NOTE: Students must first post in the forum before being able to view other students posts. Students who submit a blank initial post will receive an automatic 15% penalty.
DIRECTIONS: You will submit a total of 5 separate posts for this unit.
1) Answer any THREE of the questions listed below. You must pick one question from each of the three assigned chapters.The three question response posts must have a minimum of 200 wordseachand must directly quote and properly cite (using APA format) from the assigned textbook readings.I expect substantive and scholarly posts which evince an understanding of the complex chapter readings. Failure to meet the above criteria will result in a point deduction.
2)Post TWOsubstantiveresponses to other students’ posts.The response posts must be between 100 and 150 wordseach. NOTE: The goal of the discussion board is not simply to say “I agree with you” and add a short sentence or two, but rather to carry the discussion forward by asking follow up questions or expanding on key course concepts so as to engage in a meaningful and constructivedialoguewith fellow students.
PLEASE MAKE SURE TO SUBMIT5 SEPARATE POSTS: DO NOT ANSWER MORE THAN ONE QUESTION IN A SINGLE POST.
Chapter 4: Epicurus
1. Although Epicurus is a hedonist, he is clearly opposed to vulgar hedonism. Can you find additional arguments for or against the theory of vulgar hedonism? Is it not terribly judgmental for us to claim that some pleasures are higher or lower than others? Shouldnt we just tolerate and accept differences of opinion in this area? Or does it make more sense to argue that there is a natural hierarchy of pleasures and pains?
2. Epicurus believes that fear of divine retribution is the greatest source of fear and anxiety. Do you agree with this assessment? Why or why not?
3. Epicurus argues that the best and happiest way of life is one in which one seeks to satisfy on the most basic, natural and necessary desires. Do you agree that embracing such a life of simplicity (no honor, fame, luxury or wealth) is really more conducive to happiness and tranquility than trying to keep up with the Joneses? If you said yes, then are you already taking measures to live in the Epicurean manner?
Chapter 5: St. Thomas Aquinas
4. How would St. Thomas defend himself (if, indeed, such a defense is possible) against the charge of being homophobic (a word that did not exist in his time, but which is fairly common today)? Would you find his defense plausible? Why or why not?
5. If one is not at all religious, is it still possible to take St. Thomas natural law principle seriously? Could it still be relied upon as a guide to living well? Explain.
Chapter 6: Thomas Hobbes
6. Do you think that being self-interested is a bad thing? If so, why? If not, why not?
7. Compare Christs Golden Rule with Hobbes Golden Rule. Which do you think is more effective in getting people to obey the laws, and why?
8. Do you agree with Hobbes that our natural condition is one of lawlessness and violence? How do you think you would behave if you knew you could get away with whatever you wanted to? Do we only obey the laws out of fear of punishment?
NO LATE DB POSTS ACCEPTED. Chapter -4
Epicurus begins his exposition ofhedonismwith a particularcosmologythat is, with a comprehensive and rational account of the ultimate nature of thecosmos, or universe. The cosmology we speak of is calledatomism, which comes from the ancient Greek wordatomos, meaning uncuttable or indivisible. According to atomism, the universe (and everything in it) is composed of an infinite number of atoms combining and separating in the infinite void.Atoms are the most basic building blocks of reality.They are eternalthey are neither created nor can they ever be destroyed. Thus it makes no sense to ask where did the atoms come from? or why does anything exist at all? Atoms do not come from anywhere, since they have always existed and always will exist.
Epicurus believes that atomism is the most common-sense approach to understanding reality. The fact that there are only material things, or bodies, is confirmed by the experience of all men. It impossible, he says, to even conceive of anything besides bodies and the empty space (void) through which those bodies move. Now it is true that many people believe inincorporeal(i.e., non-bodily) souls, not to mention angels and gods. But Epicurus finds this belief rather silly, since our senses do not allow us to perceive anything that is not a body. In fact, even when we try to imagine angels and gods, we invest them with a humanshapeorform, as if they were some kind ofspiritual body, which is a contradiction in terms (because to be a real, existing being, it must have the power of acting and being acted upon, and only corporeal beings are capable of this). No, says Epicurus,the only real beings are material things. (From this observation he makes the logical deduction that if you divide bodies into halves you will at some point reach a body that is so simple that it can no longer be divided into anything smallerthis is theatom.) Everything else (immaterial gods, souls, angels, demons, spirits, etc.) is the product of our vivid imaginations. The sooner we realize this, the better off we will all be.
