Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
32 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
THOMAS HOBBES: Dates?
(2) |
5th April 1588 - 4th Dec. 1679
(Aged 91). |
|
|
HOBBES: State of Nature is?
(1) |
Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.
|
|
|
HOBBES: His employer?
(1) |
William Cavendish
(Later, Earl of Devonshire). |
|
|
HOBBES: Visited Europe?
(2) |
Florence & Paris.
|
|
|
HOBBES: Main works & dates?
(3) |
The Leviathan (1651)
De Cive (1642) De Copore (1655) |
|
|
HOBBES: Knew who?
(3) |
Gilileo Galilei
Rene Descartes Marin Mersenne |
|
|
HOBBES: Broadly concerned with what topics?
(4) |
Science
Ethics Politics Religion |
|
|
NB: Hobbes a true political thinker?
|
No; writings on politics used to elucidate ETHICAL issues.
|
|
|
HOBBES: Main point on morals?
|
moral relativism - A person calls something good when it pleases them, and bad when it doesn't; there is NO objectivity.
|
|
|
Morals link to Science?
(e.g. Colours) |
In the same way I call something red, and this doesn't actually mean anything, I can call a spider, scary and this too means nothing.. [++You may see BOTH differently too.]
|
|
|
HOBBES: What causes conflict?
|
A disagreement over what to praise (morally approve), and not a dispute over 'wants', cause conflict.
|
|
|
HOBBES: "The same man at different times will praise and blame the same thing" [De Cive]
|
The presence of 'influencers' and rhetoricians made conflict resolution harder due the malleability of the Common-People's minds.
|
|
|
HOBBES: State of Nature Problematic?
(Long) |
Other people (everyone) have the right to self-defence; this in turn require action on their part (as opposed to inaction when being attacked). People judge when they need to defend themselves; therein lies the problem. You may act peacefully, but if I deem it time to defend myself, I must also be justified in doing so, despite you thinking you posed no threat.
|
|
|
HOBBES: 'Rights' and 'Laws' the same?
|
Nope. Laws dictate what one ought to do - 'Law of Nature' states one ought to do rationally, but a 'Right' tells us we have the freedom to decide the route (to survival).
|
|
|
So, why is the differential between 'Laws' and 'Rights' problematic?
|
Because it allows men to be their judges of what conduces to their own preservation; (and as there is no objective truth) so they will have different ideas of what counts as danger, and so no agreement can be reached on what to do... => Conflict.
|
|
|
HOBBES: Political Solution to 'the State of Nature'?
|
Men in the State of Nature will come to see that the 'Law of Nature' obliges them to renounce their right of private judgement of what is dangerous (in dubious cases), and accept the judgement of a higher authority.
|
|
|
HOBBES: How will people leave the state of nature?
|
In realising that in cases of dispute, since there IS no objectively correct judgement, they should want to align their own judgements with others, -> it follows that there should be a single source of opinion that everyone can accept since it coordinates all their judgements.
|
|
|
HOBBES: What is the common judge at the top?
|
A sovereign (or Leviathan), not necessarily a single person. Though Hobbes preferred a Monarchy, his theory applies to all styles of government including a Republic.
|
|
|
HOBBES: Any exceptions to the common judge?
|
If a person is in clear life-threatening danger, they must do themselves anything for there own self-preservation, whatever the Sovereign might say.
|
|
|
HOBBES: Justice, promises, contracts and constructing the Commonwealth; how can you make the first move?
|
In a promise between two people in the state of nature, it is not rational to be the first to uphold their promise, as you have no assurance the other will do the same. Hobbes himself said this in Leviathan.
|
|
|
HOBBES: How do you rationalize fighting for the Sovereign since it is dangerous?
+Context |
Hobbes makes an exception for this in the Leviathan, but we can also rationalize this; rather than us, the Sovereign has deemed the outside power as 'a threat', and so we can defend ourselves against it.
+Context: Ship Money crisis (1636) > the King can decide what it is in his countries best interest. (Royalist) |
|
|
HOBBES: So, how to form the foundational contract then?
[N.B. Not really ever clear] |
It is a promise no to the Sovereign, but to the rest of the Commonwealth. Therefore, I may as well hold up my end of the contract, since in cases of diverging opinions, mine is as good as anyone's. Since I am therefore not at a loss (as I would usually be when holding up my end of a promise before the other person does his) I should follow the sovereign. [N.B. Problem: Of course, since there is no guarantee anyone else will do the same thing, I may as well keep my rights] <- Still element of risk.
|
|
|
HOBBES: On Private Property?
[State of Nature] |
Small amount of private property; food, water, homes. Individuals should only hold in possession what they require in order to survive, and not amass more than that if it deprives others of the necessities of life. [It would be morally wrong]
|
|
|
HOBBES: On Private Property?
[Commonwealth] |
Same principles hold as for S.O.N.; the Sovereign can intervene/redistribute land if the current layout physically endangers any of its people, or prevent them from access to the necessities of life. The Sovereign must ensure everyone has at least the minimum requirements for survival.
|
|
|
HOBBES: Leviathan a Dictator?
|
No. The sovereign cannot impose policy even because it thinks it would be a good idea. It is only concerned with our survival.; this does leave a lot of room for manoeuvre though; if 'economic prosperity' is thought to lead to less civil conflict, any policy that would make the nation prosperous would be acceptable/justified by Hobbes.
|
|
|
HOBBES: Taxation?
|
Not income tax (egalitarian tax); instead found tax on articles of consumption (like a Value Added Tax) acceptable.
|
|
|
HOBBES: [Important] -
<Opinions?> |
The Sovereign must have control of what people should speak and when, and control over all media. (N.B. On the surface, very illiberal, and totalitarian sounding) but in context, this is not the same as a Dictator's 'book burning'; this is because Hobbe's Sovereign is NOT ideologically driven; Hobbes is strong on this point because he believed that various RELIGIONs had been strong influencers accross Europe, and the cause of the majority of conflict. If a Sovereign could control their influence, it could stamp out civil unrest.
|
|
|
HOBBES: On Opinions again?
(not just religion bad) |
Humanists; Greek and Roman classical ideas of freedom were misleading and unhelpful; 'Whether a Commonwealth be Monarchical or Popular, the Freedom is still the same' [Leviathan]
|
|
|
HOBBES: What is Sovereign breaks laws of nature?
|
This in itself, does not give the Commonwealth the right to attack/rebel against the Sovereign, in the same way it might not in the S.O.N.unless they are themselves attacked; even when multiple mistakes are made and a Commonwealth rebel, this is morally unjustified unless their lives were at stake.
|
|
|
HOBBES: On Religion?
|
Believed in a 'natural religion' and that all religions worship one creator anyway; atheism was a 'sin' of 'ignorance', since it was just a denial of a philosophically compelling argument (his argument).
|
|
|
Hobbes & Locke...Differences
[3] |
-Locke believed human nature is characterised by <reason> and <tolerance>, NOT <self-preservation> and complete <subjectivity> as Hobbes did.
-The Commonwealth have a right to revolt when their government have lost their consent (Locke). Hobbes, only when their survival is endangered. -Hobbes State of Nature is hypothetical, Locke's exists wherever there is no legitimate government. -Some political thinkers have considered Locke to be quite Hobbesian, in the sense that they can be boiled down to working on the same moral framework, but this is contested. The majority believe otherwise, and therefore also that Locke's work 'The Second Treatise' was written in self-knowing ideological and historical context, and not as a broad piece of political philosophy. |
|
|
Hobbes & Locke...Similarities
[2] |
Both believe that:
-human nature allowed men to be selfish. -a state of nature is one at war and undesirable. |
