TLDR: OP is debating whether to pretend to agree with their wealthy grandpa’s extremely racist views for the chance to get inheritance money to pay for college. OP’s father does not want them to do it, as the grandfather had previously disowned OP’s parents due to their interracial marriage and nontraditional family structure. OP and some members of their family are open to the idea because they will be donating part of the money and using the rest for a practical and potentially-life changing cause.
Many paint Hobbes’ conception of morality simply as Psychological Egoism – the view that we are moral simply because it is self-serving. However, this ignores the logical argument that he makes to arrive at his view, and is too simplistic to effectively articulate his conception of morality. Hobbes posits that, in the state of nature, humans would be in competition with each other and have every motivation to hurt others at the expense of their own needs. This, he argues, makes any agreement between them uncertain, as each has greater motivation to betray the other than to honor their agreement. “Before the names of just and unjust can have place, there must be some coercive power to compel men equally to the performance of their covenants by the terror of some punishment greater than the benefit they expect by the breach of their covenant,” Hobbes suggests (Leviathan 99, 107). This model, in which people collectively sacrifice a few small liberties in order to establish rights (protected by a sovereign authority), creates his contractarian view – that morality exclusively comes from contracts between people which are enforceable. Moral congruence comes only from the existence of a contract, despite the content of it, and the fear of pressure binds people to follow it. Hobbes also considers people and actions to have separate moral guidelines (to an extent) – breaking a single contract in good faith does not make you an unjust person, and keeping agreements does not automatically ensure that you are personally just.
Jack’s opinion:
I think that Hobbes would consider this to be a morally justifiable action. The lack of any contract or agreement between the two means that there are no specific agreements that the grandson would be breaking. As specified in the post, the grandson is not attempting to make a deal with the grandfather but rather is hoping that he will choose (of his own will) to create a covenant that gives OP a share of his money when he dies. While the poster’s intentions, to “listen to his stupid world views and racist comments. I will agree with him, and express my own hate (this will be a lie of course),” seem to include deceit, there is never a mention of a quid-pro-quo agreement or any promises being made about future action. Hobbes seems to confirm this – he writes that “for to covenant is an act of the will, that is today, an act, and the last act, of deliberation, and is therefore always understood to be something to come.” The grandson is hoping for something to happen from his actions, but is never promising something in return or asking his grandfather for any money directly. However, he writes that “covenants entered into by fear … are obligatory.” While he outlines several ways in which economic, social or physical coercion can still produce valid agreements, there is never an explicit discussion of whether lying and deception can be the foundation of moral agreements. Despite that, in this instance, the grandson does not appear to be breaking any agreements and is acting within the laws of nature, minimizing his moral responsibility from a Hobbesian perspective.
Cailin’s opinion:
In order for this person to not be the asshole, they would need to enter a contract with the grandfather meaning there would be the promise of being included in the will or a contract stating that they will be nice in exchange for being included in the will. However there is no contract formed and no word for this person to keep. They are only acting in self interest. However this person also isn’t breaking any contracts either so this appears to be a neutral act.
Toby’s opinion:
This person is not being an asshole. Yes, it is an immoral and wrong thing to do, but when you take into account the needs for the money and how it will go to charity and an education I see no problems with it. Also it is important to note that when someone dies they can’t make anymore decisions about their money, thus it really doesn’t matter. They are acting in both self interest and interest for the greater good (charity) but because racism and anti semitism is not for the greater good, as well as understanding that the grandparent will die soon, it is a very “Non asshole” action.
By Group 4 (JC, CL, JO, TS)