Practice Questions Flashcards
(5 cards)
✅ Q1: Why must the sovereign’s power be absolute and undivided?
🌟 What You Did Well:
You clearly understand the logic of indivisibility: obedience depends on having one unchallengeable source of authority.
You correctly identified the link between divided power and a return to the state of nature.
You used Hobbesian language like “state of nature” and “covenant.”
🔧 Suggestions for Improvement:
Use key Hobbesian phrasing:
Use the phrase: “where power is divided, the union is dissolved” (Ch. 18).
Refer to the sovereign as the “soul of the Leviathan”, to show familiarity with Leviathan’s imagery.
Clarify the flow slightly:
Second paragraph is a bit repetitive — refine the chain of reasoning:
“If authority is divisible, people might appeal to competing sources of law. This creates conflict, weakens obedience, and risks a return to the state of nature.”
Minor phrasing: “bypass the authority” → maybe say “challenge” or “dispute.”
✅ Q2: Does Hobbes succeed in reconciling liberty with political obligation?
🌟 What You Did Well:
You accurately recall the three causes of conflict (scarcity, mistrust, glory) → this shows deep understanding.
You capture Hobbes’ view that freedom = security, not freedom from interference.
You draw a sharp contrast between the illusion of freedom in the state of nature and the real stability under sovereign law.
Beautiful final sentence that connects to Rousseau’s positive liberty.
🔧 Suggestions for Improvement:
Focus on the exact concept of liberty:
Hobbes defines liberty as the absence of external impediments — you can improve your analysis by stating this formally.
Note that political obligation is not opposed to liberty for Hobbes, because law enables free action within secure bounds.
Clean up the paragraph structure:
Paragraph 2 does a lot of heavy lifting — consider splitting where you explain why freedom in the state of nature is fake.
Support with a quotation if you can:
E.g., “Covenants without the sword are but words.”
✅ Q3: Can a Hobbesian sovereign ever be unjust to the people?
🌟 What You Did Well:
You clearly explain the core idea: justice only exists under law, and the sovereign makes the law, so the sovereign can’t break it.
You correctly say the sovereign is not party to the contract.
You mention no higher authority — an excellent, important point.
🔧 Suggestions for Improvement:
Improve structure and clarity:
Make your central claim clearer in the first sentence. E.g.:
“The Hobbesian sovereign cannot act unjustly, because justice is defined by the laws they create.”
Use textual precision:
Reference Ch. 18: “Nothing the sovereign does can be unjust, for he is not subject to the covenant.”
Tighten this sentence:
“This is not possible however since…” ← Split into two: one sentence about potential accountability, the second to assert that this doesn’t apply to Hobbes’ absolute sovereign.
✅ Q4: Key strengths and weaknesses of Hobbes’ theory
🌟 What You Did Well:
Excellent grasp of why Hobbes’ theory appeals — its ability to resolve instability.
You clearly articulate a strong critique: no clear limit on the sovereign, blurred line between strength and tyranny.
You show independent thinking: Hobbes doesn’t tell us what to do when the sovereign is “weak.”
🔧 Suggestions for Improvement:
Define strength/weakness in Hobbes’ terms:
Say: Hobbes calls a weak sovereign one who fails to prevent civil war, not one who lacks moral limits.
Clarify the point about tyranny:
Try: “Hobbes claims tyranny is not a meaningful concept — if a sovereign maintains peace, it is legitimate. But in practice, this allows oppressive rule without recourse.”
Tighten phrasing:
E.g., “little room to choice” → “little room for citizens to shape the kind of government they live under.”
🧠 Section B: Consequentialist Critique of Locke & Rousseau
Critics: Hume & Bentham
Focus: Do Locke and Rousseau’s theories actually work in practice? Do they bring about good outcomes?
🔹 LOCKE — Target: Consent & Tacit Consent
🔸 What Locke Says:
Government is legit if people consent.
Living in a country = tacit consent.
Government must protect natural rights (life, liberty, property).
🔸 HUME’s Critique of Locke:
Most people can’t leave their country → no real choice = no real consent.
Living somewhere doesn’t mean you agreed to everything.
Social contract is a made-up story — real governments come from force or habit.
🔸 BENTHAM’s Critique of Locke:
Consent doesn’t matter if the government doesn’t improve people’s lives.
What matters is utility — happiness, peace, order.
Promises don’t justify anything if they lead to bad consequences.
🔹 ROUSSEAU — Target: General Will & Freedom
🔸 What Rousseau Says:
You’re free if you follow the general will — even if forced.
Laws are legit if they express the common good.
People give up everything in the social contract, but gain moral liberty.
🔸 HUME’s Critique of Rousseau:
People don’t really agree on a general will — especially in big, diverse countries.
It’s dangerous to assume a majority vote = truth or justice.
🔸 BENTHAM’s Critique of Rousseau:
“Forced to be free” sounds nice, but can lead to oppression.
If the government causes more harm than good, it should be resisted — even if it claims to be enforcing the general will.
What matters is outcomes, not ideas.
