Hobbes and His Emphasis on Self-Preservation

    Hobbes presents a compelling structure for how individualistic pursuits can lead to the formation of societies due to the shared binding to the first natural law: "a man is forbidden to do that which is destructive of his life or taketh away the means of preserving the same, and to omit that by which he thinketh it may be best preserved" (Hobbes, 79). In needing to preserve one's own life above all else, individuals willingly sacrifice the complete freedom that they enjoyed in the state of nature. From there, groups of people can develop more advanced systems of contracts and covenants that are reinforced by the increased repercussions for injustice. Rather than solely fearing the power of those they directly harm, offending individuals have to account for the revenge and mistrust of the society that they rely on to protect their life. And while he acknowledges that there are limits to this fear — the need to lock our doors at night given as an example — his theory provides a viable account of how peace can develop from a state of total war. 

    While I find the overall account of how self-centered action can result in corporation, I'm curious as to why/if a designation of a will to live as the highest priority is necessary. The argument mostly holds, but there are some instances as in the act of self-sacrifice for another that I couldn't find a satisfactory explanation for in the text. Additionally, it seems more intuitive to account for other outcomes as intrinsically valuable. I believe there does exist and intuitive –– perhaps biological –– drive to romanticize our lives in a variety of ways resulting in an at least equal value in how rather than whether we live our lives. He mentions the idea of giving gifts to "deliver the mind from the pain of compassion," and so I'm confused why that deliverance or something like being freed from the pains of injustice are more of an afterthought in his theory of why people corporate (Hobbes, 82). 


Have a nice day!

Aidan

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Updated Syllabus

                                                                         SYLLABUS                         Courses: PPE Philosophy Seminar and Philosophy Tutorial Seminar Time: Thursday (and sometimes on Tuesday) 1:15-4:00 Seminar Place: Kravis 168 (when not online or outside) Tutorial Time: Designated Tuesdays, by appointment Professor: Paul Hurley Contact Info: paul.hurley@cmc.edu Office Hours: W 2:00-4:00, F 12:30-2:30 (with occasional rescheduling to accommodate faculty meetings)   INTRODUCTION This is t...
Read more

securing legitimate expectations - rawls (ft chamallas)

To what extent should legal precedent, founded on increasingly unpalatable institutional values, be upheld for the sake of formal justice? Rawls posits that justice must be grounded in the protection of legitimate expectations, particularly in a system where individuals have good reason to rely on established rules. Formal justice, according to Rawls, is the “impartial and consistent administration of laws and institutions, whatever their substantive principles” (51). This is a powerful argument for stability and predictability in legal systems, where individuals can align their actions with the expectations of the law, knowing that even if they will be treated unjustly (as formal justice does not preclude unjust laws), they will be treated consistently . Individuals will at least “know what is demanded" so that they can "try to protect themselves accordingly; whereas there is even greater injustice if those already disadvantaged are also arbitrarily treated in particular cas...
Read more

Anderson, Brettschneider, and Shiffrin: What a Trio.

​​Sorry if I jump in between ideas a bit too quickly. Just trying to get it all figured out in my head! Shiffrin x Brettschneider: Shiffrin states early on that constitutional content does not track justiciability (993). But if constitutional content does not track justiciability (aka certain constitutional violations like government officials lying / violating the First Amendment are acknowledged to exist but are nevertheless nonjusticiable), I'm still left confused on what the normative OR institutional point of having a Supreme Court is? Isn’t the foundational idea of judicial review that the Court exists precisely to interpret and enforce constitutional limits, particularly against executive or legislative overreach? If constitutional provisions or principles are beyond the Court’s reach and enforcement lies elsewhere, where lies its core role? Shiffrin seems to suggest that the Supreme Court still has a role in clarifying and promoting constitutional ideals even when it can’t ...
Read more