1. Thomas Hobbes' Ethical Egoism, if we were to imagine ourselves living in a State of Nature, without government, then common standards of good, evil, and justice would be precarious, and always subject to defection by individuals who gave in to the passions for gain, pride, or revenge. As such, the common standard for good and evil would appear to be a social matter that could be secured only by an organized society that is complex enough to have a government formed by a Social Contract. Hobbes' views have enjoyed a long and lasting influence on the fields of philosophy, sociology, political science, and beyond (and are still commonly encountered within the theories of classically trained economists and political scientists today), but my question for you is simply, do you agree with Hobbes about all of this? In particular, do you find his metaphysical description of human beings living in the State of Nature ultimately convincing? Or might his characterization of human beings, as little more than selfish and competitive individuals concerned primarily with their own self-interest, tend in some way to distort a proper understanding of ourselves or fail to fully capture the actual experience of what it's really like to be a human being? If the latter should turn out to be true, then one implication of this would seem to be that, Hobbes' long revered and well respected portrayal of human beings as existing in a State of Nature (or as always just one step away from spiraling back into one, were it not for the saving graces of the Social Contract currently in place), is perhaps nothing more than a deeply-seated myth, passed down through the tradition, that perpetuates the apparent necessity and need for a Social Contract. If all this were true, then what explanation might you give for why such a myth has been able to take hold and persist for so long? And just whose interests might such a myth tacitly be serving in the end?

2. In the beginning of his book "Thinking Critically About Ethical Issues" Ruggiero responds to the question “Why do we need ethics if we have laws?” (Ruggiero 4) in a rather striking way by claiming, in effect, that ethics is required by the law because it underpins and informs our laws in some way. At one point Ruggiero goes so far as to assert that, “…law is not possible without ethics. The only way for a law to be enacted or repealed is for one or more people to make a decision about right and wrong” (Ruggiero 4). Ruggiero attempts to back up this claim by providing some examples that he sees as providing some clear evidence for his position, one concerns the creation of a law against sexual harassment and another concerns the repeal of the law of Prohibition. In this vein he writes, “The only rational basis for a law against sexual harassment is that the act is wrong” and he adds further, “The Eighteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution made Prohibition the law of the land—until the Twenty-first Amendment repealed it in the name of justice” (Ruggiero 4, italics are mine).

My question for you then, is “Do you agree with Ruggiero's assessment of the intimate relationship between ethics and the law?” I intend this question in a general sense, but especially in regards the two examples he gives concerning the laws against sexual harassment and Prohibition. That is, can you think of any other (non-ethical) explanations for why we (now/no longer) have these particular laws? If so, what would those reasons be if not “ethical” ones? And furthermore, what might that mean for Ruggiero's initial characterization of the relationship between ethics and the law in general?