Due, as an attachment, via the “Assignments” tool on Canvas, by 11:55pm
Wednesday, April 27, in MSWord format or in a format easily convertible to
MSWord.
Answer any one of the questions listed below in 2–3 pages (double
spaced).
Each question is about some issue raised most centrally in a certain part of the
reading. However, you can and should use material from anywhere in the text
where it’s relevant to the answer.
Because this is an exam rather than a paper, I will give priority to accuracy
over originality in grading. However, all the questions do require some thought;
they can’t simply be read out of the texts. Moreover, in many (if not all) cases the
“correct” answer is unavoidably a matter of interpretation: in such cases it would
be safest to reproduce what I said in class, but it will also be acceptable if you’re
clearly following some other reasonable interpretation. And, of course, as usual,
your answer must be “original” in the sense that it is your own work. (If you
use any outside source — which I don’t recommend — you must cite
it.)
If you have any questions about what plagiarism is or how to avoid it,
you can ask me, or consult the resources listed on the Library website.
For possible consequences of plagiarism, see the Academic Misconduct
Policy.
You can cite Leviathan by chapter and paragraph number (e.g. XIV.3) and/or
page number in the Hackett edition. If you cite an outside source, you may use
any citation format you want, just so long as you provide enough information for
me to figure out what you are citing.
You can find answers to some commonly asked questions about my
assignments and grading in my FAQ.
Discuss Hobbes’s claim (Introduction.1) that a commonwealth is an
“artificial man,” that is, an artificial rational animal. Explain briefly what an
animal is, according to Hobbes (a regular old animal, i.e. one that is natural,
not artificial). What is its soul? What are its sensations and what are its
passions? In what way, according to Hobbes, is a commonwealth like such a
(natural) animal? Explain why Hobbes says (again, Introduction.1) that the
sovereignty is the artificial soul of the commonwealth and that reward and
punishment are artificial nerves (that is: that they are like the connections
between the brain and the limbs by which the brain is able to make the limbs
move). How, on the other hand, does this last point serve to emphasize the
ways Hobbes thinks that a commenwealth is different from an animal, and
even from a regular automaton like a clock? (Hint: see XXI.5.)
2.
Explain what Hobbes means by saying that the fundamental “law of
nature” is: seek peace. Take into account the definition of “law of nature”
at XIV.1, but also the statement at XV.36 that the laws of nature do not
(always) bind in foro externo and, at XV.41, that the laws of nature are not,
strictly speaking, laws. What kind of mistake do I make if I “disobey” the
first law in the way it binds in foro interno — that is, if I do not desire that
the first law should be obeyed (by everyone)? Why, according to Hobbes, is
that always (eternally and immutably) a mistake?
3.
The covenant that forms a commonwealth by institution is an agreement,
among a multitude of individuals (or families), “to appoint one man or
assembly of men to bear their person, and every one to own and acknowledge
himself to be author of whatsoever he that so beareth their person shall
act, or cause to be acted, in those things which concern the common peace
and safety” (XVII.13). What does “bear their person” mean? How is this a
covenant? That is: what goods are the various parties promising to deliver to
each other in the future? Why do the words “in those things which concern
the common peace and safety” represent an apparent limitation on the right
(authority) of the appointed person, that is, the sovereign, but not any real
limitation?
4.
Explain why it is not true, according to Hobbes, that a father naturally
(i.e., in a state of mere nature) has dominion over his children, simply by
virtue of having generated them (brought them into being). How, according
to Hobbes, could he gain dominion over them in a state of nature? Assuming
that, in a certain commonwealth, fathers automatically gain a certain relative
dominion over their children at birth, why does it follow that this must be
due to the civil laws? (Such a commonwealth might, in at least one sense
of the term, be called a patriarchy.) What, according to Hobbes, might
explain why such civil laws exist (what must have happened at the time the
commonwealth was formed)?
5.
Consider a civil law L such that the following are all true. (1) The sovereign
had the right to command obedience to L. (2) No citizen has the right to
violate L. (3) The sovereign has the right to punish violators of L with death
or imprisonment. How can it be, according to Hobbes, that a citizen who
has violated L, and has been justly sentenced, nevertheless has the right to
flee or defend themselves against the sentence? Explain by taking careful
account of what Hobbes means by “right,” and of the sense in which civil
laws can limit the rights of subjects, also of the source he assigns to the right
of punishment. (See especially XXI.5 and XXVIII.2.)
