5 people could assemble and attack the Dean. Or even 50. In the state of nature he couldn’t sleep at night.
“I may have weird desires”
There are feminist readings of Hobbes (somehow).
Hobbes ties justice to the existence of a state, of an absolute power which can guarantee
Privilege right / claim right.
Claim right: If one has a right to food, and another has food in excess, they are entitled to that food rightfully.
Hobbes talks about → Privilege right: you may do anything you desire in the purpose of self-preservation.
Property rights are guaranteed by the state.
In Hobbes, there is no moral/duty/‘ought’ in the laws of nature. They are almost physical laws, rather than normative notions.
The state of nature (to Hobbes) is not good. We gotta leave bruh.
“Nobody is safe tonight…” - Dean De Schutter
If we can all agree on an artificial standard of justice that would be good. Just one law that applies to everyone and if you don’t do it you get punished.
For instance, property rights would be cool (according to Hobbes). It is good if thieves are punished generally and independently.
The laws of nature are pure, instrumental reasoning.
Everyone with reason will reach the conclusion that state of nature bad 👎
Every man ought to endeavor piiiss. [I <3 https://piss.network/]
If you can’t get peace, you will seek the advantages of war.
To reach peace we must be prepared to concede our right to everything.
men must perform their covenants made ← keep your promises and contracts. This is the foundation of justice. [But that’s just a theory,,,,,,, a JUSTICE THEORY. Thanks for watching.]
Prisoner’s dilemma.
“you can kill me tonight, that’s why I am not safe, nobody, every individual needs to go through this process…”
one assembly of men; he allows for a group; this is interesting (somehow) who is coercive and makes sure that self-interest does not outweigh what reason dictates.
government sanctions egoists. (or gives big booms to good people)
The government is either signed into existence (by institution)
or it comes through acquisition (invasion)
The sovereign is never wrong, because political absolutism.
People have different interpretations of words, as a result you get quarrels.
Some may say Hobbes has a very pessimistic view of people; he would reply that without a police force everyone is unsafe; “it is rational to kill someone else sometimes […] it is rational to do it.” It’s not that he’s a pessimist, just that one may still be afraid.
Hobbes thinks that a contract under duress is valid. Don’t need to be of sound mind and body.
Hobbes nominally says consent is important, but you only really need the consent to be in one’s self-interest.
The contracting parties;
The default way of sovereignty coming about (everyone signing a law) is only one way of doing it. The contract there is not between the sovereign and a person. The contracting parties are individuals.
If the contract were sovereign ↔ person, then the person would have bargaining power.
If the contract is person ↔ person ↔ … ↔ person, then this would not be the case. The leviathan should not be doubted, completely political obedience is necessary.
A lot of ink has been spilled to reconcile what we have just said, and sovereignty by acquisition (foreign invasion acquires you as a subject). In acquisition, surely you’re signing the contract with the sovereign (per professor).
[I don’t see the problem.]
The right to disobey. One cannot sign away their right to resists and protect their life ← per Hobbes. But he also says there cannot be support for a rebellions.
When the sovereign’s decision confronts you with death, once that happens, you may start thinking “i need to preserve myself.”