Writing Assignment #1: State of Nature & State Justification
Instructions: You should write a (roughly) six paragraph short paper in which you explain and defend your view about the State of Nature and Justifying the State. This essay should be written in your own words (book and slide quotes should be used seldomly or not at all). Although each set of paragraphs address a different question, the paper should contain a unified train of thought. The break down for each section follows:
1. In the first and second paragraph, explain and describe the view about the State of Nature you believe to be correct. You should align yourself with either Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau. These two paragraphs should address the four following questions:
(a) What is the concept of the “State of Nature” in philosophy?
(b) What would the State of Nature be like according to your chosen philosopher?
(c) Does morality and moral motivation exist in the state of nature?
(d) Are we better off in the State of Nature, or with government?
These four questions should be addressed in two prosed paragraphs. You should also use illustrations/examples to describe what the State of Nature would be like.
2. In the third paragraph, describe in your own words what it means to justify political obligation. This paragraph should address the two following questions:
(a) What is the concept of political obligation?
(b) What are the two essential features that make up the state?
These two questions should be addressed in a single prosed paragraph.
3. In the fourth paragraph, explain the Tacit Consent Theory of justification for political obligation (defended by Hobbes, Locke, & Rousseau); in the fifth paragraph, explain David Hume or Robert Nozick’s critique to theory. These two paragraphs should address the two following questions:
(a) What does it mean to tacitly connect, as opposed to explicitly consent?
(b) How have citizen’s tacitly consented to state authority account to Tacit Consent Theory?
(c) Why does David Hume or Robert Nozick (select only one) reject Tacit Consent?
If you would like to review Hume or Nozick’s objection, see Wolff, pp. 43-44, 55-60.
4. In the sixth (and possibly seventh) paragraph, describe and explain (in some detail) the view about State Justification do you accept as most correct: (i) tacit consent (Hobbes, Locke, & Rousseau), (ii) hypothetical consent, (iii) prudential reasons to obey the state (David Hume), (iv) anarchism: political obligations are unjustifiable and should be resisted, dismantled, and replaced with a system of voluntaristic consent (Kropotkin & Chomsky), (v) utilitarianism (Bentham & Mill). Don’t simply describe the view, but explain why you believe it is correct.
Specifications: Your paper should be, 12-point font, and double-spaced, and submitted as a word document or pdf. It should be a minimum of 1,000 words, but there is no upper limit. It should include your name, date, and the word count at the top. The submission link is on Blackboard (under Content).
D
Grading: Your paper will be graded on whether (i) you correctly address all components of the prompt, (ii) you correctly explained important definitions, (iii) writing organization, structure, and clarity.