There are two types of bodies:compounds, which are clusters of two or more atoms, and then the actualatomsout of which those compounds are formed. As we pointed out already, the atoms are indestructible. The constellations of atoms, or compounds, on the other hand, arenotindestructible: at some point they will cease to existasparticular compounds. Let us use you as an example: You, as a human being, are a highly complex bundle of perhaps trillions of atoms arranged in a particular configuration. But you have not always been such as you are now. At some point you did not exist: the atoms that now make up your body existed somewhere else in nature (perhaps in the plants and animals your parents used for food around the time of your conception). Then you were born. You went through childhood and adolescence, and now you are in adulthood. Eventually you will grow old, whither, and die, at which point the atoms that make up your body will disperse back into nature (worms will nibble away at your rotting corpse, then birds will consume the worms, and scavengers will consume the birds when they die, and so on). But what remains constant throughout this perpetual cycle of life and death is the eternal, indestructible atoms which make up the multiplicity of compound bodies inhabiting the natural world.
According to atomism, compounds are formed when atoms collide against one another and become hooked with one or more atoms to form a cluster. Those same clusters then combine with others to produce the enormous variety of substances we encounter in the worldfrom inanimate objects, such as rocks and minerals, all the way up to the wide gamut of animal species, including human beings. Ultimately, the many worlds that make up the cosmos, and even the cosmos itself, owe their existence to the chance collisions of an infinite number of atoms.
Because Epicurus is an atomist, he regards every aspect of the human being, including the soul, as having acorporeal(or bodily) nature. Now what precisely, you might ask, is the human soul? According to Epicurus, thesoulis the power or faculty in us that makes possible not only sensation (hearing, sight, touch, smell, taste), but also thought itself, or reason. More generally, the soul is a kind of life force that animates (from the Latinanima, meaning soul) otherwise lifeless bodies. In other words, it is the soul that distinguishes living from non-living things. If your soul were to vanish all of a sudden, you would be reduced to a lifeless corpse.
Epicurus claims that the soul, just like the body, is composed of atoms. But whereas the human body is composed of densely packed clusters of relatively large, rough atoms, the soul is composed of exceedingly fine and smooth atoms, resembling wind with a certain admixture of heat. The soul atoms suffuse the entire bodily structure, from the top of the head to the tips of the toes and everything in between. Think of the human being as a wet sponge: the sponge itself is the bodily structure (bones, tendons, tissues, organs, etc.) and the water within the sponge would be the soul atoms diffused throughout the body. Although the soul may be the organ of all perception and thought, it is important to recognize that the soul atoms can only make sensation possible when working in and through the rest of the body. In other words, the body by itself is incapable of producing sensation. The same holds true with respect to the soul atoms: both soul and body need to be working together if there is to be sensation.
This has major implications for Epicurus: forifdeath means the dissolution of the human body, which in turn involves the dispersal of the soul atoms,thenthere is no possibility of sensationpost mortem. If Epicurus is right, then there is no afterlife, because when we die we lose consciousness forever. Death is deprivation of sensation, and nothing more. We no longer have to worry about going to Hell (nor can we anticipate going to Heaven, for that matter). For Epicurus, as we will see, this realization becomes the cornerstone of the highest state of being of which humans are capable: tranquility of soul.
Sections 3 and 4:
In these sections Epicurus seeks to repudiatedivine providence, which refers to the gods sovereign guidance and control of the cosmos. More specifically, divine providence is the belief that the gods sustain the natural order of the universe as well as intervene in human affairs by way of dispensing punishments and rewards both in this life and the next. According to Epicurus, the belief in divine retribution in some hellish afterlife is a source of the greatest fear and anxiety that a human being can experience, a fear which Epicurean philosophy is at great pains to dispel. As we saw in section 2, the atomistic cosmology makes an afterlife impossible: death is deprivation of sensation. In other words, when you die, your soul atoms disperse and you are no longer capable of having any kind of perception, feeling, or awareness. Death is like being in a deep, dreamless, eternal sleep. There is, therefore, no prospect of hell to spend your days agonizing over. The realization that death is nothing at all to fear is supposed to give you a sense of calm,serenity, and tranquility.
