "veil of ignorance" thought experiment, which isn't utilitarian either.
The key trap here is confusing different theories of political obligation. Contract theorists emphasize consent, fairness theorists focus on reciprocity, and Rawlsian theorists use hypothetical agreement. But utilitarians always return to consequences and overall welfare.
Remember: when analyzing utilitarian arguments about institutions or laws, look for reasoning based on systemic effects and overall social utility, not individual consent or fairness principles.
- Some political theorists argue that legitimacy is not an all-or-nothing property, but a matter of degree. Which of the three main accounts of legitimacy is most naturally suited to accommodate this idea of a 'scalar' legitimacy?
Answer: Utilitarianism, because one state can produce marginally or substantially more welfare than another, allowing for comparative judgments of 'more' or 'less' legitimate.
Political legitimacy questions often test your understanding of how different theoretical frameworks handle degrees and measurements. When you encounter "scalar" or "matter of degree" language, think about which theory naturally incorporates quantitative or comparative elements.
Utilitarianism provides the clearest path to scalar legitimacy because it's fundamentally about maximizing welfare or well-being, which can be measured and compared. One government might produce significantly more overall happiness, health, prosperity, or preference satisfaction than another. This creates a natural spectrum where legitimacy corresponds to how much utility a state generates - a state producing high welfare is highly legitimate, while one producing moderate welfare has moderate legitimacy. The quantitative foundation of utilitarian thinking makes degrees of legitimacy intuitive and measurable.
Looking at the alternatives: Express consent (A) might seem quantifiable through percentages, but consent theory traditionally treats legitimacy as binary - you either have valid consent or you don't. A government with 51% consent isn't considered "more legitimate" than one with 80% under most consent theories. Fairness (C) does allow for comparative judgments about justice, but fairness theories typically establish threshold conditions rather than smooth scales. Hypothetical consent (D) focuses on whether rational agents would agree to arrangements, but this usually yields yes/no answers rather than degrees of agreement.
Remember that utilitarian approaches to political problems almost always involve weighing costs and benefits, making them naturally suited to questions about degrees, scales, and comparative judgments rather than absolute standards.
- Imagine a neighborhood association starts a voluntary book-sharing program. One resident, who never agreed to join, occasionally finds books from the program left on her porch by well-meaning neighbors. She sometimes reads them, finding them enjoyable. The association later sends her a bill for her 'fair share' of the program's cost. This scenario most closely illustrates a classic objection to which account of political legitimacy?
Answer: The principle of fairness, by suggesting that obligations cannot be created by foisting unsolicited benefits upon individuals, even if they accept them.
The correct answer is A. This scenario is a direct analogue of Robert Nozick's famous 'public address system' objection to the principle of fairness. The core of the objection is that one cannot be obligated to pay for benefits that are merely 'foisted' upon them, even if those benefits are enjoyed. It challenges the idea that simply 'accepting' a benefit (especially one that is difficult to avoid) is sufficient to generate an obligation of fair play. While C is a plausible analysis, the scenario is specifically designed to target the fairness principle's mechanism of obligation, which is distinct from signaling consent. B misinterprets the objection as a simple cost-benefit analysis rather than a principled argument about how obligations are formed. D is incorrect because the objection is about actual events, not a hypothetical prior agreement.
- A hypothetical consent theorist argues that a state is legitimate if it is governed by principles that all free and equal rational persons would consent to in an appropriate initial situation. A utilitarian might find this idea appealing, but would ultimately disagree with the hypothetical consent theorist on the fundamental source of legitimacy. What is the key point of disagreement?
Answer: For the utilitarian, legitimacy is based on actual consequences (maximized welfare), not on a counterfactual agreement made by idealized agents.
When you encounter questions about political legitimacy, focus on identifying what each theory considers the ultimate foundation for a state's right to govern. Different theories locate this foundation in different places, even when they might reach similar conclusions about which governments are legitimate.
The key insight here is that hypothetical consent theory and utilitarianism operate with fundamentally different sources of legitimacy. Hypothetical consent theory grounds legitimacy in what rational agents would agree to under ideal conditions - it's about the validity of the agreement process itself. Even if a hypothetical consent theorist uses utilitarian reasoning to determine what people would agree to, they're saying the state is legitimate because rational people would consent to it, not because it actually maximizes welfare.
