Question Home

Position:Home>Philosophy> Hobbes preached living under an absolute sovereign,would you giveup all civil li


Question:I'm afraid such a thing would be impossible. People by their very nature cannot surrender liberties as they pertain to free speech, freedom of religion, privacy, etc.. An absolute sovereign would require an active police force to enforce the loss of these liberties or even the maintance of the existing requirement so there would in fact, be no peace.

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: I'm afraid such a thing would be impossible. People by their very nature cannot surrender liberties as they pertain to free speech, freedom of religion, privacy, etc.. An absolute sovereign would require an active police force to enforce the loss of these liberties or even the maintance of the existing requirement so there would in fact, be no peace.
It's a debate I'd love to see. People on Y/A will either flame ya , ignore ya, or simply answer ya. thanks for the ten points. Report It

Other Answers (6)

="shown">
  • justbeingher's Avatar by justbein...
    Member since:
    December 06, 2006
    Total points:
    30944 (Level 7)
    ="network">
  • Add to My Contacts
  • Block User
    • No. It's not necessary to live that way to have peace.
    For hobbes, the entire reason for making a social contract is to get out of the state of nature, which, according to hobbes, is a "state of war."

    I am a Rousseauean however. the state of nature is a state of peace and i am a noble savage.
    Absolutely not. There needs to be a balance between law and justice, freedom and the safety of citizens. What good would peace be living under a tyrant? Things would be close to what they were in Russia during the 1920s to 1987.

    We'd only be exchanging an outside enemy for an internal one.
    I wouldn't like to live under the reign of a dictatorship.
    It makes me wonder if Hobbes knew that power corrupts but absolute power corrupts absolutely. In a marriage peace is achieved through respect, love, and interaction of thoughts and ideas. The same is true in society. But in that kind of society where only one system is right, the government? I should think an atmosphere of fear would pervade and permeate society. The first generation would suffer through it consciously because they once knew freedom. Their children would never know and therefore never seek to find out what true freedom is all about. IN this instance to me, it is not a state of peace but of death to the individuality of the person. Later..
    What you call "civil liberties" are "unalienable rights." That means they cannot be taken away except at the point of a gun.

    Peace is always preferable to war, but it is not an unalienable right. Even if a tyrant puts that gun to my head, I still have the power of thought. And I will always think the tyrant is evil.


    The answer content post by the user, if contains the copyright content please contact us
    Contact us | Sitemap| rssmap
    Copyright @ 2006-2007 Questionhome.com