Flaws in Thomas Hobbes Theory

For this essay you will draw from the Hobbes and Rousseau readings we will discuss in class. The key to the essay is for you to make a definite claim about the works, one that you will argue is correct. You can argue to support or criticize your author. Crucially, you must focus one one particular aspect of the text, rather than trying to deal with the whole essay, which will lead to shallowness, and summary rather than argument.

Write about either Hobbes or Rousseau, rather than comparing them. However, the contrasts and similarities between the two works are a good source for ideas you might want to develop. There are many kinds of issues you might pursue.

Here are some ideas to think about for Hobbes:
Many students have turned to the issue of how for H self-interest operates to guarantee Peace under an absolute Sovereign.

One dimension of this approach is to focus on how rational fear of punishment for crime will deter people from breaking the law, and thus ensure Peace. In itself there’s no claim here– this is a matter of simple summary. But several narrower, less obvious topics derive from this basic fact.

One is to argue that over time an H society in which no State interference or regulation limit competition within the lawmust inevitably lead to extreme and ever-widening class disparity (rich richer, poor poorer, no middle class). What exactly would be the specifics leading to this outcome? Then you could argue. whether this class disparity is likely to disable the fear/self-interest mechanism upon which his theory rests. At what point would fear of punishment no longer deter crime. Would quality of life falling below a certain point (what point exactly?) be enough to do it. Would absence of hope for a better quality of life do it?
Now, you have another choice– you could do all this relatively quickly, then concentrate on arguing what could/should (two different topics) be done to deal with this situation. Should the very small group of the rich take it upon themselves to establish some kind of “social floor”? What would this entaol? A different question is whether it is reasonable to expect to rich to act out of this “enlightened self-interest”? Or, one could address, is it in fact the duty of a competent Sovereign to establish these social welfare policies, as necessary to maintaining peace.
And how should this be done? One student argued that there should be a cap on wealth. What do you think?
In all cases, the narrower and more specific the claim the better. Remember, proportion counts. Some points that might occupy four pages in one essay, might only be offered quickly as a premise for a different one. This principle applies to all essays—the exact claim you are arguing dictates what you spend your time talking about.

Another set of essays deals with how the S will function. Some start by acknowledging/summarizing H implied argument for why self-interest will keep a S ruling wisely. Then consider a variety of topics.

One line of thought that other students have followed is to consider what qualities the S must possess in order for this “self-interest” mechanism to work– a very high degree of intellectual ability? A high degree of self-knowledge? A high degree of emotional self-control? Are these unrerasonable expectations? Again, getting into specifics gives you the best chance of arguing a claim fully and persuasively.
A variation on this topic addresses questions of succession. Conceding you find a S who rules wisely (out of self0interest) how do you ensure the next S does so too?
Another variation deals with the behavior of the agents who, necessarily, implement the S’s policies. How can we expect that they will not abise their power, since the factors that apply to the S do not apply to them?

Here are some general approaches to Rousseau that students have developed previously.

One approach is to considerhow a R state can maintain the sense of duty to the common good that is essential to its integrity and success. This night especually apply to generations following the revolutionary generation—how can they be aleted that theu=ir individual liberties all derive from the well-being of the collective.

Another consideration involes the issues of represaentative democracy. How can we be comfident that those with expertise in technical areas or in the management of programs initiated by the General Will will not, as a consequence of their experience, decide that they understand better than the People at large what is good for the society as a whole.
Also, you might think about how such a democracy– which allows for the pursuit of individual goals, including the amassing of wealth, as long as they do not conflict with the common good—can ensure that the interests of the rich do not subvert the integrity of the system through influence over the electoral process or by other means. Can this problem be avouded?

Finally, there have been a net of papers considering specific responsibilities of the State given its obligation to foster the good of all. Excellent public edication? Health care? Why some social initiatives rather than others?

Hope these comments help. They are not intended to be “assigned topics.” Rather, they are meant to get you thinking. Use them however you wish.

Goals: 1) Title: Devise a title that gives some sense of what your essay will be about—that is, what your claim will be.
2) Write an effective introductory paragraph. Your intro should identify the works you will be addressing; should clarify the issue you argument will address (this can be a two step effort: one sentence to indicate the general thematic intentions of the work in question, a second to narrow that concern to the specific issue you will argue); and most importantly, should provide a statement of the claim you will be defending, the more specific the better.
3) Try to recognize the specific arguments you will be making: What are their parts—what warrants/principles will you be building from? What evidence from the text will you offer to support your claims? What reasons/inferences will you be patiently developing? Be sure to explicitly label these parts, though you need not use the terms we’ve discussed in class to do so.
4) Think about organizing the essay paragraph by paragraph. Give each paragraph a specific limited job to do, labeled by a topic sentence. Don’t shift within the paragraph. You will need to summarize the arguments of others before you respond to them.
5) Aim to write accurate and clearly labeled summaries of the parts of the authors’ works that are relevant to your argument.
6) Work on correct parenthetic citation form. Include a Works Cited page.

Remember to follow the basic rules of analytical writing.
1. Always use the present tense in discussing the work.
3. Don’t list a series of points about the work. Discuss one point in depth, or, if you mention more than one point, discuss how they relate to one another.
4. As we’ve said before, don’t shadow the text.
5. Don’t project your views onto the author. Summarize the author’s views accurately, then offer your commentary.
6. Don’t use jargon, or technical language of which you do not have full command.
7. Your best evidence that your thesis is accurate is citations from the text. But be certain that A) the citation is necessary to support or clarify a claim that isn’t obvious, and B) that, if necessary, you take the time to explain how the citation supports your claims.