Utilitarians, by contrast, ground legitimacy directly in consequences. A state is legitimate when it actually produces the greatest good for the greatest number, regardless of whether anyone has consented to it. The utilitarian cares about real-world welfare maximization, not hypothetical agreements.
Option A mischaracterizes utilitarianism as majority rule rather than welfare maximization. Option B incorrectly suggests the disagreement is about the practical feasibility of reaching agreement. Option C reverses the theories' emphases - hypothetical consent theorists do care about substantive principles that would emerge from fair procedures, while utilitarians focus purely on welfare outcomes regardless of procedural fairness.
Remember: when comparing political theories, always ask "what makes this government legitimate?" The answer reveals whether the theory is procedural (like consent-based theories) or consequentialist (like utilitarianism).
- A key difference between the fairness account and the utilitarian account of legitimacy lies in how they view the relationship between individuals. Which statement best captures this difference?
Answer: The fairness account views citizens as partners in a cooperative venture, while the utilitarian account views them primarily as separate sources of utility to be aggregated.
The correct answer is A. This highlights a deep conceptual difference. The principle of fairness is fundamentally relational; it's about one's obligations to one's fellow cooperators. It presupposes a model of society as a joint enterprise for mutual benefit. Utilitarianism, in its classical form, is aggregative. It sums up the happiness or welfare of individuals, but the moral relationships between them are secondary to the goal of maximizing the total sum. Individuals are, in a sense, locations or containers of utility. B is an overstatement; fairness requires equitable distribution, not necessarily equal benefit. C is partially correct but the second clause misrepresents utilitarianism. D mischaracterizes the grounding of both theories; utilitarianism is not based on gratitude, and fairness is based on a moral duty of reciprocity, not just self-interest.
- Consider a state where a majority has consented to a set of laws. However, one of these laws imposes a significant burden on a minority group to produce a slightly larger gain in welfare for the majority. How would a fairness theorist's critique of this law most likely differ from a consent theorist's?
Answer: The fairness theorist would object that the cooperative scheme is unjust, while the consent theorist's framework has difficulty objecting if valid consent was given.
When you encounter questions about political legitimacy, focus on how different theories justify state authority and evaluate laws. This question tests your understanding of two major approaches: consent theory and fairness theory.
Consent theorists argue that political obligations arise from actual or hypothetical agreement to be governed. If people have genuinely consented to a political system, they're generally bound by its outcomes, even if specific laws disadvantage them. The consent itself provides the moral foundation for legitimacy.
Fairness theorists, however, evaluate political arrangements based on whether the underlying cooperative scheme is just. They ask whether the distribution of benefits and burdens treats all participants fairly, regardless of whether people consented to unfair arrangements.
In this scenario, the fairness theorist would object that imposing significant burdens on a minority for slight majority gains violates principles of fair cooperation - the scheme itself is unjust. The consent theorist faces a more complex challenge: if the minority validly consented to the majoritarian process, the theory struggles to explain why they shouldn't be bound by its outcomes, even when those outcomes are harsh.
Answer (A) wrongly suggests both theories would converge on the same reasoning. Answer (B) mischaracterizes fairness theory as requiring net benefits rather than fair treatment. Answer (C) confuses fairness theory with utilitarianism - fairness theorists care about just distribution, not just efficiency.
Remember that consent theory emphasizes the source of authority (agreement), while fairness theory emphasizes the content of arrangements (justice). These different foundations lead to different critiques of the same political situations.
- An individual lives in a remote area of a well-functioning state. She uses state-maintained roads, is protected by the national military, and her property rights are enforced by the state's legal system. However, she has never voted and claims that she never actively chose to be a citizen. Which statement best captures the differing grounds on which a tacit consent theorist and a fairness theorist would argue she has an obligation to obey the law?
Answer: The tacit consent theorist would argue that by willingly enjoying state benefits, she has implicitly agreed to its authority, while the fairness theorist would argue she has a duty of reciprocity for accepting benefits from a cooperative scheme.
