In Chapter 6, Hobbes states that man's desire and aversion may aim at either two things: good or evil. Good is the object of a man's desire and evil is the object of a man's hate/aversion. Early on in Leviathan, Hobbes is introducing moral subjectivity in the defining of his terms. I'm interested to see how this moral subjectivity will work in the foundation of his political philosophy. If men can perceive good and evil in radically different ways, all equally valid, how can there be an agreeable sovereign to whom all men can give their 'right to nature'? The law can certainly not be written in a way that will accommodate polarized conceptions of morality. Under Hobbes' definition of good and evil, there can't even be a medium or standard by which to legislate. Rather, good and evil are reduced to the erratic desires and aversions of men.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I don't think that Hobbes agrees that men have erratic desires but that he subordinates these to rationality and the laws of nature. Although I may think it is good to do something really dangerous, I am being irrational, because I am not reasoning to what is best for preserving my own life. So it seems that good and evil fall under rationality and what is "really good" is what preserves my life and ought to be desired while what is "really bad" is what is dangerous for me and what ought to be averted. What do others think?
ReplyDelete