David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Review of Metaphysics 62 (3):551-574 (2009)
This paper maintains that Hobbes grounds right and obligation in self-interest, and opposes a recent argument that for Hobbes obligation is grounded in the agent’s practical deliberation. In addition, it maintains that for Leibniz right and obligation are grounded in the moral-rational capacity of persons, but not in self-interest. It proceeds by distinguishing among the various senses of jus or “right,” and contrasting Hobbes’s and Leibniz’s understanding of the term—though both see it as a kind of freedom they differ fundamentally as to its kind. The little explored treatment of “right” that appears in Leibniz’s New Method for the Learning and Teaching of Jurisprudence is discussed in the course of the article. In conclusion, the article finds that for Leibniz, obligations are grounded in one’s moral capacity. One ought not to harm others because one is a rational being among others who hold the same rights and obligations. For Hobbes, obligations are grounded in self-preservation and maintained by external coercion. For Leibniz, right is the possibility of doing what is just, maintaining the rights and obligations of others; while for Hobbes, right is a problem for doing what is just—a problem for self-interested agents that requires an external solution
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Stewart Duncan (2010). Leibniz on Hobbes's Materialism. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 41 (1):11-18.
Mark Peacock (2010). Obligation and Advantage in Hobbes' Leviathan. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 40 (3):433-458.
Rosamond Rhodes (2010). Taking Hobbes at His Word: Comments on Morality in the Philosophy of Thomas Hobbes by S.A. Lloyd. Hobbes Studies 23 (2):170-179.
Matthias Kiesselbach (2010). Hobbes's Struggle with Contractual Obligation. On the Status of the Laws of Nature in Hobbes's Work. Hobbes Studies 23 (2):105-123.
James E. Napier (1992). Hobbes. Social Philosophy Today 7:283-297.
Stewart Duncan (forthcoming). Hobbes, Universal Names, and Nominalism. In Stefano Di Bella & Tad M. Schmaltz (eds.), Universals in Modern Philosophy. Oxford University Press
Brandon C. Look (2008). Leibniz's Modal Metaphysics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Eleanor Curran (2002). Hobbes's Theory of Rights – a Modern Interest Theory. Journal of Ethics 6 (1):63-86.
Rosamond Rhodes (2002). Obligation and Assent in Hobbes's Moral Philosophy. Hobbes Studies 15 (1):45-67.
Eleanor Curran (2010). Blinded by the Light of Hohfeld: Hobbes's Notion of Liberty. Jurisprudence 1 (1):85-104.
Thomas M. Hughes (2012). Is Political Obligation Necessary for Obedience? Hobbes on Hostility, War and Obligation. Teoria Politica 2:77-99.
Daniel Eggers (2009). Liberty and Contractual Obligation in Hobbes. Hobbes Studies 22 (1):70-103.
David P. Gauthier (1969). I. Yet Another Hobbes. Inquiry 12 (1-4):449-465.
Paul Lodge (2002). Leibniz, Bayle, and Locke on Faith and Reason. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 76 (4):575-600.
Added to index2012-03-18
Total downloads20 ( #205,845 of 1,937,442 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #456,797 of 1,937,442 )
How can I increase my downloads?