Get help from the best in academic writing.

New Technology And Realignment Discussion Ap World History Homework Help


Political beliefs of personal reflection Term Paper help with history assignment: help with history assignment

Until recently, my political awareness was limited to what I read about or heard around me. Young people are impressionable, and I formed my opinions as amalgamations of what my parents believed, and what I overheard my friends parents say too. The news media, and celebrities I admire also had a strong influence on how I would frame my thinking. All these agents of socializationmy family, the media, my teachers, and my friendsshaped my identity and self-concept, and how I viewed the world. As a young adult, I have deconstructed much of what I learned and realized that I need to carve my own path by thinking critically about what I read, not just by avoiding the pitfalls of fake news, but also by avoiding a sheep-like mentality. Instead of regurgitating what other people say, now I feel more confident in my own ability to articulate my political philosophies as consistently and logically as possible. While I prefer to avoid political binaries like liberal/conservative, democrat/republican, socialist/libertarian, when asked, I usually admit that I lean Republican on most issues even if I am not going to always tow the party line, as they say. The problem with most political discourse is that there is an expectation to conform to some rigid set of mandates and principles in order to be affiliated with one of the two major political parties in America, and I strongly disagree with artificial binaries. I do believe our political culture would be healthier if our conversations were more nuanced and authentic.

I first realized the possibility of carving out an authentic political consciousness after reading Arthur Brooks. Brooks may be one of the most moderate of all registered Republicans, a sensible human being who believes that strong ethical values should undergird public policy. While everyone is dimly aware that Trumps victory reflects the alienation and disaffection of less educated white voters in rural and exurban areas, Brooks took the conversation a level deeper by pointing out that the underlying emotional issues motivating voters to choose Trump has more to do with dignity and respect than with race or even class (Brooks, 2017, p. 1). Like me, Brooks believes that the pursuit of happiness is central to our nation, and that the core principles of conservatism promote the pursuit of happiness. I learned that the act of working hard, achieving our goals, and fulfilling our dreams is what makes people happy. When we learn about intrinsic motivation in psychology class, we learn the fundamental foundation of conservative political philosophy. People need to be motivated by a deep inner drive to do good. The government cannot impose a set of morals or values, although the government does exist to prevent me from infringing on your rights or you from infringing on mine in an egregious way. Through his research in economics, Brooks came to the conclusion that free enterprise and capitalism do drive happinesscontrary to what socialists and many more moderate liberals believe.

Michael Tanner also understands the principle of intrinsic motivation, and how social safety nets are geared towards removing that essential feature in the pursuit of happiness. In an interview with NBC News, Tanner states, our welfare programs arent targeted at the right things: education, pregnancy prevention, and job creation. Theyre targeted at giving people who are poor the resources to live in poverty, (Raab, 2013, p. 1). Complete libertarianism is not the answer, as it would fail to provide any moral compass for the society. I believe we can all agree that some social services are beneficial for improving the quality of life for all Americans. Some of my agents of socialization led me to believe that conservatism precludes government assistance. I mistakenly believed that Republicans were completely anti-government. Therefore, I learned through my encounters with erudite conservatives like Brooks and Tanner that compassionate conservatism is a real possibility. Aligned as I am with the Republican party, I do not necessarily agree with all Republicans or even all conservatives.


In fact, I even hold some libertarian values, particularly in the sense that I believe government should have limited interference in the personal lives of people. Like Tanner (2017), I do not believe the government has done a good job with the war on drugs, which has been a complete fiscal and human rights failure (p. 1). Eduardo Porter feels the same way, and I have lately been inspired by the possibility of reform Republicans to illuminate a path forward that does not degenerate into fluffy anti-government rhetoric while also showing where wasteful spending curtails life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.


