Study Questions
Hobbes

1. When Hobbes stated that humans live in a state of war of everybody against everybody, and there is neither justice nor injustice he means that everybody fended for themselves and did what was right for them and that nothing could be considered just or unjust because those terms had no meaning. The event that created justice and injustice according to Hobbes was the creation of society. 2. Glaucons idea of justice is that it is a matter of practicality. According to him a person is only just because it tends to make others think that they are just. In his example of the invisibility ring Glaucon argues that anybody would be unjust if they knew they would not get caught and no one would find out. We are only just to impress others. Hobbes, on the other hand, is a realist; he knows that justice is needed for people to live together civilly. That is why some type of power or government is needed; people need to be kept just or else life would be chaotic. 3. Looking at Hobbes view, selfishness in itself is not a bad thing because right and wrong doesn’t exist so it can be “bad” for someone to be selfish. A person could act however they wanted to act and it could not be considered good or bad or right or wrong because there were no such things.

Rand

1. I do not think Rand is correct in saying that if you accept altruism, then you end up with a lack of self-esteem and a lack of respect for others. Just because altruists believe they are morally obliged to benefit others doesn’t mean they do not respect those others. Respecting others and having high self esteem may be the sole reason why people act in an altruistic way, they respect everyone in the same way. 2. I would not say Rand is criticizing ideal or reciprocal altruism; she is more criticizing the justification behind why people reciprocated or the order they place their ideal in. I believe that she combines the two because her point is that one should reciprocate altruism in the order they place their ideals that make them happy. I somewhat agree with Rand so I would not differentiate the two. 3. If this approach were implemented then socially those who were liked the most by others would be the survivors and politically those who were liked by people with the most money would be in charge and be well off. In this approach it is pretty much all about who is liked the most because those people will have others doing the most for them. 4. Rand would evaluate the theory that asks us to maximize happiness for the maximum number or people based on if that makes the doer happy or not and is high up in a persons hierarchy of values. If it benefits a person to put more peoples happiness over a lesser then they should do it according to Rand but if lesser people mean more to a person over the majority then they would want to make those fewer people happy over a majority. 5. Rand’s comment about that remark might be something along the lines of saying that it is not arrogance people have it is doing what makes one happy and putting themselves first which is the appropriate way to behave. 6. I find Rand’s version more compelling. The argument against Rand is that she makes it seem like you either have to “give everything away and lay down your life for others, or accept Objectivism with its liberating right to keep what you ear, take care of yourself and your own and work for your own happiness” but after reading her own words that argument seems exaggerated. Rand’s argument that altruism engages in a false dichotomy between selflessness and inhumanity is more compelling because she shows and uses examples that show if you do act selfish it does not have to be considered inhumane.

De Waal

1. When de Waal says that human morality has evolved out or warfare with other human groups he means that warfare brings people together (in warfare there are usually at least two different sides) and those who are brought together develop morality based on that particular community. I could agree with de Waal in a way because a more modern version of his views that I hear today amongst people my age is “hatred brings people together” if two people have a mutual “hatred” for another person, idea, or thing they automatically bond over that “hatred”. 2. De Waal thinks that humans begin to display moral tendencies of empathy by one year of age. He says they “spontaneously comfort others in distress and that soon thereafter they begin to develop a moral perspective through interactions with other members of their species”. 3. I can see where de Waal is coming from in his argument, there definitely are some similarities between banding together that primates and human have but I do not agree completely because humans are not as aggressive against adversaries. But if you just look at the fact that both species have morals that come from grouping against adversaries and could agree with that because it is true.