D.J.C. Carmichael, Professor at the University of Alberta, explores Hobbes’ notion of natural rights in the commonwealth. While Carmichael acknowledges that most contemporary thinkers associate Hobbes with sovereign authoritarianism, he aims to demonstrate that the commonwealth actually permits the existence of “true liberties,” which belong to each individual citizen. More specifically, Carmichael presents a detailed analysis of chapter 21 of Hobbes’ Leviathan, which demonstrates the presence of certain sovereign commands that subjects can decline to obey. He then turns to chapters 26 through 28 to elucidate certain constraints on sovereign action in the realm of law and punishment. Although Carmichael does no go as far as to claim that these
…show more content…
Thus, Carmichael concludes that “punishment of the innocent is impossible because it is improper; the immorality is built into the meaning of the word. As a consequence, the sovereign’s authority may be absolute, but it cannot properly be used to punish the innocent” (pg. 9). Although Carmichael presents a well-structured argument, I disagree with his notion that immorality has something to do with Hobbes’ punishment theory. My paper will clearly argue that sovereign punishment is not concerned with conceptions of “morality” or “justice.” Rather, punishing the innocent is wrong because it serves no purpose in compelling obedience or promoting peace. Thus, my paper will attempt to avoid over-liberalizing Hobbes’s punishment theory (a fault of which Carmichael is slightly guilty).
Bejan, Teresa M. 2010. “Teaching The Leviathan: Thomas Hobbes on Education.” Oxford Review of Education 36(5): 607–26. Teresa M. Bejan, Professor at Yale University, attempts to present a conceptualization of Hobbes’ theory of education that locates a middle ground between claims of overt authoritarianism and radical liberalism. More specifically, Bejan asserts that neither of these extreme views adequately grasps the intricate
Thus, Carmichael concludes that “punishment of the innocent is impossible because it is improper; the immorality is built into the meaning of the word. As a consequence, the sovereign’s authority may be absolute, but it cannot properly be used to punish the innocent” (pg. 9). Although Carmichael presents a well-structured argument, I disagree with his notion that immorality has something to do with Hobbes’ punishment theory. My paper will clearly argue that sovereign punishment is not concerned with conceptions of “morality” or “justice.” Rather, punishing the innocent is wrong because it serves no purpose in compelling obedience or promoting peace. Thus, my paper will attempt to avoid over-liberalizing Hobbes’s punishment theory (a fault of which Carmichael is slightly guilty).
Bejan, Teresa M. 2010. “Teaching The Leviathan: Thomas Hobbes on Education.” Oxford Review of Education 36(5): 607–26. Teresa M. Bejan, Professor at Yale University, attempts to present a conceptualization of Hobbes’ theory of education that locates a middle ground between claims of overt authoritarianism and radical liberalism. More specifically, Bejan asserts that neither of these extreme views adequately grasps the intricate