Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that For Hobbes, subjects alienate their natural right entirely to the sovereign, who retains authority even when governance is harmful, as in Leviathan Ch. 18.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Hobbes distinguishes between irrevocable sovereignty and subjects retaining a right to self-preservation when facing direct death threats.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The covenant's purpose is peace and protection; a sovereign causing systematic harm undermines the rational basis for the original agreement itself.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Hobbes acknowledges subjects may resist when sovereigns actively kill them, implying retained rights despite formal alienation language.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Hobbes argues subjects covenant to transfer all natural rights to prevent the war of all against all, making sovereign authority absolute by contract.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
For Hobbes, withdrawing consent retroactively would dissolve the peace mechanism entirely, making conditional sovereignty logically incoherent.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Leviathan Ch. 18 explicitly states the sovereign cannot breach the covenant, since subjects authorized all sovereign actions prospectively.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.