The first being that a state is naturally at war. And second that a moral sovereign must be empowered supremely to deal with this state of war, but at the same time this sovereign would be a moral person by their nature (Zagorin, 128: 2009). On the face of it this is nonsense upon stilts as even if we were to suppose the state of nature was eternally at war (though no proof is ever given) there is no reason to believe a single sovereign would ever act strictly benign. We need only look at the multitudes of horrific dictators to suggest otherwise, yet this is a core of his argument. This is also to not take into account the numerous contradictions and paradoxes that are present in Hobbes’ writing, as well as his places as a “pen for hire” (Springborg, 676-681: 2009). While not to suggest that all of Hobbes’ theories are without merit, but only to state they are profoundly flawed in numerous
The first being that a state is naturally at war. And second that a moral sovereign must be empowered supremely to deal with this state of war, but at the same time this sovereign would be a moral person by their nature (Zagorin, 128: 2009). On the face of it this is nonsense upon stilts as even if we were to suppose the state of nature was eternally at war (though no proof is ever given) there is no reason to believe a single sovereign would ever act strictly benign. We need only look at the multitudes of horrific dictators to suggest otherwise, yet this is a core of his argument. This is also to not take into account the numerous contradictions and paradoxes that are present in Hobbes’ writing, as well as his places as a “pen for hire” (Springborg, 676-681: 2009). While not to suggest that all of Hobbes’ theories are without merit, but only to state they are profoundly flawed in numerous