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
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 (motor nerves, that is, not sensory nerves). How, on
the other hand, does this serve to emphasize the ways Hobbes thinks that
a commenwealth is different than an animal, and even from a regular
automaton like a clock? (Hint: see XXI.5.)
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?
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?
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)?
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.)