- Hobbes uses a weather analogy to illustrate the concept of the ‘war of all against all.’ What does the analogy tell us about conflict in the ‘state of nature’?
2. Why do some people think that being replicated is as bad as dying? Are they right?</pclass=”msolistparagraph”>
101918 Introduction to Philosophy Week 10 Political Philosophy This week we return to the ethics branch of the philosophy tree. Our focus is the sub-branch of ethics known as political philosophy. Political philosophy is the study of values, concepts and principles associated with the governing of societies and nation states. A particular focus for us this week is social contract theory, particularly, the version of social contract theory traceable to the Seventeenth Century English Philosopher, Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679). Hobbesâ€™s Metaethics We can understand Hobbes as an ethical naturalist and a subjectivist. An ethical naturalist is someone who identifies or â€˜reducesâ€™ moral properties like goodness, badness, rightness and wrongness to some natural property in the world, such as desire, pleasure, respect, or utility. Thus, e.g., according to an ethical naturalist, something is good if it promotes happiness, bad if it causes pain or death, and right if it is conducive to maximizing utility. For his part, Hobbes reduces good and evil to, respectively, what we desire and what we have an aversion to â€“ in this respect we can also call him a value egoist. We saw this kind of naturalism in our examination of hedonism. For Hobbes, however, it is not the feeling of pleasure so much as the satisfaction of desire that is the ultimate good. Hobbesâ€™s view is that, in the absence of some kind of authority figure who can prompt us to change our minds to the contrary, our natural tendency is to identify goodness with what we desire, and badness with what we have an aversion to. This marks an important distinction between Hobbes and philosophers in the Aristotelian tradition. When Hobbes says, the good is not annexed to the nature of objects he is explicitly repudiating the Aristotelian notion that the good for a thing is tied to its natural function. He says, â€œThere is no such finis ultimus, utmost aim, or summum bonum, greatest good, that is spoken of in the books of the…