The correct answer is A. It accurately distinguishes the core mechanisms of the two theories. For the tacit consent theorist (like Locke), the key is that by enjoying the benefits and protection of the state, one implicitly signals their consent to its laws. For the fairness theorist (like H.L.A. Hart), the obligation is not about a signal of consent but about a moral duty of fair play: one should not be a free rider on a cooperative system from which one willingly accepts benefits. B is incorrect because it misrepresents the fairness principle as utilitarianism. C represents the anarchist objection, not the view of these theorists. D is incorrect because the fairness principle does not rely on a hypothetical contract, and while 'failure to emigrate' is a form of tacit consent argument, the answer in A is a more central and accurate representation of both theories' core claims.
- A primary justification for the state's right to punish lawbreakers from a fairness perspective is that criminals take unfair advantage of the compliance of others. How does the primary justification for punishment from a utilitarian perspective differ from this?
Answer: The utilitarian justifies punishment primarily by its future effects, such as deterrence of crime and the promotion of overall social welfare.
This question tests your understanding of two major philosophical approaches to punishment: retributive justice (fairness-based) and utilitarian theories. The key distinction lies in whether punishment is justified by looking backward at what criminals have done or forward at what punishment will accomplish.
The utilitarian perspective justifies punishment primarily through its consequences and effects on society's overall well-being. Utilitarians like Jeremy Bentham argued that punishment is only justified if it produces better outcomes than not punishing—specifically through deterring future crimes, rehabilitating offenders, and protecting society. The focus is entirely on maximizing future welfare and minimizing harm. Answer D correctly captures this forward-looking, consequence-based approach.
Option A misrepresents utilitarianism by suggesting punishment isn't truly justified—utilitarians actually see punishment as fully justified when it produces good consequences. Option B describes social contract theory rather than utilitarianism, confusing different philosophical frameworks. The idea of collective consent relates more to philosophers like Rousseau. Option C also misattributes consent-based reasoning to utilitarians, when this concept belongs more to retributive theories that focus on what criminals "deserve" based on their choices.
The crucial difference is temporal focus: fairness-based theories look backward at the unfair advantage criminals gained, while utilitarian theories look forward at the beneficial effects punishment will have. Remember that utilitarianism always evaluates actions—including punishment—based on their consequences for overall happiness or welfare, not on inherent fairness or desert.
- A political theorist is evaluating the legitimacy of three hypothetical states. Based on the chart provided:
Answer: Caelum would be judged most legitimate by a utilitarian, Aquitania by an express consent theorist, and Belluria by a fairness theorist.
The correct answer is A. This requires applying each theory to the data. Caelum has the highest Overall Welfare (9/10), making it the most legitimate from a utilitarian perspective, which prioritizes maximizing utility. Aquitania has 95% citizen approval in binding referenda, which is a strong form of express consent, making it the most legitimate from a consent theorist's perspective. Belluria features an equitable distribution of burdens and benefits, which is the core concern of the principle of fairness, making it the most legitimate from that viewpoint. B is incorrect because the gross inequality in Aquitania would be a problem for fairness and utility accounts. C incorrectly maps the theories to the states; fairness is about distribution, not welfare, and consent is about agreement, not procedures. D is too strong; each state is designed to be a paradigm for one theory, even if it is illegitimate from the perspective of the others.
- A legitimate government by consent is overthrown in a coup. The new regime, a benevolent dictatorship, is highly effective and quickly increases the average citizen's quality of life and happiness. According to a pure utilitarian account, at what point does the new regime gain legitimacy?
Answer: As soon as it can be demonstrated that its continued rule will produce more aggregate happiness than the restoration of the old government or any other alternative.
This question tests your understanding of utilitarian ethics, which judges the legitimacy of actions and institutions solely by their consequences—specifically, their ability to maximize overall happiness or well-being. When analyzing political legitimacy from a utilitarian perspective, you must focus exclusively on outcomes rather than processes, intentions, or historical legitimacy.
Under pure utilitarianism, a government gains legitimacy the moment it can demonstrate that its rule produces the greatest aggregate happiness compared to all available alternatives. This means answer C is correct—legitimacy occurs as soon as the new regime proves it will generate more total well-being than restoring the old government or implementing any other system.
