Socrates Argument In Favour Of The Covenant For Hobbes

not necessary for a covenant that would restrict the opinions of people, since people only reason in terms of morals, and moral tend to be the values of the individuals of society. Hobbes believes that the only way to ensure order in society is for the covenant to be established, and only through the covenant can there be order. The covenant for Hobbes is justice and order, since it was a transfer of rights that ended the constant war between individuals, by having them transfer some of their rights in return for security of one’s life. The transfer of rights included things like having a power dictate the laws, and the individual has no say in this, and cannot question it in any fashion. The covenant was established to reduce violence,
and the reduction of violence, was believed to occur by preventing individuals power to govern. For Hobbes, individuals will eventually resort to force to meet their ends, and this would cause for there to be a loss of order. King and Socrates on the other hand believe that this is not the case, and that one can question the laws or other institutions, without jeopardizing order, and these two examples would show how the covenant is not the only way to maintain order. King argued in the letter a variety of points, and one of them was how immoral the laws that maintained segregation were. He called for a fight against these laws, but he did not resort to violence. Hobbes assumes that individuals would use force but as King said, “the way of nonviolence became an integral part of our struggle” (411). King believed that it is unfair for individual to assume that peaceful requests of change may precipitate violence, as Hobbes would argue, King made a comparison to illustrate his point by saying, “isn’t this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery” (410)? By using this analogy King attacks Hobbes’ thinking by questioning Hobbes’ logic, which it is not sufficient enough to assume that requests for change, especially in terms of fighting against unjust laws, would lead to violence. King also throughout his struggle for change through nonviolent means had always stated that they would abide by the laws of society. Laws are an integral base for order, and this is one of the reason why Hobbes believed that individuals were obliged, without questioning them, to obey. King was able to preserve order by questioning these unjust laws, but King also stated “In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationists, that would lead to anarchy” (409). King knew the importance of order, and he disproved components of the covenant that prevented questioning laws, which was in place to maintain order. Socrates was yet another person that would also be able to question the law, but also maintain order.
Socrates believed that justice entailed things like freedom of speech, and this point was illustrated in the Apology. The first sentence in this, was mentioning the right he had to speak to defend himself. As unjust as the Athenians were, who imprisoned him for what they called corrupting the youth, with the teaching of his ideas that were contrary to Athenian tradition, he maintained order. In Crito, Socrates was given the opportunity to escape prison, and he decided to remain and embraced getting executed as well. Socrates stated, “You must either persuade it or obey its orders, and endure in silence whatever it instructs you to endure” (51). This statement shows that the order must be kept, and Socrates kept the order, when he decided not to run away. For Socrates, one can question the laws or at times break them if one feels that they are unjust. In doing that, one must still follow the order placed in society, and this again is a challenge to Hobbes by stating one can question laws and claim that they are unjust without ruining the order. King also allowed for unjust laws to be broken under the condition of maintaining order, “One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty” (410). Maintaining the order as King and Socrates had done also lead to actually causing for there to be change since, as King stated, “to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law” (410). Fighting against unjust laws does not just not jeopardize order as Hobbes implies, but actually need to be done in a system of order. Whereby order is maintained, so that through this order laws would be
changed. Thomas Hobbes had stated that without sovereignties men live in the state of nature, and this state was plagued by individuals that were constantly at war with each other. It is the characteristics of humans and natural laws, which mandated the formation of the covenant. This covenant was that the people would establish a common power to rule over them, and the people would give up their rights to govern themselves to be able to live in a state of safety. Hobbes argues that the only way a peaceful and safe state exists is thought the covenant. King and Socrates would actually prove to be the biggest critics of this system, and prove that the covenant is not necessary to maintain order.