![]() ![]() Here’s what I was going to use them to say.Ĭhapter 21, paragraph 6 makes an odd claim: some people argue for “exemption from the law,” which, as Hobbes takes it, is an argument for returning to the state of nature. The handouts cover a few topics concerning liberty that we did not have time to discuss. Perhaps this is why some of his contemporaries branded Leviathan as a “rebel’s catechism.”* * See Curley’s Introduction, p. So Hobbes is in the position of saying that while the initial act that led to the state’s hostility might have been wrong, once a group finds itself in conflict with the state, it is allowed to fight on. Prisoners can resist their sentences and rebels who are not offered pardons can attempt to overthrow the state. ![]() But he thought people had the right to resist the state with violence if it threatened their lives. He denied that there was a right of rebellion for ideological purposes: if you want your monarchy to be a democracy, tough. Hobbes has a curious back door for rebellion. Hobbes thought he had shown why they were permitted to switch allegiances. This was the position of people after the civil war in England: they were torn between loyalty to the monarchy and the fact that the monarch was in exile and the Army was in charge of the country. In particular, they are allowed to reach a settlement with a new government, even if it had violently defeated its predecessor. The strongest point on Michael’s side concerned what people are permitted to do. Nathaniel pointed out that Hobbes himself had said something similar about torture in chapter 14, paragraph 30. They thought you would be allowed to go back on anything you promise to someone who threatens you. It seems to me that Sam and Nathaniel’s strongest point concerned obligation. It was a great discussion, with each side making good points. Michael and others were more sympathetic to Hobbes’s point. They said there’s a big difference between agreeing to obey someone who threatens you and agreeing to appoint someone to be a leader to escape a bad situation. Both claim the same powers and both originate in fear of death. His point was to try to persuade people that the realistic state was just as legitimate as the ideal one. I think Hobbes thought that the commonwealth by acquisition, as described in chapter 20, was the realistic story. This is his answer to Diamond’s charge that the social contract theorists ignore reality. Hobbes maintained that governments formed through conquest are just as legitimate as those formed through the democratic, idealized process described in chapter 18. Why do we voluntarily comply with the government under the Constitution? Why do we think we’re obliged to obey its rules and that it exercises legitimate power rather than mere force? We are fortunate to find these questions a bit mysterious because we can take stable government for granted. Of course, I don’t have a more positive explanation of how exactly this works. What I took from our discussion is that the Constitution accomplishes the three things I mentioned even though it could not plausibly be described as a social contract. We talked a bit about how the US Constitution works for our state. I then said that I thought it was unlikely that all three things could be accomplished through a literal contract. I said that the idea of consent does at least three things for Hobbes. Since that is so, it’s hard to see how Hobbes can argue for his absolutist conclusions. But historical experience suggests otherwise: you can have a stable society in which the government is forbidden to violate human rights. The latter clause means that nothing the sovereign does to a subject would be unjust.īut why would people agree to give the sovereign such sweeping powers? Hobbes’s argument has to be that this is the only way to form a stable society. According to that, subjects would surrender their right to govern themselves and authorize all of the sovereign’s actions (or, at least, all of the sovereign’s actions relevant for peace and security). Hobbes’s arguments for absolutism turn on his formulation of the social contract. We ended with a short remark about rebellion. ![]() We spent the bulk of our time discussing his contention that a government formed by conquest is just as legitimate as one formed through the idealized process described in chapter 18. We started off with some remarks about the role of consent and social contracts in Hobbes’s theory. Hobbes on consent, conquest, and rebellion Hobbes on consent, conquest, and rebellion Notes for March 1 Main points ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |