Hello, I’m Zhan Qingyun.

Last time, social-contract and consent theories still did not fully explain why we should obey law. Today let us try two more and see whether either persuades you.

The third is intriguing: consent inside a thought experiment, layered upon the social contract’s own thought experiment.

Suppose someone collapses with acute appendicitis and a hospital surgeon operates.

Normally a doctor needs consent before cutting a patient’s body, because bodily integrity is among our most important rights.

Can the patient sue because the doctor operated without consent?

Law generally says no. It applies a reasonable-person thought experiment, though some real people might firmly refuse surgery.

By an objective rational standard, we imagine that had the unconscious patient been able to choose, he would have accepted the operation.

He never actually chose, but reason lets us infer consent.

Likewise, history gave us no moment to choose law. Yet given the terrible natural condition we imagined, would not every rational person accept it?

The weakness is apparent: this merely repeats social-contract theory without explaining more, so it remains unconvincing.

The modern legal philosopher Joseph Raz proposed the service conception of authority.

In essence, law can make better decisions for you, so you should obey it.

Major premise: each person should live as rationally as possible, and sometimes following another authority enables us to follow reason better than our own judgment does.

Minor premise: law is such an authority, helping us live more rationally.

Conclusion: we therefore have a moral duty to obey it.

It sounds complicated; the original English sentence can run seven or eight lines without a period.

A simple example: why follow a doctor’s treatment decision and yield your will? Because the doctor is a better authority capable of making a more rational choice in your interest.

Why do two disputants seek an independent third-party tribunal?

Neither party can judge objectively from within the conflict. An arbitrator is neutral, legally knowledgeable, experienced, and better able to resolve it.

In such situations we should transfer decision-making to a better authority.

The theory naturally feels uncomfortable because it is paternalistic, and it has attracted many objections.