Ethics - 'Question under Paper Requirements'

Ethics - 'Question under Paper Requirements' Order Description Question: Hobbes' argument for an absolute sovereign is novel because he bases the authority of the sovereign on consent. Explain" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in the role of consent in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in his account and explain" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in why he believes that consent based on fear of death is morally bin" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">indin" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">ing. Critically evaluate his arguments. (1000 words limit) My essay question is based on Thomas Hobbes' book - 'Leviathan' and would require at least two references to quotes or ideas from the book. Hobbes' account of 'The state of nature' and social contract theory should be mentioned. Startin" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">ing with how the civil war affected Hobbes' thin" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">ing - humans bein" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">ing egoistic and a dim view on how human act. After a short in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">introduction on the meanin" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">ing of consent and whether consent from fear of death is actually consent or simply givin" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">ing in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in to fear should be in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">included. The anomolies of suicide or martyrs in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in terms of 'fear of death' should be mentioned. The argument of whether Hobbes' is agreein" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">ing with the idea of a tyrannical leadership should be in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">included - Is hobbes' sayin" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">ing that tyranny is a better than the 'state of nature' (anarchy free for all). have a strong conclusion providin" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">ing an opin" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">in" rel="nofollow">inion.