2013: a)'That HOBBES AND KANT REJECT people's right to REBELLION against
UNJUST SOVEREIGNS is SUFFICIENT reason to REJECT THEIR THEORIES OF THE
STATE AND LAW.' Discuss.
THESIS: both have RATIONAL BASES to GENERALLY REJECT people's right to rebellion. BUT THIS
REJECTION IS NOT ABSOLUTE FOR NEITHER. Thus both the rational bases for rejecting, and the
exceptions to the rule, mean that their general rejection is not sufficient to reject their theories of the state
and law
HOBBES
People have an ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO
SELF-PRESERVATION, and are FORBIDDEN by
REASON to do that which is DESTRUCTIVE of his
life/preservation (laws of nature)
HOBBES: MANIFEST CONTRADICTION to ACCEPT a
sovereign in order to preserve oneself, and then fight
against it
HOBBES' inssitence that the limits of our obligation to obey the sovereign are
set by our iNABILITY TO GIVE AWAY OUR LIVES
BUT for HOBBES-- the fact that sovereign not under any obligation to us is only in STRICT SENSE-- in the
CONTRACTUAL SENSE. In reality-- do have duties towards citizens, and breach of such duties may justify revolution
For HOBBES, one cannot conscientously object to horrendous
demands, and if we refuse, we cannot incite others to resist with others
BUT sovereign has a NATURAL LAW DUTY to
RESPECT SUBJECTS' MORAL RIGHTS
Also, [though unconvincing] Hobbes relies on REALM OF
ASPIRATION: we cannot resist the sovereign, but trust that the
sovereign, not the agent, will be held into account in front of God
[this would be unconvincing for many-- reliance on
COMPREHENSIVE MORAL DOCTRINE to keep sovereign into
check/ hold him into account. If people don't believe in God, won't
believe they will get their compensation
2013: b) In what SENSE, and to what EXTENT, can HOBBES'
AND KANT'S THEORIES of the STATE and LAW be said to be
'LIBERAL'?
HOBBES
LAW CAN ONLY EXIST AS COMMANDS. in this way, arguably
LIBERAL as not imposing some mystified moral doctrine-- demystifies
peoples' reason to accept
BUT DOES IMPOSE MORAL DOCTRINE-- OUTRIGHT
REJECTION OF RELIGION AS BASIS OF LAW. Says not seeking
truth, but because of his views on religion forming basis of law,
and how this would allow priests to abuse power (c.f. RYAN), just
as imposing as having a religious doctrine, especially since the
law he imposes is NON-CHALLENGABLE, and made by ONE
SOURCE, without any checks and balances.
NOT LIBERAL-- people may not agree. Yes, avoiding SoN. RATIONAL
COMPROMISE. but can still be achieved in other ways, instead of
ARBITRARY DECISION that one sovereign is the uncontestable source of
law. Thus lacks liberty because people will inevitably disagree, and will have
to be COERCED into obedience
HOBBES' argument that we are all NATURALLY EQUAL is MEANINGLESS
because if sovereign power left unchecked, and source of law unchallengeable, will
inevitably favour some over others
HOBBES' RATIONAL COMPROMISE INHERENTLY LACKS LIBERTY-- argues that
if we keep our eyes on the need to avoid SoN, we will not be tempted to stray. But
this is obligation out of FEAR
HOBBES: CONTRACT STILL BINDS US, EVEN IF EXTORTED BY FORCE. Because in SON, no injustice
unless breach of contract. And the victor of the war merely exercising his RIGHT OF NATURE to do whatever
he deems necessary to protect himself. So provides us with CHOICE: either SUBMIT to him and be BOUND,
or don't and DRAW DEATH UPON US. FALSE SENSE OF CHOICE, AS WELL AS ARBITRARY DEFINITION
OF INUSTICE
BUT HOBBES convincingly argues that the fact that we submit out of FEAR is IRRELEVANT-- we
ALWAYS SUBMIT OUT OF FEAR. Doesn't mean though, that we always give up so much in our
submission
ALTHOUGH HOBBES argues that the sovereign
has a NATURAL LAW DUTY to GOD to not only
protect the lives of citizens, but also to ensure
they can fulfil full contentment in life without
danger, HOBBES does NOT consider NATURAL
LAW AS LAW,; only the commands of the
sovereign are law. So cannot really be taken
account when considering HOBBES' account of
STATE AND LAW.
