Zhana; I can see this now. However…the paper for this course was intended to b

By
Responsive Centered Red Button

Need Help with this Question or something similar to this? We got you! Just fill out the order form (follow the link below), and your paper will be assigned to an expert to help you ASAP.

Order Form

Zhana;
I can see this now. However…the paper for this course was intended to be a reflection upon the things which we actually read in this course (potentially in relation to outside things, whether it be things in contemporary society, history, literature, other philosophy).
So if you wish to talk about Hobbes in some respect this would be fine; however, it seems that it would have to be in relation to the texts on Socrates, or Descartes, or Nietzsche. Otherwise, it simply will not be a paper for this course.
There are a couple of candidates for this. Nietzsche seems the most obvious one–he, too, gives an account of the origin of moral judgments (though one quite different from that of Hobbes). Comparing and contrasting this might be useful. Nietzsche is not specifically political in the way Hobbes is, but perhaps there might be political implications you could draw out. For Hobbes, we call “good” and “evil” in the state of nature what simply attracts us, or what we find we have an aversion to. For Hobbes, there is no transcendent standard, no “ultimate good” that judges such desires and aversions–judgments of good and evil are radically private, not “moral”. They only become “public” once a contract to enter society is agreed upon–his “natural laws” are simply parts of a contract that one should enter into, given both reason and a desire for one’s own preservation and contentment. So the motive for obeying these is not “moral” either–it is self-preservation and private happiness.
This is not N’s account–there are two primary moralities, originating among two different classes of people. How are these characterized? How would N judge Hobbes’ account–which morality would it belong to? Further, N ‘s account gives a different account of how society ultimately emerges–it is not, one might say, by contract, but by conquest. Dealing with these sorts of questions would be a paper for this class.
Another obvious counterpoint would be Socrates. Socrates does ask after moral questions–i.e. what the just, or the pious, or the courageous, is. So does he think that there is an objective answer to these questions that isn’t dependent upon the agreement of the people in their own self-interest (as Hobbes’ is)? The Apology of Socrates would be an obvious source here, but I think Crito, where Socrates appears to argue that the laws are like his parents, might present a non-Hobbesian point of view.
So if you can steer it in one of these directions, or if you decide to write upon one or more of the authors in this course in another way, this would be acceptable, but as it stands, it sounds like a paper for a political philosophy course where you read Hobbes, but not this course.

How to create Testimonial Carousel using Bootstrap5

Clients' Reviews about Our Services