Conservatives simply want to empower the individual to make the right choices. We should aim to be as non-interventionist as possible, domestically and in foreign policy, without veering off the libertarian deep end. Although I may be a social conservative who has strong family values, I understand that not all people come from the same cultural background as I do. Not all Republicans are anti-gay or anti-woman, although that is what the media has led me to believe. Liberals also have failed to provide a solution to many of our problems, something that has steered me in a conservative direction. I want a government that bases its decisions on evidence and facts, not on rhetoric or emotion. Admittedly, many of my political beliefs have been honed in a culture of opposition, as I react to some of the logical fallacies I hear on both sides of the political spectrum. My liberal friends sometimes seem shrill and self-righteous when they argue, which has emotionally turned me off to their points of view even if they make sense on some level.


My political autobiography will likely change as I encounter new life experiences. One thing is for sure: I believe that we have a responsibility to ourselves to work hard and treat other people with kindness. We should respect the inherent dignity and worth of every human being: a political philosophy that is neither liberal nor conservative but simply sensible.

Brooks, A. (2015). The Conservative Heart. Harper Collins.


Brooks, A. (2017). The dignity deficit. Foreign Affairs. March/April 2017.


Raab, B. (2013). 5 questions for Michael Tanner a policy expert who says weve made poverty too comfortable NBC News.


Tanner, M. (2017). Do we really need a drug czar? National Review. Oct 25, 2017,

Calculations Between Costs and Benefits history homework help

grades were determined on a curve, I would work very hard to try to be in the top 5% of the class. However, my view of that grading system might be colored by how widely distributed the grades in the class were. If the distribution was narrow, then the curve system would appear to be an arbitrary reflection of the professor’s desire to have a certain grade distribution, rather than a reflection of student knowledge. If POL S. 270 was the only class in Political Science that graded on a curve, then all but the strongest performers would avoid the class, which would deflate the grades of those who are traditionally the strongest performers because they would be subject to the curve. If all of the courses in the university were graded on a curve, then the university would experience more drop-outs because of forced-fails. This type of curve system, though not the actual distribution, fairly approximates the distribution of wealth in a free market economy (some portion of people are super-rich, while another portion of people are impoverished). In some circumstances, this type of system can provide incentive for people to work harder, but, people who have less natural ability may be discouraged from putting forth any effort because, at some point, even their best efforts may be deemed insufficient.

b) If the dates of the two mid-term exams were not announced until the day of the exam, that should have a positive impact on both attendance and study habits, prior to the admission of the mid-term. Students would not want to risk missing the mid-term exam, so they would make efforts to attend each class, not knowing if that class would be the time of the mid-term exam. This impact would be heightened at and near the mid-point of the semester, when students could rationally expect a mid-term exam. However, once the mid-term exam has been administered, one would expect to see a sharp decrease in admission and study skills, particularly by any students who missed the original mid-term exam and, as a result, would be failing the class and unlikely to pass even with perfect attendance and a perfect final test score.

c) If grades in POL S. 270 are determined by the collective performance of the class, high performers are likely not to work as hard to achieve in the class. Their hard work will do little to impact their grades, so they have less incentive to perform well. However, it will not completely deprive them of the desire to perform well, because the higher the scores at the top, the greater the possibility of a higher median grade. However, at the bottom of the class, this scoring system would provide little incentive to those who consistently underperform because they would get the benefit of those working hard in the class. It would have little impact on the study habits of the mid-level performers. This question brings up the issue of the free rider in socialist or semi-socialist systems, because they get the benefit of other’s hard work and therefore have no incentive to do their own hard work.

