Discussion questions (answer one). Be sure to relate your answer to the texts in Readings on Citizenship Download Readings on Citizenship (pp. 17-24).
Thomas Hobbes' foundational point in his argument for the State is that human beings have no "summum bonum" or highest purpose, as Aristotle taught centuries before: we are instead driven instead by one desire after another, with no goal other than the satisfaction of those desires and personal security. So are those two things connected -- i.e., does living in a modern State mean admitting there is no purpose to human life as Hobbes claims? Is there something about the State with its sovereign power and central government that deprives us of any need for our final end, or happiness?
John Locke's ideal government was one designed to protect everyone's natural rights to "life, liberty and property," and rule by the consent of the governed -- making it very much a republic. But how was Locke's modern republic different from the ancient Republic of Rome, as described by Polybius and Cicero? Explain one major difference.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau's "social contract" appears to overcome many of the timeless problems of political life, especially with the creation of the "general will," or a perfectly unified society with a unanimous opinion on everything. Such a thing might overcome all of the problems of political life, but would it be worth it? Might there actually be something good about political dissent and conflict?