Hobbes thinks that because we are all more or less equal in physical strength and intellectual ability, in competition for limited resources, can't trust others (because we're all interested in our own survival), and some enjoy tyranny over others, in a state of nature we are at war 'all against all'. How does he justify this view of our situation as each person at war with every other person?
He claims that life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short".
This is natural justice.
He is a materialist.
None of the above.
How is the contract entered into?
We all lay down our rights and create a contract with a sovereign who has absolute control over all of us.
We all relinquish our rights and contract with each other to appoint a sovereign, but we do not create a contract with the sovereign.
We lay down our rights and create a contract with each other and a sovereign, specifying how the sovereign should rule and enforce our promises.
None of the above.
What is the dilemma that Hobbes believes we actually want out of?
The sovereign has absolute tyrannical authority over us, and can take all our stuff and kill us if he/she desires. As natural organisms we want to cooperate, but we need the sovereign (Plato's tyrant) to insure cooperation.
As natural organisms inclined to survive, we only benefit by cooperating with others when we know they will cooperate with us; but, since we cannot know whether the other will cooperate, we do better in any given situation to not cooperate. Yet we want to cooperate.
As natural, material organisms, we were beginning to question the Divine Right theory (the theory that kings represent God on earth and this justified our being ruled by a coercive enforcer), but that there was now no other justification available for coercive government.
None of the above.
What ethical theory provides the best perspective from which to work with the Prisoner's Dilemma?
Kantian Ethics.
Consequentialism.
Care Ethics.
None of the above.
What is the dominant strategy in the finite prisoner's dilemma?