2) If I am the professor, my interest is to encourage learning in all of the students. While I would not want to dumb-down my information to make As a possibility for students who refuse to do the work, I would want to provide information in an accessible manner and provide enough interest and motivation in the class to have all students want to make As. Therefore, I would not want to grade on a curve that deems that a certain percentage of my students must fail. For me, if I were a professor, a failing student would indicate failure on my part. However, I would measure on a modified curve, with the highest-performing individual student’s grade reflecting a “100” and adjusting grades likewise. (If the perfect score was a natural 90, then I would increase all student scores by . Similarly, in a governmental system, people in poverty reflect failure in the system. I would be the most interested in written exams, because written exams help reveal if a student understands the material, not simply has the ability to regurgitate material. I think that having essays would increase my grading costs. While I understand that faculty members have tremendous pressure to produce original research and bring money into a university, I disagree with that approach to academia. To me, as a student who pays significant sums of money to the university for my education, I feel like student education should be the priority for all professors. While the footnote that I read mentioned this information, it did not change my opinion about what a faculty member’s professional priority should be. I understand the professional pressures that professors feel, but if a person is unable to balance those competing interests with educating students, then academia might not be an appropriate field for that person. I do not think that I would choose academia because I would find that conflict very stressful. Finally, while professors have families and personal lives, that does not differentiate them from any other group of professionals, struggling to balance work and personal life.

The Political Context of Educational Theory ap american history essay help: ap american history essay help

educational theories in the light of political context. Hence the paper provides a springboard for insight into some essential interconnections between educational approaches and movements, motivational goals of the researchers and the varied opinions of the educationists and experts, through presenting alternative arguments. The Works Cited three sources in MLA format.

The Political Context of Educational Theory: Alternative Arguments

Where all believe in the significance of education for the development of personality and for the welfare of the nation, many support the various important and blatant theories and educational movements. However, there is still a decent number that presents alternative arguments in their effort to prove that educational research (and related public funding) world-over is being used not only as a tool to inculcate sense of discipline and responsibility but also to gain political ends.

Following passages of the research paper will present arguments from various educationists and researchers thereby quoting examples cited by them in support of their alternative arguments.

In educational research society, large number of researchers and educationists are interconnected in some way or the other, usually forming groups with the ones sharing similar viewpoints on a certain theory or a movement in the field of education. Therefore, there always follows a chain of arguments.

For instance, when Dr. Strauss questioned the validity and adequacy of the reading research program as drafted by Reid Lyon of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, it followed a chain of alternative arguments by J.E. Stone, arguments that were countered again by Strauss in clarification of what he meant by what he said, refuting Stones claim as well as examples. Dr. Strauss considered the nature of reading research program by Lyon as inadequate for the masses. According to him, the program abandons “social and psychological components of reading” (Stone: 31-32). Moreover, he was of the view that without eradication of socioeconomic discrepancies existing in the United States, rate of illiteracy cannot be diminished, an angle that the schema of NICHD lacks, for the active experimentation that involves unnatural ways of gauging and drafting educational programs assists little to ameliorate the contemporary educational arena. Stone counteracts the opinion by Strauss, for the researcher advocates the Institute on its efforts to experiment with the recent findings believing in and presenting another view that even if experiments and innumerable studies conducted are impractical, paper work alone is insufficient for obtaining desired goals. Thereby asserting the notion that for a drastic positive change in educational policy, “rigorous experimentation” is strongly needed (Stone: 31-32). Dr. Strauss has refuted this opinion of experimentation needed urgently for the betterment of educational standards. Alternately, the neurologist clarified both his position and his opinion by giving examples of anthropological explorations (Strauss: 32-33) where experimental approach is not only irrelevant but is a waste of public funding linking it with educational reading which is an act wherein experimentation is flawed in comparison with descriptive form of research and practice, shedding light on the faulty “alphabetic principle,” the basis for NICHD research program, which neglects the highly important functioning of symbols (Strauss: 32-33).

Furthermore, Stone refutes the opinion by Strauss while commenting on his article. He strongly disagrees with Strauss on the point that naturally available perfect conditions are the best means for enhancing reading and learning skills in children (Stone: 31-32). Alternately, Stone supports Lyon in employing synthetic approaches for the sound education of instructions and reading proficiency, considering the potential growth and advantages that are linked to the artificial means of experimentation and learning rather than concentrating on the risk factor involved as emphasized by Dr. Strauss and his co-workers (Stone: 31-32). In answer to this argument, Strauss makes a successful and rational attempt to prove the connection of vaccinations and antibiotics with the artificial means of teaching and experimentation as absolutely defective and irrelevant by defining the functions of both the vaccinations and the chemicals used in ameliorating the bodily mechanism. Strauss is of the view that where these neither replace nor oppose natural working of bodily parts, use of “intense phonics” (Strauss: 32-33) results in the opposition and replacement of the natural mechanism that provides a platform for all young learners to “reject more efficient cognitive resources, such as syntax, semantics, and background world knowledge,” producing educated children with sound reading ability but minimum comprehension skills (Strauss: 32-33).

