Hobbes’ maintains humans have a “natural condition,” which may be either blissful or brutish. Given such condition, Hobbes asks, how members of society to act/ought to be. Intuitively many philosophers agree members of a society existing blissfully is not only preferred, but better. And, if we grant what is better for society captures that which is good for a society, then individuals ought to act according to the promotion of this peaceful societal end.
One objection to Hobbes comes from whether an individual has the right to opt-out of the contract. This uncompliant individual reasons Hobbes’ security risk worth taking. For those whom believe this is the case, then what would be holding them, in an objective sense, to follow the rules of the covenant?
The social contract theory introduced by Hobbes’ has another perceived flaw. That is, the flaw of real objectivity. An individual risks dangers by opting out from the theoretical peace treaty. However, there exists similar dangers
In …show more content…
The state of nature ties to his view regarding one’s vulnerability to be subject to harmful actions. One cannot fulfill the security of the first rule without a second derivative law. He writes, “…there can be no security to any man, how strong or wise soever he be…” (560 Landau). Given the nature of men, Hobbes argues that, any one man can’t live in peace in a state of nature (what is sometimes eluded to when he discusses relevant members being at war). An individual may maintain an advantage over another. However, no person can be resilient enough to have the security to ensure peace. In order to follow a precept or general rule of reason given rule one and two (for peace and self-defense respectively), then in order to ensure one’s own security in accordance to the first two natural laws one should forfeit some of their individual rights. Again, this contract theory only works if the whole of society is held in the formation of a common
One objection to Hobbes comes from whether an individual has the right to opt-out of the contract. This uncompliant individual reasons Hobbes’ security risk worth taking. For those whom believe this is the case, then what would be holding them, in an objective sense, to follow the rules of the covenant?
The social contract theory introduced by Hobbes’ has another perceived flaw. That is, the flaw of real objectivity. An individual risks dangers by opting out from the theoretical peace treaty. However, there exists similar dangers
In …show more content…
The state of nature ties to his view regarding one’s vulnerability to be subject to harmful actions. One cannot fulfill the security of the first rule without a second derivative law. He writes, “…there can be no security to any man, how strong or wise soever he be…” (560 Landau). Given the nature of men, Hobbes argues that, any one man can’t live in peace in a state of nature (what is sometimes eluded to when he discusses relevant members being at war). An individual may maintain an advantage over another. However, no person can be resilient enough to have the security to ensure peace. In order to follow a precept or general rule of reason given rule one and two (for peace and self-defense respectively), then in order to ensure one’s own security in accordance to the first two natural laws one should forfeit some of their individual rights. Again, this contract theory only works if the whole of society is held in the formation of a common