Answer A is incorrect because utilitarian legitimacy doesn't depend on consent or popular approval; it depends only on maximizing happiness. A regime could be legitimate even if people opposed it, as long as it produced the best outcomes. Answer B reflects a deontological rather than utilitarian perspective—pure utilitarianism doesn't consider the means by which power was obtained, only the consequences of wielding it. The "illegal act" is irrelevant if the results maximize well-being. Answer D confuses intentions with outcomes; utilitarianism judges actions by their actual consequences, not by good intentions that might fail to produce results.
Remember that utilitarian questions always come down to consequences and outcomes. When you see terms like "pure utilitarian" or "consequentialist," immediately shift your focus away from rules, processes, or intentions and concentrate solely on which option produces the best results for overall human welfare.
- Imagine a Lockean state of nature where individuals possess natural rights. They consent to form a government for the primary purpose of securing these rights. In this framework, a law that systematically violates the natural rights of a minority would be illegitimate primarily because:
Answer: it violates the terms of the original consent and exceeds the authority delegated to the state.
When you encounter questions about Locke's political philosophy, focus on his core premise: government derives its legitimacy solely from the consent of the governed and exists specifically to protect natural rights that individuals already possess in the state of nature.
In Locke's framework, individuals voluntarily surrender some freedoms to government in exchange for better protection of their natural rights to life, liberty, and property. This creates a limited government with specific, delegated authority. A law systematically violating minority rights exceeds this delegated authority because people never consented to give government power to violate the very rights it was created to protect. This makes option B correct—such a law violates the original consent and exceeds legitimate state authority.
Option A reflects utilitarian thinking (maximizing overall happiness), which isn't Locke's framework. Locke focuses on individual rights, not collective utility calculations. Option C sounds like Rawlsian distributive justice concerns about fair social cooperation, but Locke's theory centers on protecting pre-existing natural rights, not distributing benefits fairly. Option D references Rawls' "veil of ignorance" concept from his original position theory, which is a completely different approach to political legitimacy than Locke's consent-based theory.
Remember that Lockean questions will always return to consent and natural rights protection. When evaluating government legitimacy in Locke's system, ask: "Did people consent to this?" and "Does this protect or violate the natural rights government was created to secure?" This will help you distinguish Locke's approach from other political philosophers.
- A political system is perfectly just and fair in its distribution of burdens and benefits, and it received the express consent of the founding generation. However, over time, due to changing circumstances, the system begins to produce significantly less overall happiness than a plausible alternative system would. Which two theories of legitimacy are in the most direct conflict in this scenario?
Answer: Utilitarianism versus both consent and fairness theories.
When you encounter questions about political legitimacy, focus on identifying which fundamental principles are creating tension. Political legitimacy concerns what makes a government's authority morally justified, and different theories emphasize different sources of that authority.
In this scenario, you have a system that satisfies two important legitimacy criteria: it's perfectly just/fair in distribution, and it received express consent from the founding generation. However, it now produces less overall happiness than an alternative would. This creates a direct conflict between utilitarianism (which judges legitimacy by consequences—specifically, maximizing overall well-being) and both consent theory (legitimacy comes from people's agreement) and fairness theory (legitimacy comes from just distributions).
Option A is incorrect because consent and fairness theories aren't conflicting here—both actually support the current system's legitimacy. The real tension is between these theories and utilitarian concerns.
Option C misses the mark because both hypothetical and express consent would likely support the current system. There's no meaningful conflict between different types of consent theory in this scenario.
Option D is too narrow because it only identifies the conflict with tacit consent, ignoring that utilitarianism also conflicts with the fairness-based legitimacy of the system.
Option B correctly identifies that utilitarianism stands alone against both other legitimacy theories. The utilitarian would say "change the system for better outcomes," while consent and fairness theorists would say "keep the legitimate system."
Study tip: In legitimacy questions, map out which theories support which position—conflicts often pit consequentialist approaches against non-consequentialist ones.
- An anarchist philosopher argues that no state can ever be legitimate because the requirement of universal, express consent is impossible to meet, and any lesser form of consent is morally invalid. This argument most directly challenges a consent theorist to:
Answer: provide a compelling account of how tacit or hypothetical consent can be morally binding.