Furthermore, what Stone takes up, as a strong allegation on the part of Lyon and team is Strauss’s claim of their efforts being absolutely political with ultimate motive behind the rigorous experimentation is the accomplishment of international competitive edge (Stone: 31-32). Opposing this argument by Strauss, Stone supports his opinion by giving examples of those successful researchers whose are rewarded with the opulence due to their backbreaking efforts and marvelous findings in the education field (Stone: 31-32).

Counter attacking the aforementioned argument, Strauss presents vehement opposition to the efforts regarding the educational research programs of the NICHD. He maintains that the Institute has made least efforts in conducting safer studies that exclude high-stake and accountability testing at schools for it is utilizing public funds not for the well-being and safety of the children but to gain personal ends by encouraging teaching staff to produce “technologically literate workforce” rather than intellectually literate workforce thereby displaying sheer commitment to its shareholders (Strauss: 32-33).

However, Dr. Strauss is not the only individual speaking his mind and raising his voice against the educational researchers that are loyal only to their political goals. Margaret Quigley, a political research analyst supports Dr. Strauss while highlighting the selfish motive behind the Eugenics movement (Quigley) that though appeared to make improvements in the biological line of living creatures especially livestock, was in reality a “political movement concerned with the social control of groups thought to be inferior by an economic, social, and racial elite.” (Quigley)


Hence from the above discussion we may culminate that though various movements that the history ever witnessed and the educational policies drafted and endorsed by the related authoritative bodies have conducted extensive research and made relentless efforts but expertise coupled with sincerity from prominent figures like Dr. Strauss and Margaret Quigley serve as eye-openers for the general public that is kept ignorant of what goes on behind the scenes.

Works Cited

Stone J.E. Comment on “An Open Letter to Reid Lyon.” Volume 30, October 2001. Pages: 31-32. Available at (October 20, 2002)

Strauss S.L. “Methodology, Medical Metaphors and Mental Health: A Reply to J.E.

Stone.” Volume 30, October 2001. Pages: 32-33. Available at (October 20, 2002)

Quigley M. “The Roots of the I.Q. Debate; Eugenics & Social Control.” Public Eye

Magazine, Vol. IX, No. 1, 1995. Available at: (October 20, 2002)

Thomas Hobbes’ Philosophy in the Leviathan ap history essay help

Thomas Hobbes’ Philosophy in the Leviathan

The subject area concerning political theories is both vast and complex. Political theories come in the form of ancient philosophies and new age rhetoric. This discussion will focus on the philosophy of The Leviathan. The Leviathan written by Thomas Hobbes, explores the matter, form, and power of a commonwealth.

In the Leviathan Hobbes discusses the responsibility of the sovereign and the subjects. Hobbes philosophy contended that men must give up their right to govern themselves to a sovereign that would in turn govern the entire commonwealth and maintain peace and order. The purpose of this discussion is to determine why Hobbes insisted that men had to surrender both their wills and their judgments to their sovereign. We will also discuss the social contract theory and the condition of men.

The Social Contract and the condition of men

Thomas Hobbes was a controversial social contract theorist who believed that people were rational beings. He was controversial because he based his political theory on social contract rather than political absolutism. He also contended that the condition of man was war; that by nature human beings were in a constant state of battle with one another. The philosopher argued that human beings would rather live in a condition of peace but that the only way to obtain this peace was through a sovereign.