Epicurus then attacks the notion of divine providence from another angle: it makes absolutely no sense, he argues, to believe that the gods govern the motions of the heavenly bodies (or that those heavenly bodies are themselves divine and hence move themselves) because no being that is trulydivine(and thereforeperfect, complete, independentandself-sufficient) would ever take the trouble to engage in any of these activities, for trouble and care and anger and kindness are not consistent with a life of blessedness, but these things come to pass where there is weakness and fear and dependence on neighbors. The gods are by definitionimmortal, and thus they are neither weak nor do they depend on others for anything. Thus, to ascribe providential care to the gods is contrary to the gods perfection and blessedness. It is to speak of the gods as if they weremortallike us. Not only is the belief in divine providence incorrect, but when it takes the form of hellfire and damnation in the afterlife, it becomes the cause of the greatest disturbance in mens souls, for which Epicurean philosophy is the cure.
This is the clearest statement of the school of thought known ashedonism, or the view that the best life is one which is dedicated entirely to the pursuit ofpleasure. According to this view, the good is identical with pleasure, and evil withpain. Now there are two basic kinds of hedonism, what one may call avulgar hedonismand a more sophisticated,Epicurean hedonism. The former kind sees the pleasures of food, drink, and sex as the most choice-worthy goods in life. The latter recognizes that the pursuit of bodily gratifications will leave you with a surplus of pain in the long run. The glutton, the drunkard, and the sex addict all pursue bodily pleasures which are short but intense, yet they leave one bloated, hung-over, and dissipated. The prudent man always takes action with an eye to the future, to the long-term pleasure. Indeed, not every pleasure is to be chosen, just as not every pain is to be avoided.Prudencedictates that some pleasures, like drunkenness, ought to be avoided, just as some pains, like exercise, ought to be chosen. Only in this way can one achieve overall well-being.
For Epicurus, the best, happiest, and most satisfying way for a human being to live is, in his own words, to refer all choice and avoidance to the health of the body and the souls freedom from disturbance As we discussed earlier, the latter aim is achieved through knowledge of the cosmic order (i.e., atomism), which teaches us that death is the end of sensation, and hence that there is no afterlife in which we will be punished by wrathful gods. No less important than tranquility of soul is bodily health. It goes without saying that people with healthy bodies experience far less pain and discomfort than people with unhealthy bodies. Our goal, then, should be to live in accordance with nature. But what does this mean? Epicurus classifies the different types of desires in the following way:
Necessary for happiness
Necessary for repose of the body
Necessary for survival
Merely natural desires
Avoid these completely
There are three possible causes of human misery:
2. vain desires (i.e., desires that do not fulfill any natural human need) and
3. unbridled desire.
One avoidsfearby recognizing ones own mortality. One avoids vain and unbridled desire by seeking to satisfyonlythose desires that are natural and necessary, meaning those desires which give rise to a sense of pain if they are not satisfied. We are talking about eliminatingalldesires which do not involve satisfying the most basic needs of the human organism (hydration, nourishment, sleep, protection from the elements, etc.). The goal is tosimplify your life, as well as tobecome independent in all things. We live in an age when the good life is envisioned by many as a quest to accumulate as much stuff as possiblea quest that does not cease until we expire. For Epicurus, this is the direct opposite of what a truly good and happy life requires. It will only add unlimited stress and anxiety, where the goal ought to be simplicity, tranquility, self-sufficiency and independence.
Epicurus was an early proponent ofsocial contract theory, according to which justice is a pledge of mutual advantage not to harm or be harmed.Justice, like the other virtues, is valued not for its own sake, but rather for its usefulness in creating the conditions for human flourishing within a community.
