Leviathan questions Set 1
15. How does Hobbes argue that the sovereign cannot breach the contract, and what argument(s) does he give for understanding the social contract in this way?
-Hobbes argues that he cannot breach the contract because he is not actually part of the contract. -If the sovereign was in the contract, then there would be no standard, or good way to resolve disputes. -There would be self interest involved and there must be impartiality.
What are the three forms of commonwealth by institution? Which form does Hobbes think is best, and why (give at least 1 argument)?
-Monarchy: the sovereignty is in one man -less likely to return to the state of nature. Not as susseptible to bribes, direct relationship to how people are doing to how well the monarch is doing. -Aristocracy: the sovereignty is in more then one man but not all -Democracy: The power lies with the people. The majority vote is represented and the sovereignty is in all men. -he argues monarchy is best
What four assumptions about human beings does Hobbes ground his political philosophy on?
-Psychological Egoism- inherently self interested meaning we naturally desire our own contentment above all else -Materialism-Human beings are purely physical entities, meaning that we are not in control of our thoughts, emotions, and sensations. This point can contrast with Augustines free will. -Rough Equality of people meaning we are all equal in terms of body and mind, though there are a few differences. -Common desires and aversions- these are innate and every one shares one common desire of self preservation
What is the difference between the right of nature and the laws of nature? Make sure to give examples.
-Right of Nature: the right to do whatever we see fit, in the state of nature, to self preserve and ensure existence. -this is a dawinian point of view. For example, if two starving people see food, it is okay to kill the other person if it means that you can ensure your own existence. NO MORALITY IN STATE OF NATURE. -Laws of Nature: general principles that describe self-interested behavior that we want people to follow. He gives many examples of this but sums it up with the golden rule. Ex. men abide by there agreements
What is the fool's objection to Hobbes, and how does Hobbes reply?
-The fool's objection goes along with the idea that self interest tells you to be unjust. -The fool will go along with self interest and could support rebellion. The fool will break covenants, and though the fool accepts the rationality idea, the fool doesn't take it to mean that we should keep our contracts. Replies: -no one will want to be your friend, and make covenants with you. -the fool takes the rationality idea the wrong way. Rationality makes you do things that will benefit you, not hurt you, and the way the fool takes it it will hurt you.
What implications about morality in the state of nature does Hobbes draw from his empiricism?
-The main point is to prove that there is not universal form of Morality in the state of nature. -Empiricists believe that all thoughts and must come from the senses. We have a concept of good and evil but we must trace them to a sensation. -Good and evil must mean different desire and aversions and since these desires and aversions will inevitably conflict, there can be no universal standard of morality. Ex. Two starving people and a loaf of bread
What is a "prisoner's dilemma," and in what way might one liken the state of nature, as Hobbes understands it, to a prisoner's dilemma?
-The prisoners dilemma is the idea that there are two people, both with two possible choices, with four outcomes. For example give police officer example arresting someone. -For a Hobbes, the prisoner's dilemma applies because it is either attack, or be attacked. -Hobbes believes that the prisoner's dilemma applies whenever a person acting rationally will be worse off. He feels that you can not assume that someone will do the kind decision. He always feels that you must make the decision that is best for self preservation. Since people will not behave rationally in the state of nature, this brings up the need for a sovereign.
What does Hobbes mean by the "sovereign," and how does Hobbes argue that in a state of nature people should transfer their right of nature to the sovereign?
-The sovereign is the person or peoples that all of the power (rights of nature) is handed over to. -There are three types: monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. -Goes with the prisoners dilemma in the sense that there needs to be a universal body that can will force people to follow their covenants and allow people to live together. The prisoner's dilemma and rational thinking proves this point.
How does Hobbes define "the state of nature"? What does he say it is like, and what reasons does he give for saying this?
-state of nature is anarchy with no central authority to protect people and no mechanism to ensure safety -it is a terrible state with no version of universal morality Reasons: no restraints, and our inherent self interest for preserving our self forces competition. Preemptive attacks make sense. Reason 2: look now that even in a state of peace, we still protect ourselves.
Why does Hobbes say that in a state of nature people won't (and shouldn't) abide by the laws of nature?
2 reasons 1: our natural passions drive us away from the laws of nature. This is our inherent nature and it could be for many reasons like revenge. If someone punches you in the arm, our natural reaction is to punch them back whether it is for pride or revenge. 2: though everyone should follow the laws of nature, not everyone will. Not everyone will follow a covenant unless there is a universal force making them follow it.
What does Hobbes mean by the term "free-man," and how does he argue that human freedom is consistent with both fear and necessity?
Free man lies with freedom which is the absence of restraints that hold you back from doing what you want. (contrast with augustinian view). I could get up and leave right now and see a movie. Nothing would physically hold me back. -argues that human freedom is consistent with both fear and necessity by giving examples. Acting out of necessity or fear prevents freedom. This is like a person that is in a boat that is too heavy and sinking. The person can through out their pocessions to lighter the load, but they do not have to. They will though out of fear of drowning. That is just like with the movie example. I will not leave my seat right now to go to a movie beacause of the fear of doing bad on the test.
According to Hobbes, under what conditions is the social contract nullified, and how, if at all, does this affect Hobbes' argument in Leviathan?
It is invalidated if the sovereign cannot protect its subjects from danger such as invasions. He calls it a tension. This point is very ironic because he spends the entire book arguing about how you cannot break the social contract, but then gives example of when you can break it. One such example is if a country is unable to protect its citizens from foreign invasions.
Despite the sovereign's extensive power, the subject still has the liberty to refuse to obey certain commands. Why does Hobbes say this, and what are some examples of such commands?
The whole reason for the sovereing is to live at a higher standard of life then the state of nature meaning self preservation. -This if the sovereign threatens your self preservation you don't have to do it. For example, if the sovereign asks you to kill yourself, you can refuse. You can refuse anything that goes against survival.
How does Hobbes' empiricism constrain any conception of God that he might have?
We only have sensations with the body, so that means the concept of God must be a Body. He would feel that the concept of God and souls literally doesn't make sense since we have no concept of God and a soul. -hard to tell if he is mocking it?
How does Hobbes argue that (a) the sovereign governs everyone - even those who dissented - , and (b) the sovereign is incapable of injustice toward the people?
a. when one decides to leave the state of nature, no matter if they dissented at the time or not, they are agreeing to whatever the sovereign does. Dissenting after the fact is not a valid argument, because you acted in self interest to get out of the state of nature. b. people's best interest is represented by the sovereign and whatever decision the sovereign makes is better than the state of nature.