How does an agent reason about Lock’s options in a single-play dilemma?
In the state of nature, there are four preferences. The first preference is to attack and not be attacked. The second preference is to not attack and not be attacked. The third preference is to Attack and be attacked. The fourth preference is to not attack and be attacked.
Was Bramhall justified in calling Hobbes’ Leviathan a “rebel’s catechism”?
Yes. According to Bramhall, if everyone where to decide when to obey the sovereign and when to disobey the sovereign, then we would let ourselves be ruled over at our own pleasure. If at anytime we felt it was inconvenient to be ruled over because we felt threatened, then there is no stability, and thus we have a rebel catechism, or a doctrine and reason for us to rebel due to Hobbes rebellion cause of being able to succeed when threatened.
Why would agents in a Lockean state of nature want to leave it for a civil society?
What does Locke’s law of nature require of rational beings?
Locke’s law of nature requires that you a being must preserve yourself at all costs and at all times.
How des Locke differ from Hobbes on the question of whether there is property in the state of nature
There is no property in the state of nature in Hobbes, it is just man vrs man. For Locke, you can have a property in the state of nature, which is from the labor of your hands. Locke has two conditions which is you must leave as much and as good for others and you must not take more of God’s creations than you need.
What is the “paradox of being governed” and does Locke’s theory suffer from it?
The paradox of being governed is how can a group of people being unruly, promote a person to rule them, if that person was original from that group of unruly people. Another point is how the people can be ruled by a ruler if they themselves appoint a ruler. Are you truly being ruled if you can hire an fire a person who is ruling you....
Please join StudyMode to read the full document