This question tests your understanding of consent theory and its critics in political philosophy. Consent theorists argue that political authority is legitimate only when citizens consent to be governed, but they face a fundamental challenge: how can consent work in practice when not everyone explicitly agrees?
The anarchist's argument creates a dilemma for consent theorists by rejecting any form of consent except universal, express agreement—something virtually impossible to achieve in real societies. This forces consent theorists to defend alternative forms of consent that don't require everyone to explicitly sign on the dotted line. Answer C correctly identifies this challenge: consent theorists must explain why tacit consent (implied through actions like staying in a country or using public services) or hypothetical consent (what rational people would agree to) can create genuine moral obligations even without express agreement.
Answer A is wrong because it shifts away from consent theory toward fair-play theory, which grounds obligation in benefits received rather than agreement. Answer B incorrectly suggests the anarchist is making a utilitarian challenge about consequences rather than a principled objection about consent. Answer D misses the point entirely—the anarchist isn't telling consent theorists to abandon consent; they're arguing that proper consent is impossible, so no state can be legitimate.
When studying political authority, remember that different theories face different vulnerabilities. Anarchists typically attack consent theory not by rejecting the importance of consent, but by arguing that genuine consent is practically impossible in large-scale political arrangements.
- In debating the legitimacy of a state's tax laws, Philosopher X argues that the laws are legitimate because they fund services from which all citizens benefit, and it would be unfair for some to enjoy these benefits without paying their share. Philosopher Y argues that the laws are legitimate only for those citizens who have, by voting or other political participation, signaled their agreement to the system. Philosopher Y's position highlights a key feature of consent theory that distinguishes it from the fairness account, which is its emphasis on:
Answer: a voluntary, deliberate act of submission to authority.
The correct answer is A. Philosopher X is articulating the principle of fairness, which focuses on the reciprocal duty to contribute to a system from which one benefits. Philosopher Y is articulating a consent-based view. The core difference highlighted is that consent theory requires a voluntary act—a choice—to place oneself under an authority. The fairness principle, in contrast, generates the obligation from the act of accepting benefits, which may not be seen as a deliberate act of submission to authority in the same way. B is the focus of theories of distributive justice, related to fairness but not its core legitimating principle. C describes utilitarianism. D is a concern for all theories, not a distinguishing feature of consent theory in this context.
- Which of the following conditions, if met, would be sufficient for establishing a state's legitimacy according to the principle of fairness, but insufficient according to an express consent theory?
Answer: Every citizen has willingly accepted significant, tangible benefits provided by the state's cooperative enterprises, understanding that this requires public compliance with laws.
The correct answer is A. The principle of fairness holds that if one willingly accepts the benefits of a just, cooperative scheme, one acquires an obligation of fair play to uphold one's part. This condition—willing acceptance of benefits—is the cornerstone of the theory and is sufficient for legitimacy under it. However, for an express consent theorist, this is not enough. Express consent requires a clear, voluntary, and intentional act of agreement, such as an oath or a vote. Simply accepting benefits does not meet this higher bar. B is the condition for utilitarian legitimacy. C is a condition for express consent, not a condition that would be insufficient for it. D describes hypothetical consent, a separate theory.
- The principle of fairness is often criticized for its application to the state, as citizens rarely have a choice but to accept certain state-provided benefits like national security or clean air. This criticism suggests a crucial disanalogy between the state and a small, voluntary cooperative. Which of the following best describes this crucial disanalogy?
Answer: In a voluntary cooperative, accepting benefits is a clear choice, whereas many state benefits are non-excludable and unavoidable for residents.
This question tests your understanding of the principle of fairness and why it faces unique challenges when applied to state authority versus voluntary associations. The principle of fairness generally holds that if you accept benefits from a cooperative scheme, you have an obligation to contribute your fair share to maintaining it.
The crucial disanalogy lies in the nature of choice regarding benefits. In a voluntary cooperative, you can typically choose whether to participate and accept benefits—you might join a community garden and enjoy fresh vegetables, or decline membership and forgo those benefits. With the state, however, many benefits like national defense, pollution controls, and legal systems are what economists call "non-excludable goods"—once they exist, everyone in the geographic area receives them regardless of whether they want them or consent to them. You can't opt out of breathing cleaner air or being protected by national security simply because you didn't choose these benefits.
