Abstract

Political obligation is the core issue of political philosophy. Hart first used "mutual restriction principle" to explain political obligation, the principle of Rawls inherited and to be amended. Given the many problems exist in principle, Rawls' Theory of Justice "to cut it in the political and moral obligation to prove the role, responsibilities and recourse to the principle of natural justice. This principle is still subject to criticism from many, many followers of Rawls responded to these criticisms. Rawls' principle of fair play from the principle of responsibility to the natural change reflects his contract on a different attitude. Political obligation is the core problem in Political philosophy. In account for political obligation, HLA Hart resorts to a principle he labels "mutual restriction". Rawls accepts this principle and makes some revision. Given a lot of difficulties inherent in this principle, Rawls curtails it's validity in accounting for the political obligation in A Theory of Justice and appeals to the natural duty of justice. This new principle confronts even more criticism. Many disciples of Rawls have responded to these comments. The turn from principle of fair play to principle of natural duty of justice registers Rawls' different attitude to contractarianism