Discuss Hobbes’s claim (Introduction.1) that a commonwealth is an
“artificial man,” that is, an artificial rational animal. Explain briefly what
a natural animal is, according to Hobbes. What is its soul? What are its
sensations and what are its passions? In what way, according to Hobbes, is a
commonwealth like a (natural) animal (never mind whether this is a literal
resemblance, an analogy, or a metaphor)? Explain why Hobbes says (again,
Introduction.1) that the sovereignty is the artificial soul and that reward and
punishment are artificial nerves. How, on the other hand, does this serve to
emphasize the difference between a commonwealth and a natural animal, or
even a 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 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, 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.)