Hobbes and Hume: Covenant - Term Paper Example

Hobbes and Hume: Covenant In discuss the Hobbes ideals in the concept of inter and intra personal agreements; there are some concepts that must be defined right for the proper understanding of the basis of such proposed concepts. Some of the interlocking concepts that require definition include law, right, liberty, and obligation. Unless, these concepts are clearly distinct from each other, aspect of “covenant” as prompted by Hobbes cannot be clearly analyzed. Nonetheless, it would be as well vital to distinguish the general definition of these concepts from the specific definitions of the law of nature and the right of nature. Notably, the covenant has been regarded by Hobbes to be the most significant vehicle that rights are obligated created. In his writing, Hobbes pointed out numerous scenarios that depict that there are no binding covenants as per the state of nature. In regards to the concept of justice, there might be arguments that to some extent justice exist; however, they may not be regarded as valid state of nature covenants. Covenants are contracts that involve mutual agreements that lead to surrender of rights. They are usually the most vital case of contract because they incorporate promises of future actions. Through the covenant, some future actions need to be initiated that thereafter makes the distinction between action performance and a non-action performance (Jeffrey 191). It is worth noting that, the mere exchange of mere contacts may never be regarded as covenants because the involved parties can easily pull off from such contracts. The only sure way of making a binding covenant is through creating an invalid fear so that the other involved party will never carry out his part or disregard the terms of the covenant. In the state of human nature, there are no states of punishment that may be subjected to those who undermine the covenant; however, there are numerous unique and reasonable fears of falsehoods (Jeffrey 191). According to Hobbes, covenants are simply mutual transfer of rights that creates a binding contract among men. However, he states that there are loops that create a difference between transferring of things to the rights, as well as transferring traditions that he had once regarded as delivering of the thing itself. Hobbes says that there are chances that things may be delivered in accompany of translation of the right (Jeffrey 200). For instance, buying and selling of goods or services by the use of ready money or exchange of land for a thing are direct transactions that may require direct and instant delivery or after sometimes delivery. So to speak, in the case of exchanging land for goods, one of the involved parties may take land and surrender goods that are intended for exchange later (Jeffrey 121). Hobbes regarded a situation or a scenario in explaining contract, in relation to covenant, as said, a party to a contract may deliver all things that are contracted or his contribution in the contract, and leave the other contractor to perform his part at some agreed time. Such contracts only call for trust among the involved parties (Jeffrey 133). Therefore, the contractor who is yet to fulfill his part as per the agreement is also part of the covenant. In other words, the mutual agreement herein call for trust, keeping the promise, faith; however, the other party may fail to perform his part. Therefore, such contracts that may as well be regarded covenants are voluntary in nature and faith violation. To this extent, we may regard contracts or covenants as a sure of gambling since it is not too obvious that all the involved parties will fulfill their parts in contract. In human nature, covenants can sometimes not be honored (Jeffrey 131). For instance, two or more parties involve themselves in the covenant, and one of the gets insane or rather dies. It is obvious that his side of the bargain shall never be fulfilled, and this qualifies to a bridge contract. Regard this case in point: if the deceased did not or involve his family members or any other party to execute his part of bargain once such eventualities arises, who will take the burden or rather the responsibility of carrying out his part of the bargain? The case herein categorically shows that the terms of the covenant have been bridged by nature; thus, it would be unwise to get into a covenant that human nature may not support. Covenants are naturally hard to keep since, in some cases, the involved parties may reduce the terms of contracts or covenant to their own individual advantages. Naturally, covenants are only applicable when the same is contracted between humanity and the super natural other than human to human (Jeffrey 191). That is, if it occurs between these two distinct beings, then there are great possibilities that the contract will involve mutual transfer of rights, particularly through faith. Otherwise, the covenants that usually occur in humanity are mostly misunderstood on the basis that some involved parties may regard it as a tool for personal gain. For instance, the parties transferring the right may be doing so with hope of gaining thereby certain services or friendship from the involved parties or otherwise. Additionally, some people may involve themselves in the same covenants with the main aim of gaining reputation to certain charity or magnanimity, or to relieve