Option A incorrectly focuses on types of consent rather than the availability of choice about benefits themselves. Option B misses the point entirely by discussing utility maximization rather than the voluntary nature of benefit acceptance. Option D addresses an important difference between states and cooperatives (the monopoly on force) but doesn't capture the specific problem with applying the fairness principle—the issue isn't about enforcement mechanisms but about involuntary benefit receipt.
When studying political philosophy, always pay attention to concepts of voluntariness and choice. Many arguments about political obligation hinge on whether and how citizens can meaningfully consent to or refuse governmental arrangements.
- A state passes a law that dramatically improves public health and safety but requires all citizens to submit to a mandatory, though painless, medical scan. A small group of citizens objects on grounds of personal autonomy. A proponent of the law argues, 'Even if you didn't agree to it, this law is legitimate because it produces the best society for everyone, and it's what a rational person, caring about their own well-being, would ultimately choose.' This justification primarily blends elements from which two legitimacy accounts?
Answer: Utilitarianism and hypothetical consent.
The correct answer is A. The justification has two distinct parts. The first part, 'it is legitimate because it produces the best society for everyone,' is a clear appeal to utilitarianism, which bases legitimacy on the production of the best overall outcomes. The second part, 'it's what a rational person ... would ultimately choose,' is the hallmark of a hypothetical consent argument. It bypasses actual consent and instead appeals to what a rational agent would agree to under idealized conditions. The other pairings are incorrect. Fairness and tacit consent (B) are not invoked. Express consent (C) is explicitly bypassed by the argument. Fairness (D) is not central to the justification provided.
- Which of the following scenarios presents the most significant conceptual problem for a theory of legitimacy based exclusively on tacit consent derived from residency?
Answer: A political refugee who flees to a country to escape persecution and cannot safely return to her homeland, but disagrees with many of her new country's laws.
Tacit consent theory argues that people implicitly agree to be governed simply by choosing to remain within a state's territory and accepting its benefits. This theory faces serious challenges when examining cases where genuine choice is absent.
The most significant conceptual problem occurs when someone lacks meaningful alternatives to residency. Option D presents exactly this scenario: a political refugee cannot safely return home, making her continued residence involuntary rather than consensual. Her disagreement with local laws while being unable to leave creates a fundamental contradiction—tacit consent theory assumes residence implies agreement, but here residence is coerced by external circumstances beyond the state's control.
Option A fails as a strong counterexample because the dissident's continued use of services and choice to remain could still be interpreted as tacit consent, despite vocal opposition. The theory distinguishes between what people say and what they do through their residency choices.
Option B actually supports tacit consent theory—the citizen's frequent travel demonstrates he has alternatives yet chooses to maintain residence and participate politically, suggesting genuine consent.
Option C presents a knowledge problem rather than a consent problem. While the isolated person cannot consciously consent, they also receive no state benefits and face no state obligations, placing them outside the theory's scope entirely.
When studying political legitimacy, focus on scenarios involving constrained choice versus genuine alternatives. Tacit consent theory works best when people have realistic options to leave—it breaks down when circumstances eliminate meaningful choice while still requiring the benefits that supposedly indicate consent.
- All three major accounts of legitimacy—consent, fairness, and utility—are intended to provide a moral justification for state coercion. However, they disagree on the necessary conditions for that justification. Which of the following accurately pairs a theory with a condition it would consider necessary for legitimacy?
Answer: Utility: The state's existence and laws must produce better consequences than a state of nature.
The correct answer is C. A core, necessary condition for a utilitarian justification of the state is that the state must be better than the alternative. If a state of anarchy produced more overall happiness than the state, the state would not be legitimate from a utilitarian perspective. This comparison to a baseline (often the state of nature) is fundamental. A is incorrect; fairness does not require that laws be seen as beneficial by every individual, but that the overall scheme is fair. B is incorrect; very few consent theorists require a literal, historical, unanimous contract; they rely on ongoing tacit, express, or hypothetical consent. D incorrectly assigns a condition of the fairness account to consent theory.
