Crucial Evidence
Hobbes on Contractual Obligation
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12955141 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Luciano Venezia (0000-0002-7647-7775, National University of Quilmes, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2013 |
| Volume | 7 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 106-135 |
| Publication date | 2013-01-01 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of the Philosophy of History (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1872-261X • E-ISSN: 1872-2636 |
| Publisher | Brill (PUBLISHER • NL) |
| DOI | 10.1163/18722636-12341246 |
| OpenAlex | W1963625484 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
| References cited | 1 |
In this paper, I will introduce the notions of crucial argument and crucial evidence in the philosophy of intellectual history (broadly construed, including the history of political thought). I will use these concepts and take sides in an important controversy in Hobbes studies, namely whether Hobbes holds a prudential or a deontological theory of contractual obligation. Though there is textual evidence for both readings, I will argue that there is especially relevant evidence – crucial evidence – for interpreting Hobbes’s account in a deontological fashion
Argument (complex analysis · Epistemology · History of philosophy · Law and economics · Medieval history · Obligation · Political philosophy · Political science · Politics · Sociology · History · Law · Philosophy · Political Philosophy and Ethics · Political Theology and Sovereignty · Seventeenth-Century Political and Philosophical Thought
| Citations per year | 0.17 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2020 - 2020 (1) |
| Highly cited | No |