Leviathan

Most people will not read this book and that is good because it is so damm long and boring. However, his arguments have been quite influential and ... (show more)

Most people will not read this book and that is good because it is so damm long and boring. However, his arguments have been quite influential and one should at least read the excerpts and secondary sources.

Science was rel new and Hobbes begins by seeking materialistic explanations for all things (think push/pull, pulleys, etc), but especially the inner workings of humans. Book I is the heart and the other books expand on this foundation. Thus, in Book I, you will find his Social Contract Theory (We join society /create laws to escape Nasty and brutish Nature and these laws are the source of morality. Also need an Absolute Sovereign here.), Here are some philosophical problems with that,

1) It's based on psychological egoism. If that is false, his whole foundation collapses because he uses the geometric method. That is, if we are not atomistic, isolated individuals seeking to maximize our own self interests then we obey laws for non-interested reasons at least some of the time and SCT is false.

2) Free Rider problem. Like ethical egoism, the question is 'why not break the law if it is in your interest and you can get away with it?" As long as it will not lead to social collapse... go ahead. Yet, many feel it is wrong and SCT cannot explain this moral intuition.

3) Other problems: animals/marginally intelligent people critique,

Some modern SCT Theorists try counter the free rider problem by arguing that we should seek our interests with rational consistency, but why should one subsume appetite/interest under rational consistency? The egoist/SCT cannot demand this without making reason pure rather than instrumental and so becoming a Kantian. Thus, SCT is not sufficient.

Of course, it would be wrong of me to judge the entire Leviathan on logical inconsistency of his central argument. After all, his ideas can be used in many positive ways and there is much truth in his philosophy... and it is an interesting materialistic piece in parts. blah blah blah (show less)