User:Chabinzarn/sandbox

"Two Treatises of Government" Article
This article contains relevant information to John Locke's "Two Treatises of Government" and his theories of the state of nature and of governance. While there are no blatant claims, the article seems to be slightly steered towards the editors personal opinions, as there a segments, such as in the "First Treatise" section, there is minimal citation and what seems to be an unnecessary amount of analysis of Locke's work as opposed to just stating his theories. All viewpoints, however, appear to be represented. The links shown on this article seem to work fine, and the references accompanying this article seem strong and independent.

State of Nature: John Locke
Locke describes the state of nature and civil society to be opposites of each other, and the need for civil society comes in part from the perpetual existence of the state of nature.

Adding to the Thomas Hobbes article
To address potential counterarguments to social contract theory, Hobbes creates "the Fool" and "the Fool's Challenge." In doing so, he follows in the footsteps of previous philosophers, such as Plato, or Grotius, who also turned possible counterarguments into actual characters. Hobbes' Fool is famous for his argument, which claims that "there could be no reason, why every man might not do what he thought conduced thereunto" to his own benefit, thus it is reasonable to break covenants when breaking covenants is beneficial to the Hobbesian agent. The Fool's Challenge has been the subject of philosophical debate, and moreover has game-theoretic implications.

Adding to the Leviathan (Hobbes Book) article
In Chapter XV, Hobbes introduces "the Fool" who is a fictitious character created for the purpose of responding to perceived counterarguments to Hobbes' version of social contract theory. The Fool makes a famous challenge that if it is just and rational to act in one's own self interest, then it is just and rational to break covenants when doing so adheres to one's self interest. Hobbes' social contract theory is built around the notion that it is irrational to break covenants, thus the "Fool's Challenge" effectively contradicts Hobbesian theory. As a result, Hobbes responds to the Fool and tries to disprove the Fool's logic; however, debates have risen over both the soundness of the Fool's Challenge and Hobbes' response. Some view his assertion as incorrect because the Fool does not consider the effect that reputation has on an individual who is known to break covenants. Others argue that the Fool's Challenge shows that Hobbesian theory does not allow for a correct response to the Fool since it does not consider how morality can restrain decisions of self interest. Additionally, different game-theoretic interpretations of the Fool's Challenge exist. A popular view is that the Fool institutes an assurance game in his challenge, because it is rational to break covenants if doing so is beneficial. However, criticism has arisen against such an interpretation because it does not explain how to rectify cooperation in this scenario.

The Fool's Challenge, of the "Justice Not Contrary To Reason" section of Chapter XV, begins with the assertion that "there is no justice." As such, it is entirely reasonable to "make, or not make; keep, or not keep," as long as such a choice is in the best interest of the person in question. Additionally, Hobbes claims that the Fool does not believe in a monotheistic God. In blatant contrast to Hobbes' social contract theory, the Fool declares that since it is reasonable, it is just. Therefore, according to the Fool, justice is meaningless, and Hobbesian contract theory is nonsensical. The Fool's Challenge asserts that Hobbes' social contract theory is ineffective in maintaining social order because individuals will act according to whatever "conduces to one's benefit."

In response, Hobbes articulates that certain situations merit the breaking of a covenant, called a "defensive violation," but others, such as instances where an individual violates a covenant solely because it is beneficial to the individual, are wrong, and thus called "offensive violations." Hobbes however entirely denies that offensive violations are in any way justified, and his rhetoric expresses that Hobbes does not view the Fool as an intellectual equal. In proving that offensive violations are not justified, Hobbes first insists that any benefit is accidental, and the rational outcome of breaking a covenant is inherently negative. So, one should not break covenants if it can be reasonably determined that the outcome will be negative. Secondly, Hobbes declares that according to the laws of nature, breaking a covenant goes against the "necessity of cooperation" and it will inevitably lead to one's destruction."

Considering that Hobbes is the one ultimately expressing the Fool's Challenge and writing the book, one would think that Hobbes is correct in the debate over breaking covenants. However, this area remains controversial. There is a significant base that defends Hobbes argument, which expresses that reputation is more important than any possible benefit to be received from a violation. This side of the debate argues that justice is meaningful, and keeping covenants builds up an individual as a just person. Additionally, following Hobbesian theory, only those individuals that consistently keep covenants are just and therefore reasonable people. This contrasts the Fool's Challenge by asserting that keeping covenants is always reasonable. . However, the other side of the debate responds that a decision to always keep covenants is not rational, due to the fact that there are specific instances where it is considerably more beneficial to break a covenant than to expect a reputation of a covenant-keeper. Therefore, breaking covenants can be just, but not always, which is referred to as the Fool's "case by case" approach. Having the freedom to choose when to break covenants is inherently better than only being able to keep covenants, according to this side of the debate.

Additional controversy exists over how game theory exists in the Fool's Challenge. It has been traditionally suggested that the Fool's Challenge represents an assurance game, in which one individual mimics the other in a tit-for-tat strategy. However, a new suggestion claims that the Fool's Challenge must be closer to an assurance dilemma, which accounts for the characteristics of individuals. The assurance dilemma states that individuals will not always use the tit-for-tat strategy because one individual is a "dominator" and one is more "moderate." Nevertheless, there is no concise answer to the question of how game theory impacts the Fool's Challenge because none of the popular options fully explain why individuals should cooperate according to Hobbes laws of nature.