Reacting to prehistoric myths chapter 7

 Honestly, I don't have much to say about this one that I havent already said. More people just adopt it without question, I guess a lot of philosophers I support and reference in my own ideas generally reject the hobbesian hypothesis. Van Parijs, Rawls, Steiner, etc. I don't blame them.

I mean, as a justification of government being legitimate, it's kind of a crappy requirement. Even though I kind of accepted it in my own worldview outline, I really saw it more as a descriptive thing, and honestly, my idea of society goes beyond a state. Where more than one gather, and they establishment agreements for how to live in common, you have a government. It might just be a tribal government, but it's a government nevertheless.

And yeah, the "social contract" being better than the alternative doesn't justify the state being crappy.I mean it's the same bad argument jobists make in favor of jobs. "Well people accept it because of the alternative". Uh, just because alternatives suck more doesnt mean that's good. I mean, it really is an is ought fallacy here. For me, the hobbesian hypothesis is primarily descriptive. it's not PREscriptive. People come together because the state of nature sucks, but that doesn't automatically justify stuff as being moral. Moral has a bend of progress, and societies should compare themselves not just to the state of nature, but other alternatives. This includes other states, as well as theoretical ideals that are actually reasonably possible to accomplish. Ideals that arent reasonably possible to accomplish can still serve as a guiding light, with people adopting partial progress when possible (my anti work ambitions are arguably like this in some ways). And yeah. Obviously, the lockean proviso and the hobbesian hypothesis aren't good for arguing that the state of affairs are fine as it is. As I said, states should make active efforts to be democratic, respect peoples' freedom when possible, and to provide security for people, both physical and economic. Simply being an alternative to "the state of nature" doesn't make something moral. My understanding of ethics exists independently of the state, the state just codifies it. If something helps people, it helps them independently of the state. If something hurts people, it helps them independently of the state. The state is just the most feasible structure to accomplish such goals. That is all. 

 Regardless, I really do enjoy this book. As I said if there's anything I hate it's people just accepting stuff as truth without evidence and Widerquist trying to bring truth to the question of the hobbesian hypothesis is very consistent with my overall worldview.