Nonetheless, according to this, IDEALLY the sovereign should be ABSOLUTE IN
PRINCIPLE, BUT UNDISTINGUISHABLE from CONSTITUTIONAL
SOVEREIGN in practive
THESIS: Although we must bear in mind the CONTEXT of HOBBES' theory, that of avoidance of STATE OF NATURE, he still arbitrarily LIMITS people's liberty excessively and unnecessarily. His
argument that all laws limit freedom does not stand, because the EXTENT to which the laws he proposes limit freedom more than say, a republican model HOBBES argues the SON is SO BAD. Yet
expects compliance with a sovereign unless more dangerous to comply than SON. Means it is a VERY LOW THRESHOLD that the sovereign is required to meet.
2012: After a long and bloody CIVIL WAR, Rufus Firefly becomes the new SOVEREIGN of Freedonia. President
Firefly is a LIBERAL and wants to RULE WITHOUT COERCING HIS SUBJECTS. He seeks the help of two famous
Freedonian political philosophers, Manny, who is a KANTIAN, and Tommy, a HOBBESIAN. Pesident Firely asks
them respectively for Kant's and Hobbes' views on 2 specific questions: a) Is he JUSTIFIED in keeping to
himself ALL THREE STATE POWERS, i.e. LEGISLATIVE, EXECUTIVE, and JUDICIAL? b) Are there any LIMITS to
what his laws may require of Freedonians? How will Manny and Tommy answer these questions? If you were
President Firefly, whose views would you adopt and why?
HOBBES (c.f. RYAN) argues that need ONE SOURCE OF LAW, and this is LEGALLY ABSOLUTE AND UNCHALLENGEABLE.
Although he argues that ALL LAW LIMITED FREEDOM, and that a
REPUBLICAN system merely guaranteed freedom to the
COMMONWEALTH, not to the INDIVIDUAL, there are DEGREES
TO WHAT IS LIMITED, AND WHY. AND WHETHER THE PEOPLE
AGREE OR COMPLY OUT OF FEAR. The unchallengeable source
of law that Hobbes proposes means that unless people are
coerced to obey, there will be a revolution- LACKS LEGITIMACY
and thus STABLITY. To argue that everyone would accept this to
avoid the horrendous SoN is UNCONVINCING and applying a
FALSE DICHOTOMY- could for example have a DEMOCRATIC
RULE of division of labour
HOBBES argues we are all NATURALLY EQUAL and that the sovereign
is the ONLY FOUNT OF HONOUR, and we should only demand from
others what we would accept they demand of us. BUT this is simply A
DENIAL OF THE SOCIAL REALITY that we are NOT all equal morally,
intellectually and politically. and having one, unchallengeable source of
law means that will never be able to reach any level that is even close to
equality-- will inevitably favour certain emmebrs of society over others
HOBBES: To know the law is to know the LAW OF
NATURE-- as opposed to basing the rules on HABIT or
LOCAL MYTH
THESIS: HOBBES' theory WILL LEAD TO COERCION. for one, no reason for everyone to accept that particular sovereign, and that particular law. So to guarantee stability, will have to
coerce subjects. Also, Hobbes believes that people possess PRIDE/VAINGLORY, which cannot simply be moderated, and instead must be SUPPRESSED
AG: "RAWLS' political theory is LIBERAL whereas HOBBES' and KANT'S are
not, because he SUCCESSFULLY AVOIDS RELIANCE upon
COMPREHENSIVE MORAL DOCTRINES" Discuss.