Hobbes believed that human beings had a natural right to govern themselves but because they were rational and wanted to preserve their lives they would understand the need for a sovereign. Hobbes explains that,

The right of nature…is the liberty each man hath to use his own power, as he will himself. from the preservation of his own nature; that is to say, of his own life; and consequently of anything, which in his own judgment and reason, he shall conceive to be the aptest means thereunto.”(Hobbes)

So then on the one hand Hobbes believed that men were caught in the perpetual state of war, each man against each man. This state of war was caused by the God given nature of men to have more power than other men or to be wiser and so on and so forth. On the other hand Hobbes contended that men were rational and could live by the right of nature which was self-government and the ability to preserve his own life by any means necessary even it meant giving his rights of self-government to a sovereign. In short he asserted that “because people are fearful and predatory they must submit to the absolute supremacy of the state, in both secular and religious matters, in order to live by reason and gain lasting preservation.”(“Hobbes, Thomas”)

In Hobbes mind the Sovereign would protect the subjects from foreign invasion and make certain that the subjects’ existence was peaceful and harmonious. According to Hobbes this right of nature also ensured that human beings would do anything to preserve their own lives even if that meant the surrender of their will. The philosopher believed that because human beings have an overwhelming need to live in peace they would give up their natural right to self-government and give their rights to the sovereign. The relinquishment of these rights then becomes a social contract. This binding social contract ensures that the subjects surrender their will and judgments to the sovereign and in turn the sovereign promises to protect the subjects and ensure that they live in peace.

Hobbes asserted that there were two ways that a sovereign could come in to power, by force or by the voluntary submission of men. He reffered to the former as commonwealth by acqusition and the latter as commonwealth by institution. In the case of commwealth by acquisition the subjects surrender to the sovereign because they are afraid and submit to the sovereign in exchange for their lives. An acquisition occurs when there is war or when a sovereign comes into power by natural force. The commonwealth by institution occurs when men voluntarily submit their wills and judgement to the sovereign.

The Leviathan contends that by giving their wills to the sovereign the subjects had to obey and respect the rules set forth by the sovereign. This is the only way that they can preserve their lives. Hobbes writes, “And when a man hath in any manner abandoned or granted away his right; then is he said to be obliged or bound, not to hinder those to whom such right is granted or abandoned…”(Hobbes) He asserted that by hindering the sovereign the subjects would return to the condition of war.

Additionally Hobbes social contract theory held that if subjects were asked to do anything unlawful they would not be held accountable. Instead Hobbes asserted that any unlawful act committed by an individual on behalf of the commonwealth would be viewed as an act of the sovereign and not the individual.

Hobbes explains this view in the leviathan by writing,

This we may say, that whatsoever a subject, as Naaman was, is compelled to [do] in obedience to his sovereign, and doth it not in order to his own mind, but in order to the laws of his country, that action is not his, but his sovereign’s” (Hobbes)

Hobbes also supposed that the sovereign had a profound obligation to secure the peace of the commonwealth because the subjects had given their wills to the sovereign. In giving their wills to the sovereign the subjects were counting on that sovereign to maintain the order and keep peace in the commonwealth. Hobbes asserted that the sovereign should never abuse the power that was given to him by men. The Leviathan states,

Again, every sovereign ought to cause justice to be taught, which, consisting in taking from no man what is his, is as much as to say, to cause men to be taught not to deprive their neighbors, by violence or fraud, of anything which by the sovereign authority is theirs” (Hobbes)

The purpose of surrendering will and judgment

Some would argue that the surrender of will and judgment is the foundation of many governments throughout the world including America’s. After all we elect officials to make laws that are influenced by the will and judgment of the people. In return we expect a certain level of decency within our society; in some respects this is a social contract. However the political theory that the philosopher Hobbes asserted was somewhat different than the political theory that governs the American political system and political systems throughout the world.

The philosopher Hobbes believed that the only way that the sovereign could rule effectively was if the subjects would surrender both their wills and judgment to their sovereign. In doing this the subjects would ensure that the sovereign would protect them from invasion and maintain the order of the commonwealth.

