Question

Hobbes runs the logic like this in the form of a logical syllogism:

1. We are all self-interested.
2. Each of us needs to have a peaceful and cooperative social order to pursue our interests.
3. We need moral rules in order to establish and maintain a cooperative social order.
4. Therefore, self-interest motivates us to establish moral rules.

Locke disagreed, and set forth the view that the state exists to preserve the natural rights of its citizens. When governments fail in that task, citizens have the right – and sometimes the duty – to withdraw their support and even to rebel. Locke addressed Hobbes's claim that the state of nature was the state of war, though he attribute this claim to "some men" not to Hobbes. He refuted it by pointing to existing and real historical examples of people in a state of nature. For this purpose he regarded any people who are not subject to a common judge to resolve disputes, people who may legitimately take action themselves to punish wrong doers, as in a state of nature.

1. If you side with Hobbes, do you support at any point recourse if the government violates its own contract (if so, you probably have a bit of Locke in your thinking)?

Answer 1