HOBBES
The way in which HOBBES' theory determines what is law is not at all liberal-- will
inevitably make many compromise for the sake of avoiding the state of nature. c.f. RYAN:
Political system, in settling the quesiton 'what is law', have to make UNIVERSAL
AGREEMENT that ONLY ONE SOURCE OF LAW EXISTED, and that whatever source
declared as law was law
RAWLS would argue that this method of determining law doesn't even resolve the problem HOBBES is so
desperately trying to avoid-- unless use COERCION and FORCE ACCEPTANCE AND OBEDIENCE,
Therefore unless completely deprived people of their liberty, would not be a stable system
ONE THING HOBBES AND RAWLS PRIMA FACIE HAVE IN COMMON: HOBBES
believed that RELIGION must be SUBORDINATE to LAW, otherwise priests would
ABUSE POWER. Sovereign authority was to "ESTABLISH LAW NOT TRUTH" and to
establish one UNEQUIVOCAL SOURCE OF LAW, not to demonstrate the trueth of
some partiuclar religious creed. SAME WITH RAWLS in this regard. SO HOBBES
DOES AVOID COMPREHENSIVE MORAL DOCTRINES.
BUT this is only on face value, as HOBBES believes that RELIGION should be
SUBORDINATE to law, which is ULTIMATELY A COMPREHENSIVE MORAL
DOCTRINE. Believes this as he feels priests would otherwise ABUSE POWER.
ALSO-- HOBBES' LAWS OF NATURE-- that man is FORBIDDEN, BY REASON, to do that which
is DESTRUCTIVE of his life/preservation-- that we have an 'ABSOLUTE RIGHT to do so'
cf. RYAN-- sovereign cannot give up right in judging what doctrines may be publicly taught and
defended-- seems surprisingly excessive. very controlling and a major deprivation of liberties
Also- citizens have NO SHARE in the government and sovereign authority- otherwise would have
countless arguments over whether a given law violates a reserved right, which would frustrate the
object of entering into a political society in the first place
Importantly though, Hobbes argues that the sovereign has
NATURAL LAW DUTIES in which he will be held accountable for
in front of God. This is reliance on a comprehensive moral
doctrine to keep the sovereign in check, which is unconvincing
for those who do not believe in God
DEFINE LIBERAL
IS RAWLS LIBERAL? DOES HE SUCCESSFULLY AVOID RELIANCE ON COMPREHENSIVE MORAL DOCTRINES? IS THIS SUFFICIENT TO GUARANTEE
LIBERTY?
ARE HOBBES AND KANT LIBERAL? WHY/WHY NOT? DO THEY RELY ON COMPREHENSIVE MORAL DOCTRINES, AND IS THIS WHY THEY ARE NOT LIBERAL? WHAT OTHER
REASONS?
GW: How does one's understanding of HUMAN NATURE inform one's account of law?
Discuss with reference to at least one of HOBBES, KANT and RAWLS.
(c.f. RYAN) HOBBES- FEAR is a PRIMARY POLITICAL VIRTUE- motivates people in SoN to
CONTRACT with each other to set up an authority to "overawe them all" and make PEACE
possible.
HOBBES also PSYCHOLOGICALLY REDUCES
THE PERSON-- forces us to think from GOD'S
POSITION-- and from such a position, the only
RATIONAL ROUTE OF SELF-P
HOBBES believed people possess a COMMON AVERSION
TOWARDS DEATH (Contrast Aristotle-- that people have
some kind of ATTRACTION toward the GOOD)
HOBBES believed that the SoN was a
HISTORICAL FACT e.g. people living in Britain
during CIVIL WAR living in SoN. Also, believed
that RELAPSE into it was a STANDING DANGER
HOBBES- SoN governed by NO RULES and
recognise NO AUTHORITY. Therefore, people are a
THREAT to each other
HOBBES: people are RATIONAL, SELF-INTERESTED,
VULNERABLE to one another, ESSENTIALLY ANXIOUS
UNLIKE ANIMALS--
HUMANS THINK AHEAD--
not just about present
dangers
ANXIETY leaves people in
TERRIBLE BIND. Need apples-- but
need MEANS TO SECURE APPLES.
Each appears to the other as a threat,
therefore each person BECOMES a
threat
HOBBES: LAWS OF NATURE
=EQUAL, MUTUAL RIGHT of the right to
PRESERVE ONESELF
THESIS: HOBBES' UNDERSTANDING of people, what they want, laws of nature and the state of nature very NARROW and limited to basic needs.
Means that his guarantees by accepting a sovereign are also very limited- fail to fulfil many HUMAN DESIRES
Questions orientated around: Right to REBELLION
LIBERALISM COERCION HUMAN NATURE
COMPREHENSIVE MORAL DOCTRINES