In the Leviathan Hobbes explains,

The only way to erect such a common power, as may be able to defend them from the invasion of foreigners, and the injuries of one another, and thereby to secure them in such sort, as that by their own industry, and by the fruits of the earth, they may nourish themselves and live contentedly; is, to confer all their power and strength upon one man, or upon one assembly of men, that may reduce all their wills, by plurality of voices, unto one will: which is as much as to say, to appoint one man, or assembly of men, to bear their person; and every one to own, and acknowledge himself to be author of whatsoever he that so beareth their person, shall act, or cause to be acted, in those things which concern the common peace and safety; and therein to submit their wills, every one to his will, and their judgments, to his judgment.”(Hobbes)

Hobbes believed that if men could surrender their wills and judgements to a sovereign then the sovereign and the subjects could form an ideal commonwealth. The will is defined as the desire of a mans heart. Therefore when a man tranfered his will to his sovereign he was essentially transfering the desires of his heart to his sovereign. The philosopher asserted that by surrendering their wills to the sovereign the subjects would be perserving their lives which is a desire that is greater than the desire for war.

According to Hobbes the surrender of judgement was also important to the success of the sovereign and the commonwealth. In Leviathan Haobbes describes man’s judgment in the following way,

For a man’s conscience, and his judgment is the same thing; and as the judgment, so also the conscience may be erroneous. Therefore, though he that is subject to no civil law, sinneth in all he does against his conscience, because he has no other rule to follow but his own reason; yet it is not so with him that lives in a commonwealth; because the law is the public conscience, by which he hath already undertaken to be guided. Otherwise in such diversity, as there is of private consciences, which are but private opinions, the commonwealth must needs be distracted, and no man dare to obey the sovereign power, farther than it shall seem good in his own eyes.” (Hobbes)

Hobbes asserted that by surrendering his judgment to the sovereign the subject was making the law of the commonwealth public conscience. The surrendering of judgment was essential to the power of the sovereign.

For if the subjects did not surrender their judgment everyone within the society would only be subject to their own conscience which may not serve the greater good and would with certainty render the sovereign powerless. If the sovereign was powerless he could not maintain peace and there would be no social contract.

The idea of the power of the sovereign is one reason why Hobbes believed that men must submit their will and judgment to the sovereign. According to the notes of Michael Green who is a professor at the University of Chicago, Hobbes held that the sovereign must have control in several areas.

First of all the sovereign can not treat the subject in a cruel or unjust manner. Green asserts that it would be impposible for a sovereign to treat a subject in this manner because “if the subjects could judge the sovereign and the sovereign the subjects, there would be no judge to decide who was right and that means that, in effect, there wouldn’t be a sovereign.” (Green)

In addition Green asserted that the sovereign must have a means to the end. Which means that sovereign must have total control over the subjects. The sovereign must also have control over property rights, declarations of war, punishment, rewards and the choosing of counselors. (Green)

In addition the sovereign must have the ability to raise money and power over militias. Finally the powers of the sovereign are indivisible and cannot be given away. Sovereigns cannot consent to have fewer powers than those necessary. (Green)

Green’s analysis contends that the power of the sovereign rest in the ability of the subjects to surrender their will and the ability of the sovereign to do whatever necessary to retain this power. If the sovereign is unable to manage the power bestowed upon him by the subjects then the commonwealth will cease to exist. Once again this would destroy the social contract and eliminate the peace that the contract is supposed to provide.

