Hobbes Second Amendment
Professor Smith introduced and interesting Hobbesian analysis pertaining to a hot button issue in the United states, specifically the second amendment. Seeing that the 2016 presidential elections has is a major topic of conversation, it would be appropriate to attempt to analyze the second amendment discussion using Hobbes’ logic. The class example suggested that the supporter of the second amendment not only believe that one require arms in order to protect themselves, however, fear even moreso the event that the sovereign becomes tyrannical.
Evaluating the topic of discussion thought Hobbesian perspective, the hypothetical scenario of a civic uprise against a tyrannical sovereign a temporary return to the state of nature becoming the …show more content…
This law in itself mirrors the case of motion in the state of nature. Open carry is intended as a means of protection , therefore undermining the sovereign capability to honor the authority given to them, thus, the perpetual fear driving one to feel the need carry a firearm suggest that the individual may as well willingly return to the state of nature if the immediate sense of danger is so pronounced. However, If the people are forced to protect themselves from the sovereign, this may indicate that the commonwealth has already fallen back into the state of nature. Nonetheless, Hobbes would argue that the sovereign is to rule as seen fit, as the people have entrusted the sovereign with absolute authority and therefore, never is it just for the people to take up arms against the sovereign, and an individual who feels threatened by the sovereign doesn’t belong in the commonwealth. Any form of Violence in a civic state is contradictory of the purpose of the state, and therefore a return to the state of …show more content…
Finally, in specific regards to the current United states, the second amendment was initially introduced by a previous sovereign and thus, regardless of the aforementioned argument, any legislature implemented through the authority of the sovereign as a means of protection is seen as necessary. Though, if the current sovereign sees this amendment to be unnecessary, Hobbes would suggest one to respect the fact. If a republican were to argue, “the government is trying to take our gun.” Hobbes would likely argue, “It’s for your own
Evaluating the topic of discussion thought Hobbesian perspective, the hypothetical scenario of a civic uprise against a tyrannical sovereign a temporary return to the state of nature becoming the …show more content…
This law in itself mirrors the case of motion in the state of nature. Open carry is intended as a means of protection , therefore undermining the sovereign capability to honor the authority given to them, thus, the perpetual fear driving one to feel the need carry a firearm suggest that the individual may as well willingly return to the state of nature if the immediate sense of danger is so pronounced. However, If the people are forced to protect themselves from the sovereign, this may indicate that the commonwealth has already fallen back into the state of nature. Nonetheless, Hobbes would argue that the sovereign is to rule as seen fit, as the people have entrusted the sovereign with absolute authority and therefore, never is it just for the people to take up arms against the sovereign, and an individual who feels threatened by the sovereign doesn’t belong in the commonwealth. Any form of Violence in a civic state is contradictory of the purpose of the state, and therefore a return to the state of …show more content…
Finally, in specific regards to the current United states, the second amendment was initially introduced by a previous sovereign and thus, regardless of the aforementioned argument, any legislature implemented through the authority of the sovereign as a means of protection is seen as necessary. Though, if the current sovereign sees this amendment to be unnecessary, Hobbes would suggest one to respect the fact. If a republican were to argue, “the government is trying to take our gun.” Hobbes would likely argue, “It’s for your own