Today was an introduction that was perhaps less structured than I normally am, but it is good to get off with a discussion rather than a mere one way passing of information. Next week, as you know, I’m off at a conference so the lecture will be rearranged for later in the term. However, have a look at the questions and the tutorial on cannibalism. The crime is interesting because it involves killing for survival so is both necessary and abhorrent. It really does test our intuitions and leaves us somewhat conflicted. Read the first few chapters of Hobbes’s Leviathan and then answer the questions from seminar 1. When you’ve done that reply below with some of your own thoughts.
I received this question via email. It would be good if they could be psoted here so everyone has a chance to read/answer:
“I have a quick query with regard to the recent questions on Hobbes leviathan. For number 8 I am slightly baffled. The question asks do you agree with Hobbes that this right of nature should be unrestricted-and I answered no because then someone murdering under the influence of their human nature could then be justified. And we cannot rely on reason to dictate our nature. Have I got the wrong end of the stick here?”
The point is a very intelligent one and we shall talk about it in lectures, but Hobbes holds that we do as rational egoists have an unconditional right to everything. This is because he is a materialist and believes our strongest desire will always be self-preservation. We can even use another’s body as a human shield to save ourselves.
Of course, the question is then where does that leave the “ought” of one ought to X.