Hobbes summed up his beliefs about the surrendering of the will and judgment with these words,

It is manifest therefore that the right which the commonwealth (that is, he, or they that represent it) hath to punish, is not grounded on any concession, or gift of the subjects. But I have also showed formerly, that before the institution of commonwealth, every man had a right to every thing, and to do whatsoever he thought necessary to his own preservation; subduing, hurting, or killing any man in order thereunto. And this is the foundation of that right of punishing, which is exercised in every commonwealth. For the subjects did not give the sovereign that right; but only in laying down theirs, strengthened him to use his own, as he should think fit, for the preservation of them all: so that it was not given, but left to him, and to him only; and (excepting the limits set him by natural law) as entire, as in the condition of mere nature, and of war of every one against his neighbour. (Hobbes)

Hobbes believed that above all human beings wanted peace of mind and wanted to live in a society where peace was ensured by the sovereign. His philosophy held that the only way to keep people from being in the constant condition whereby they hurt and killed one another was to create a society in which the subjects’ right to govern themselves was given to a sovereign. In order to give the sovereign the power that is needed to govern such a commonwealth the subjects would have to surrender their will and judgment to the sovereign.

Opinions of Hobbes Theory

Hobbes ideal of a social contract is bold yet contradictory. On the one hand he thinks that human beings are rational but on the other hand he feels that they need a sovereign to maintain order. Well if human beings are so rational why would they give all their power to a single person who then has complete control over the commonwealth? It seems that the rationality of human beings would lead them to understand that there is no way that a single person or a group of people can maintain complete peace and harmony within a society. (Green) This would be impossible because there will always be people within a society that are irrational, how then will the sovereign ensure the peace of the subjects and if he can’t ensure the peace of the subjects how can there be a social contract.(Green)

He also asserted that human beings only had the capacity to be rational if they were governed; which directly contradicts Hobbes idea that people are naturally rational. Hobbes believed that men were dangerous if they were left to their own devices and that they would inevitably destroy one another but somehow if they had a sovereign these men would somehow gain rationality and be able to obey a sovereign.

Additionally Hobbes theory is based on the assumption that the sovereign will treat the people with respect and not take advantage of the power that they have been granted. If in fact the sovereign does take advantage of the subjects and causes disorder which disrupts the peace of the commonwealth then the people may end up back in a condition of war because according to Hobbes people will do whatever it takes to maintain peace even if that means going to war. In this case the whole idea of a sovereign becomes circumspect.

Finally Hobbes seems to have the idea that if a sovereign was appointed the society would no longer have problems. He seemed to ignore all the problems that would result from one person or group of people that had so much power. The history of politics has taught us that if one person or group of people is given too much power in a society the society can be held captive and denied basic freedoms. This has been a very apparent problem in countries such as Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan. These are place where a person or faction was granted power and abused what they were given. In the case of the philosophy of Hobbes the subjects of the commonwealth may be totally unaware of the intentions of the sovereign.

Another major issue with Hobbes is the fact that he believes that the actions of the individuals in the commonwealth are the responsibility of the sovereign rather than the individual. Hobbes contends that even if the actions that an individual conducts are unlawful they will not have to take responsibility for the things that they do. This is the most troubling aspect of Hobbes philosophy because it means that a sovereign power can instruct an individual to do something that is detrimental to other people and that individual will not be held accountable for the things that they do because they would have done it on behalf of their country.


The purpose of this discussion was to explore the political philosophy of Thomas Hobbes. In particular we discussed why Hobbes insisted that men surrender their will and judgment to a sovereign. We discovered that Hobbes was a social contract theorist that believed that men were rational but only if they were governed by a sovereign who was all powerful.

He also believed that men would do anything to preserve their lives even if it meant that they had to relinquish their right to govern themselves.

We found that the reason why Hobbes insisted that men surrender their will and judgment was so that the sovereign would have the power that they needed to govern the commonwealth. This power could only be given to the sovereign if the subjects would agree to surrender their will and judgment. We also found that Hobbes insisted on the surrender of will and judgment to ensure that people return to their natural condition of war which would inevitably lead people to destroy one another. I hope that this has provided a thorough review of why Hobbes insists that men must surrender their will and judgment to a sovereign.


Green, Michael. The Social Contract.

Hobbes, Thomas,” Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia 2002 1997-2002 Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved.

Hobbes, Thomas. The Leviathan taken from the book Social and Political Philosophy. ed. Sommerville, J. And Santoni E. 1963

Hodges, Miles. The European Enlightenment.