Hobbes-Jhstice

Philosophy Paper Assignment: Hobbes’ Leviathan (Chapter 13) Argument Reconstruction and Critique Assignment Purpose This paper requires you to closely engage with Thomas Hobbes’ text in Leviathan (Chapter 13) by reconstructing his argument for the claim that the “natural condition of mankind” is a “war of everyone against everyone.” You will then critically evaluate this argument by presenting and analysing one significant objection, and considering how Hobbes might respond to it. The goal is not summary, but philosophical analysis and argument evaluation. Paper Requirements Overview Length 1200–1500 words Approximately 5 double-spaced pages Formatting Typed Double-spaced Formal academic writing style Required Structure 1. Introduction (Recommended: 1 paragraph) Your introduction should: Identify the topic: Hobbes’ account of the state of nature in Leviathan, Chapter 13 Briefly state the central claim you will analyse (“war of all against all”) Introduce the structure of your paper: Reconstruction of Hobbes’ argument Presentation of one criticism Evaluation of how Hobbes might respond Key Requirement: Your introduction should clearly signal that the paper is argument-focused, not descriptive. 2. Reconstruction of Hobbes’ Argument (Main Section) Objective: Carefully reconstruct Hobbes’ argument in Chapter 13 as charitably and logically as possible. What to do: Identify Hobbes’ key premises Explain each step of reasoning clearly Show how each premise leads to the conclusion Use direct engagement with the text (do not rely on summaries) Core Idea to Address: Human equality in vulnerability and ability to harm Competition for resources Distrust and pre-emptive self-defence Absence of a common power to enforce law Resulting condition: “war of every man against every man” Analytical Focus: What reasons does Hobbes give? Are the premises descriptive, psychological, or political? How do they jointly support the conclusion? Important Requirement: Use textual evidence from Leviathan (Chapter 13) Do not generalise or paraphrase broadly without justification 3. Critical Objection (ONE Focused Criticism) Objective: Present one strong and focused criticism of Hobbes’ argument. You must: Clearly state the objection Explain why it challenges Hobbes’ conclusion or premises Develop it in depth (not multiple objections) Possible Types of Criticism (choose one): Humans are not inherently as conflict-driven as Hobbes assumes Cooperation can arise without a sovereign authority Hobbes overestimates scarcity or competition The state of nature is unrealistic or empirically unsupported Psychological assumptions about fear and mistrust are flawed Requirement: Focus deeply on one criticism only 4. Hobbes’ Possible Response to the Criticism Objective: Evaluate how Hobbes might defend his position. You should: Reconstruct a possible Hobbesian reply Show how Hobbes could strengthen or clarify his argument Assess whether the reply is successful Analytical Questions: Does Hobbes’ logic still hold under the criticism? Does the criticism weaken premises or only interpretations? Can Hobbes modify assumptions without losing his conclusion? 5. Conclusion (Brief Section) Your conclusion should: Restate Hobbes’ main argument Summarise the criticism and response Provide a final evaluative judgement on the strength of the argument Core Writing Requirements Textual Engagement Work directly with Leviathan, Chapter 13 Quote or closely reference key passages where necessary Demonstrate careful interpretation of Hobbes’ reasoning Argumentative Focus This is not a summary paper You must: Reconstruct premises logically Evaluate validity and soundness Engage critically with reasoning Critical Depth Requirements A strong paper will: Focus on one clear argument Focus on one clear objection Avoid broad or scattered discussion Provide deep analysis of reasoning steps Secondary Sources Rule Do NOT use secondary sources Your analysis must rely only on: Hobbes’ Leviathan Your own reasoning and interpretation Assessment Expectations To perform well, your paper should demonstrate: ✔ Clear logical reconstruction of Hobbes’ argument ✔ Accurate engagement with Chapter 13 ✔ Focused and well-developed criticism ✔ Philosophical reasoning and evaluation ✔ Structured and coherent writing ✔ Depth over breadth of discussion ✔ Independent analysis (no secondary research) Final Checklist Before submission, ensure: Hobbes’ argument is clearly reconstructed step-by-step Textual evidence is used appropriately ONE criticism is clearly developed Hobbes’ response is considered and evaluated Paper is 1200–1500 words Writing is clear, formal, and analytical No secondary sources are included Argument-focused structure is maintained throughout