英国萨里大学论文代写:互利共赢的状态
Keywords:英国萨里大学论文代写:互利共赢的状态
在霍布斯的理论中,这是一个重大的矛盾似乎奇怪的和不一致的,男人的英联邦是明智地建立一个互利共赢的状态(霍布斯106),但马上进入社会契约,失去准确判断的能力他们的身体状况是好还是坏。虽然在契约中有如此明显的不一致性，霍布斯已经准备好了双管齐下的辩护。第一个是在第十八章，他断言一旦立约，人们“就不能合法地在他们自己之间订立新的盟约，使他们在未经君主许可的情况下，在任何事情上，服从任何其他的”(霍布斯110-1)。按照霍布斯的社会契约理论，这种主张是完全合理的;如果一个盟约是通过臣服于君主而形成的，那么人们就不能独立于君主而形成一个新的盟约，因为他们已经放弃了他们唯一的“个人”身份。“人”的论点后,霍布斯介绍,“一个€¦因为轴承的正确的人他们都给他使主权的约只有一个anothera€¦”(霍布斯111)。哲学家的第二个辩护是，君主不是实际契约的当事人，这意味着君主无论后果如何都不能违背契约。对霍布斯来说，契约是一种“人”从一群人永久地转移到外部人的过程，而不是一群人之间服从他们一方的可撤销的协议。奇怪的是，这种协议只存在于被统治者之间——他们的协议是平等地剥夺他们的“人”——这与霍布斯的观点是一致的，即必须有一个外部的，优于契约的执行者。
英国萨里大学论文代写:互利共赢的状态
This is a major contradiction in Hobbes’s theory, for it seems strange and inconsistent that men of the commonwealth are wise enough to establish a state for mutual benefit (Hobbes 106), but straightaway upon entering the social contract, lose the ability to accurately judge whether their condition is good or bad. Although there is such a clear inconsistency within the contract, Hobbes has a two-pronged defense ready. The first is in Chapter XVIII, where he asserts that once covenanted, men “cannot lawfully make a new covenant amongst themselves to be obedient to any other, in any thing whatsoever, without permission” from the sovereign (Hobbes 110-1). With the way that a Hobbesian social contract works, this claim makes perfect sense; if a covenant is formed by submitting one’s “person” to the sovereign, men cannot form a new covenant independent of the sovereign because they have already given their single “person”-hood up. Following the “person” argument, Hobbes introduces the idea that “…because the right of bearing the person of them all is given to him they make sovereign by covenant only of one to another…” (Hobbes 111). The philosopher’s second defense then, is the fact that the sovereign is not party to the actual contract, which means that the monarch can never breach it, no matter the consequences. For Hobbes, the contract is the permanent transfer of “person” from a group of people to an external man, not a retractable agreement among a group of people to obey one of their party. The agreement, strangely, is only amongst the governed – their agreement is to all equally forfeit their “person” – and aligns with Hobbes’s notion that there must be an external, superior enforcer to contracts.