The purpose of living in a society governed by laws is to protect members of that society from being harmed so that they may freely go about pursuing happiness. For this reason, laws that do not promote the common advantage are rightly deemed unjust. Of course, it is important to recognize that any genuine Epicurean would be very much disinclined to break his citys laws, and this for three reasons: 1) Because he knows how to reason correctly about his needs, he will not be tempted to engage in criminal activity for the sake of accumulating wealth, luxuries, or political power, preferring instead to lead a peaceful, quiet existence. 2) As one who values serenity above all else, he will avoid anything that will bring him fear oranxiety, and lawbreakers are always fearful of being caught and punished. Lastly, he will have a healthy respect for law and order, seeing in them the necessary precondition for his own pursuit of the good life. So it is that thepragmatic, self-interested Epicurean has no real incentive to commit injustice. Nevertheless, because not every member of society will embody the sober, restrained temperament of the Epicurean, there will always have to be in place a penal system to help restrain the brutish impulses and unbridled appetites of the vulgar.
Sections 9 and 10:
The surest way to provide for ones safety and security, Epicurus tells us, is to escape the hustle and bustle of city life, with its myriad stresses and dangers, choosing instead to retire with a few like-minded friends to a simple, quiet life in the country.
Although there is no security against death, we can still experience deep satisfaction during the tiny interval we are given on this Earth by living simply and naturally, contemplating the cosmic order, and sharing the blessings of friendship.
St. Thomas Aquinas
Treatise on Law
According to St. Thomas, the definition oflawmay be rendered thus: It is nothing else than an ordinance of reason for the common good, made by him who has care of the community, and promulgated. Let us briefly explore each of these four aspects of law.
1. Law is an ordinance of reason.
For St. Thomas, it is the role of reason, first, to apprehend the good and, second, to determine the most appropriate means to secure the good. Law is that which induces man to act or refrain from acting in such a way as to achieve the practical reasons primary object, namely the good.
2. The law is always something directed to the common good.
The ultimate end or goal of human life is happiness, and consequently the law must pertain first and foremost to the attainment of this end. The purpose of law, therefore, is to make human beings virtuous and good, and this it accomplishes by directing human actions in such a way as to conduce to virtue as well as by incentivizing law abidingness through the fear of punishment. With respect to this latter, St. Thomas makes the following psychological insight: From becoming accustomed to avoid evil and fulfill what is good, through fear of punishment, one is sometimes led on to do so likewise, with delight and of one’s own accord. Accordingly, law, even by punishing, leads men on to being good. Thus the threat of punishment or punishment itself seeks not merely to deter evil acts but also to help habituate human beings to virtue.
Further, it is absolutely crucial to recognize that law isnotthe practical reason ordering what the individual must do with a view to his own private good simply, but rather it is the practical reason ordering what the individual must do with a view to the good of the whole community of which he is but a member: since every part is ordained to the whole, as imperfect to perfect; and since one man is a part of the perfect community,2 the law must needs regard properly the relationship to universal happiness.
3. The law is made by him who has care of the community.
The point here is simply that the making of a law, which by definition exists for the sake of the common good, belongs to whoever is entrusted with the care of the whole people (i.e., a monarch, or a democratic assembly, etc.). For this reason it is absolutely essential that the leader(s) of a community be virtuous, for otherwise their edicts will not be ordinances of reason but of sin and error, not aimed at the common good, and thus they will not have the status of binding law, but rather of legislative tyranny.
4. The law must be promulgated.
In order for a law to be binding and legitimate, it must be promulgated, or made known to those for whom it is intended. This is so for the obvious reason that one cannot willfully obey a law if one is unaware of its existence.
The four kinds of law
St. Thomas enumerates four distinct types of law. Let us briefly discuss each one, going from highest to lowest.
1. Eternal law.
The eternal law is for St. Thomas synonymous with the Divine Reason, or Gods providential
governance of the universe, which moves all beings according to their several ends in subordination to the end or goal of the entire universe. Consider here St. Thomas fifth way of demonstrating Gods existence, known to modern scholars as the argument from design:
We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God (Summa TheologiaeIa, q. 2, a. 3).
In other words, inanimate bodies participate in the eternal law by acting in certain ways by natural necessity, that is, because they cannot act contrary to their God-give nature according to which they are directed to their appropriate end (this would encompass all of the scientific laws which govern the whole of the physical/natural world). Animals, on the other hand, participate (however unconsciously) in the eternal law by being governed by instinct. Human beings, however, because they are endowed with intelligence, participate in the eternal lawthroughthe natural law (about which more below).
