Hobbes y la ficción de la obligación política

Authors

DOI: https://doi.org/10.6018/daimon.449951
Keywords: Hobbes, obligarion, consent, obedience, Pateman

Abstract

In this paper we will analyze the problem of political obligation in Hobbes, understanding this as a moral compulsion to obey the laws, in opposition to a merely prudential calculus. Against the traditional interpretation regarding Hobbes as a consent theorist, we will affirm that consent plays a secondary role to obligation and that this is apparently sustained in laws of nature as precepts of prudential reason, oriented at self-preservation. We will explain here that Hobbes’s theory rather justifies what Carole Pateman calls “political obedience” failing thus to justify obligation.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Alexandra, A. (1992). Should Hobbes’s State of Nature Be Represented as a Prisoner’s Dilemma? The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 30(2), 1–16.

Dagger, R. K. (1977). What Is Political Obligation? American Political Science Review, 71(1), 86–94.

Darwall, S. (1995). The British Moralists and the Internal “Ought”: 1640–1740. Cambridge University Press.

Darwall, S. (2000). Normativity and Projection in Hobbes’s Leviathan. The Philosophical Review, 109(3), 313–347.

Gauthier, D. (1979). Thomas Hobbes: Moral Theorist. The Journal of Philosophy, 76(10), 547–559.

Gauthier, D. (1982). Three Against Justice: The Foole, the Sensible Knave, and the Lydian Shepherd. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 7(1), 11–29.

Gauthier, D. P. (1969). The Logic of Leviathan: The Moral and Political Theory of Thomas Hobbes. Oxford University Press.

Hampton, J. (1988). Hobbes and the Social Contract Tradition. Cambridge University Press.

Hayes, P. (1999). Hobbes’s Silent Fool: A Response to Hoekstra. Political Theory, 27(2), 225–229.

Hirschmann, N. J. (1992). Rethinking Obligation: A Feminist Method for Political Theory.

Hobbes, T. (1998a). Leviathan. Oxford University Press.

Hobbes, T. (1998b). On the Citizen. Cambridge University Press.

Hoekstra, K. (1997). Hobbes and the Foole. Political Theory, 25(5), 620–654.

Hughes, T. M. (2012). Is Political Obligation Necessary for Obedience? Hobbes on Hostility, War and Obligation. Teoria Politica, 2, 77–99.

Kavka, G. S. (1995). The Rationality of Rule-Following: Hobbes’s Dispute with the Foole. Law and Philosophy, 14(1), 5–34.

Moehler, M. (2009). Why Hobbes’ State of Nature is Best Modeled by an Assurance Game. Utilitas, 21(3), 297–326.

Pateman, C. (1986). The problem of political obligation: a critical of liberal theory. Polity Press.

Rustighi, L. (2020). Rethinking the sexual contract: The case of Thomas Hobbes. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 46(3), 274–301.

Schedler, G. (1977). Hobbes on the Basis of Political Obligation. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 15(2), 165–170.

Skyrms, B. (2001). The Stag Hunt. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 75(2), 31.

Sorell, T. (2006). L’état de nature de Hobbes dans la philosophie anglo-saxonne contemporaine : Gauthier, Hampton et Gray. Les Etudes philosophiques, n° 79(4), 461–474.

Springborg, P. (2011). Hobbes’s Fool the “Insipiens”, and the Tyrant-King. Political Theory, 39(1), 85–111.

Warrender, H. (1957). The Political Philosophy of Hobbes: His Theory of Obligation. Clarendon Press.

Published
01-01-2023
How to Cite
Darat, N. (2023). Hobbes y la ficción de la obligación política. Daimon Revista Internacional de Filosofia, (88), 153–166. https://doi.org/10.6018/daimon.449951
Issue
Section
Artículos