The class last week and tonight has had me thinking a lot
about the idea of self preservation and how that plays a larger role in Hobbes
as well as the world of International Relations. Professor Jackson talked about one of the ambiguities
found in Hobbes is the idea that people reserve no rights except the right of
self preservation. To me, this seems like self preservation can always trump
the sovereign and power of the commonwealth, especially if the commonwealth is
not protecting its people- which is one thing that allows people to leave the
commonwealth, or break the contract. It is reasonable to me that self
preservation is as important on an individual level as the role it plays for
states on the international scale.
We talked a lot about this in class today, referencing the
theory/realistic ways state affairs are currently handled. I think Kyle also
brings up an interesting point in his blog post from May 9th “Reason,
Coercion and Crimea” when he quotes an article that says “the US and EU are not
willing to go to war over Ukraine”. It appears that self preservation is again overruling
the international organizations. There are also a lot of underlying variables
that influence this.
This is more something that I keep thinking about from out
class discussion today and something I will continue to think about as we
explore other thinkers and modern case studies. I will keep in mind how
coercion and reason can affect one’s self preservation throughout this course.
I also found the concept of self-preservation within Hobbes a little ambiguous. For me, chapter XXI helped clear up some of Hobbes ideas behind self-preservation and cases in which subjects might be absolved of their obligation to the sovereign. It seems as though Hobbes considers the context of self-preservation important, for example, a subject may refuse to go to war on the principle of self-preservation, but may nevertheless be sentenced to death for refusing the sovereign. Subjects are not bound to injure themselves if commanded to do so by a sovereign, but this order is still considered "just." Overall, Hobbes' idea that the sovereign is always looking out for the good of the commonwealth seems to predicate that there is no instance in which subjects are not being protected, regardless of harm.
ReplyDelete