2. Divine Law.
According to St. Thomas, man is directed toward an end (salvation and eternal life) the knowledge of which surpasses the grasp of his reason. That is, knowledge of mans highest good liesbeyondthe capacity of imperfect human reason. For this reason, St. Thomas argues, God saw fit torevealthis truth to us via sacred scripture (i.e., the Biblical revelation). Divine law is therefore needed to teach things that human reason insufficiently understands. In addition, whereas human law only addresses actions, not intent, and since human law is incapable of judging intent (the interior movements of the soul, which constitute sin), Divine law is therefore necessaryall is under the watchful eye of God
3. Natural law.
God has endowed mankind with a determinatenatureby virtue of which human beings exhibit certain basic inclinations that, taken together, not only constitute our humanity and thereby distinguish us from all other creatures, but also direct us toward those objects that, in accordance with Gods design, aregoodfor us. Morality is thus founded on these natural inclinations as well as on the ability of reason to determine what moral prescriptions ought to be followed based on these inclinations. The first and most universal moral prescription is to do good and avoid evil, which is identical to seek out and acquire those goods toward which you are naturally inclined, and avoid anything that is destructive thereof. This, in brief, is the recipe for the good life, according to St. Thomas.
Let us quickly go through each of the four
natural inclinations, from lowest to highest.
Like all living things, the human being endeavorsandoughtto endeavorwith all his might to preserve his life. Suicide, as a direct violation of this inclination, is therefore evil.
1. Procreation and rearing of offspring.
Like other animals, human beings are naturally inclined to mate and care for their young. The family unit is thus the natural expression of this basic inclination. Any activity or manner of living that actively thwarts these desires would be deemed evil, or contrary to nature (which amount to the same thing for St. Thomas).
1. To live in society.
St. Thomas (following Aristotle) argues that man is by nature a political being, i.e., that he cannot attain virtue and happiness in isolation from a political community. Because human beings cannot thrive absent mutually beneficial or collaborative associations, it is imperative that men refrain from injuring those with whom they are called to live.
1. To know the truth about God.
The human being is by nature a creature endowed with intelligence, and thus he is inclined to desire knowledge, particularly about those things that are necessary for the right ordering of his life (i.e., God). As Aristotle said over sixteen centuries earlier, All men by nature desire to know. Correlatively, one must avoid ignorance and do what one can to dispel it.
4. Human law.
Human law has specifically to do with determining ways ofapplyingnatural law. Whereas the precepts of the natural law may not vary, their implementation certainly does. Because there is in the world such a multiplicity of social customs, institutions, mores, climates, histories, topographies, and cultures, St. Thomas believes that different societies will frame different codes of law.
Human law is supposed to proceed from natural law, that is, it should be rational, and it should further fulfill the other three requirements of law (i.e., it must be for the sake of the common good, made by him who has care of the community, and promulgated). Any man made law that deviates from these requirements is not strictly speaking a valid law.
Providence refers to a rational plan according to which things are directed toward an end.
Many commentators list them as three (collapsing C and D into one), but for the sake of clarity I will list them as four.
Consider how The Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. drew on the logical consequences of Thomistic natural law theory in hisLetter from Birmingham Jail, in which he criticizes segregation laws on the grounds that they degrade human personality by creating a false sense of superiority in the segregator no less than a false sense of inferiority in the segregated.
Among animals there are two basic types of motions: vital and animal. The former involve basic functions of which we are normally not aware, such as breathing and the circulation of the blood. The animal or voluntary motions, on the other hand, involve actions such as walking, speaking, and striking. These motions originate in theimagination, or what Hobbes calls endeavor.
There are two types of endeavor: 1)appetiteordesirecauses us to gravitate toward an object that we find pleasing, whereas 2)aversionforces us to withdraw from something which may give us pain. For Hobbes,loverefers to the objects of appetite or desire, whereas we are said tohatethose things to which we are averse.
Regarding appetites and aversions, some are natural, such as hunger and the impulse to avoid of pain, while others are acquired from experience. But because mans constitution is constantly changing, Hobbes argues, it is impossible that all the same things should always cause in him the same appetites, and aversions: much less can all men consent, in the desire of almost any one and the same object.
