TL;DR: An individual wants to “suck up” to their dying racist grandfather, with whom they do not like and neither do their family members, in order to be written into their grandfather’s will for his inheritance. The individual tried to make his grandfather’s last days the best days that included a sense of comfort and a feeling of love.
By Hobbesian technicality, the actions of both actors are moral when you consider their specific contract. The implicit contract in question is that everyone has a right to be in their family member’s will (should they already have been included).
Hobbes’ views on morality remain ingrained in a set of laws that, they themselves, define morality for the society. One way this is accomplished is through a set of binding contracts (based in these laws) that individuals make with others to perpetuate morality through to others. It would be immoral to break that contract. This concept conflicts with the situation in a few ways, first there is the issue of whether or not Hobbes would even see a contract here considering the grandfather was not fully aware of the full extent of their interactions.
If we do consider there to be a real contract, the actions of both the grandson and the grandfather are moral because they both are fulfilling the commitments/actions required on their part to complete the contract. This, of course, is rooted in Hobbes’ idea that morality is based on the rules and contracts we make and enter; thus, this would be moral because the contract was not broken.
By Group 3 (RF, ML, RM, NM, KR)