their mind from certain pain of compressions. Furthermore, some individuals indulge themselves in a covenant with the spiritual faith of gaining heavenly reward. In such instances, the parties are more into a contract than a covenant; thus, keeping such agreement become misplaced with the truly intended action (Jeffrey 186). There shall be no transfer of right with partial understanding within the involved parties; any agreement that may be warranted to a covenant should only involve gifts, material gains, but should rather be free, out of grace, and the words of the term should signify one and the same thing for all the involved parties. Agreements are supposed to binding as covenants, but there is no guarantee that their terms are binding. The signs of the contract are never subjected to any change or interference or express. The word express herein refer to words that are spoken with the great deal understanding of what they actually signify. Moreover, such words binds forever and their meaning are never subjected to have a different meaning in the future as in the past. Such words usually promise actions that shall be undertaken in the future. What if the future does not come? Therefore, it means that covenants and contracts remain vague until they are fulfilled. Thus, covenants as contracts should include due date. The lack of the defined date upon which the covenant is fulfilled makers them binding and not binding at all time. That is an individual may go against the covenant with the aim of changing into the underlying terms later (Jeffrey 137). These ideals make it practically impossible to keep the terms of the agreement within the social nature of the human beings. The interferences due to consequences of words including silence during the agreement, some consequential actions, forbearing actions; generally, interfering words and actions may greatly interfere with the contract or covenant. In other words, covenants are based on words; words alone are not sufficient to stand the test of time. Words as the tool of agreement contain only bare promises; thus, they are insufficient sign in regards with free gifts; therefore, words alone are never obligatory. For instance, if they are referring to the future event such as, I will give, in this case the item or whatever to be given is already not yet given (Jeffrey 197). Consequently, the intended rights to be transferred are not yet transferred, but remain with the owner’s disposal until the act of transfer is undertaken. This automatically shows that it is not a must that a person must honor an agreement but can do so at his own wish and will. However, if words of the covenant or agreement could be at present or past, it could have been easy and obligatory to fulfill the terms of such agreements. That is such promises could be in their already completed form or rather in the process of being undertaken. For example, he gave with regard to the past event and he is giving …, but if the same person says his share will be delivered tomorrow, then, does his tomorrow’s right gives his today’s right. The same person may argue that the agreement of the yesterday was just due to virtue of the words, and there were no other supportive arguments regarding the same will. Therefore, sometimes agreements may be never regarded as mutual agreement (Jeffrey 191). At any time, when a covenant is made whereas neither of the involved parties performing or carrying out the term of the covenant trust each other on the basis of mere nature (that is the known condition of war where every man against every man) that might be based on any reasonable suspicion then such covenant as equally void (Jeffrey 306). However, if the same covenant is reached upon when there is a common power intervening on the same issue, with the same right and sufficient force that will compel the performance on both sides, then the agreement is expected to meet the terms therein. This is a valid indication that covenant are not merely word say but need enforcers; thus, agreement can never be honored due to the nature of a human being on being untrustworthy and due to his incapacity to control nature (Jeffrey 209). God once made a covenant with humanity; an event that seemed impracticable. It proved to be in covenant with God; the covenant that was made by His lieutenants who operated under Him and using His name (Jeffrey 296). Therefore, it would be very difficult to determine whether the covenant between humanity is ever acceptable, or not. Notable, God is the supreme power and his people could not be in covenant, except a few who could repent daily for back sliding. This is a proof beyond any reasonable doubt that it is human nature never to be bound within and with some agreements either mutual or spiritual guided. Human nature as proven not to be bound by laws of mutual agreements; thus, the initial steps on engaging into a covenant or an agreement should be evaded since they may be regarded as the futile steps. That is the initial step of getting into one is the first greatest mistake one should never do. Moreover, it is practically impossible to find a valid covenant within the state of nature. It is try to echo Hobbes ideals that there is no valid covenant. Works Cited Abramson, Jeffrey B. Minerva's owl:the tradition of western political thought. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2009. Print Read More