According to Hobbes, our use of the terms Good and Evil simply reflects our desire for (good) or aversion to (evil) a given object. Good and evil, in other words, have no significance independent of our subjective valuations, there being nothing simply and absolutely so; nor any common rule of good and evil, to be taken from the nature of the objects themselves. Good and evil are thereforerelative(to the individual), notabsolute. Since not all men will desire, or have an aversion to, the same object (because not all men are pleased or displeased by the exact same things), it stands to reason that not everyone will agree that the same object is good or evilwith the following exceptions: according to Hobbes we canallagree that self-preservation and pleasure aregood, and that death (in particular, violent death) isbad.
Hobbes was one of the first thinkers to argue in favor of natural equality: while some men are manifestly of quicker mind or stronger body than others, yet when all is reckoned together, the difference between man and man is not so considerable such that one man may claim a natural superiority over others. When it comes to the faculties of the mind, Hobbes finds yet a greater equality amongst men, than that of strength.Prudence, for example, is but experience; which equal time, equally bestows on all men, in those things they equally apply themselves unto.Vanityis the source of our mistaken belief in our own superior wisdom.
From this equality of ability, arises equality of hope in the attaining of our ends. It is this equality of hope which gives rise to all the violence and instability of thestate of nature, which is mankinds natural condition.Scarcityis one of the defining features of the state of nature: because there are not enough resources available to satisfy human needs, men enter into violent competition in order to acquire those scarce goods. Even if an invader comes prepared with forces united, to dispossess, and deprive someone not only of the fruit of his labor, but also of his life, or liberty, he in turn will be in the like danger of another. There isnosecurity in the state of nature because there are no private property rights, to say nothing of a governing body to defend such rights.
The surest means of securing oneself (short of erecting acommonwealth), Hobbes remarks, is for force, or wiles, to master the persons of all men he can, so long, till he see no other power great enough to endanger him In other words, one would have to either kill or otherwise enslaveeverybody else. Clearly that is not exactly a viable option. As Hobbes will point out in subsequent sections, the only escape from the horrors of our natural condition is to leave the state of nature entirely by the establishment of a civil society.
Hobbes identifies three principal sources of human conflict: 1)competitionfor scarce goods 2)diffidence, or the mutual sense of insecurity or vulnerability to attack which impels us to strike preemptively in order to gain the upper hand in the struggle for survival, and lastly 3)glory, the quest for immortal fame, perhaps the scarcest of goods and hence an object of bloodthirsty competition.
Whenever men live outside the bounds of civil society, and thus without the restraints of law and order, they are in a condition of war in which every man is enemy to every man. In such unstable condition, all the appurtenances of civilized life are conspicuously absent: there is no place for industry, as property rights are non-existent; no agriculture; no navigation or international trade; no spacious and convenient dwellings; no technology or labor-saving devices; no knowledge of the earth; no account of time; no fine arts and letters; no agreeable social relations; and, which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. Life in Hobbes state of nature, to put it bluntly, ishell on earth.
According to Hobbes, human beings enter into societynotout of mutual goodwill or fellow feeling, but out of the mutualfearthey have of each other, a fear consisting partly in the natural equality of men, partly in their mutual will of hurting. What makes us all equals in the final analysis is our equal susceptibility to violent death; Self-preservation thus becomes the individuals highest priority. But is not theselfishdesire to preserve ones life at all costs a thing to be discouraged? Far from it, says Hobbes:
[T]o have a care of ones self is so far from being a matter scornfully to be looked upon, that one has neither the power nor wish to have done otherwise. For every man is desirous of what is good for him, and shuns what is evil, but chiefly the chiefest of natural evils, which is death; and this he doth by a certain impulsion of nature, no less than that whereby a stone moves downward.
Hobbes here lays the groundwork for his theory of natural rights, foremost among which is the right to self-preservation by any means necessary: since every man hath a right to preserve himself, he must also be allowed a rightto use all the means, and do all the actions, without which he cannot preserve himself. Thus in the state of nature, to have all, and do all, is lawful for all, meaning that men are entirely free to do whatever reason requires (killing, stealing, enslaving, pillaging, etc.,) for the purposes of survival and avoidance of pain: profit is the measure of right.
Sections 6 and 7:
Anticipating the objections against selfish and exploitative action in the state of nature, Hobbes challenges us to