然而，这种对主权权力分立的描述性描述并不是一种不应该这样做的规范性主张。这也许是霍布斯的最大的错误,因为他认为,“因此,当这两个权力反对,英联邦但不能在伟大的内战和解散的危险,“例如,,“南北authoritya€¦和精神”不可避免的冲突如果分裂(霍布斯216)。也就是说，我们“不应该”将两者分开，因为主权被认为是一个人拥有的东西，意味着政府的几个“部门”将不断地争夺“拥有”主权。然而，这是“应该是”谬论的一个很好的例子，因为霍布斯基于这样一个事实，即在历史上，政府的分裂总是导致君主制的崩溃，并试图重新证明现有的规范。公民权威和精神权威在历史上发生过冲突，但这并不意味着它们无法避免未来的冲突。如果是这样，那么霍布斯认为两者应该结合的理由就站不住脚了。本质上，他的主张不是规范性的，而是描述性的。洛克首先通过提出一种不同的自然状态的概念来攻击霍布斯的主权概念。霍布斯的自然状态“€¦清单,男人没有一个共同的权利期间保持敬畏,他们在这个条件叫做战争”(霍布斯76),在“一个€¦没什么可以不公正”为“没有共同的力量,没有法律;(霍布斯78)。十三章,他曾指出,人的生命是“孤独、贫穷、肮脏、粗野和短”的产物”的瓦拉€¦(在这种情况下,每个人都是由自己的reasona€¦)一个€¦[,]人有权一切,甚至彼此的身体”(霍布斯80)。霍布斯正是从这种无政府主义的观点出发，创立了绝对主权理论。具有讽刺意味的是，个人权利的冲突到了自然状态中没有权利的地步。为了解决这个问题，霍布斯的模式将“人”交给了个人，因为即使是两个个人——两个统治者——与“人”之间也会有权利主张的冲突。
澳洲南澳代写论文:主权权力
Nevertheless, this descriptive account of separating sovereign powers is not a normative claim that it ought not be done. This is perhaps Hobbes’s biggest mistake, for he believes that “when, therefore, these two powers oppose one another, the commonwealth cannot but be in great danger of civil war and dissolution,” for example, that “the civil authority…and the spiritual” inevitably clash if divided (Hobbes 216). That is, we ‘ought’ not separate the two, for sovereignty is conceived of as something that one simply has, meaning several ‘branches’ of government would constantly be in contest for ‘possession’ of sovereignty. However, this is an excellent example of the is-ought fallacy, for Hobbes bases the fact that historically, a division of government has always resulted in a collapse to monarchy, and attempts to re-justify the existing norms. The fact that civil and spiritual authority have historically clashed does not mean that they cannot avoid conflict in the future. If so, then Hobbes’s reason that they ought be combined falls apart. In essence, his claim is not normative, but only descriptive.Locke begins his attack on Hobbes’s concept of sovereignty by advancing a different conception of the state of nature. For Hobbes, in the state of nature “…it is manifest that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war” (Hobbes 76), where “…nothing can be unjust” for “where there is no common power, there is no law; where no law, no injustice” (Hobbes 78). It is in Chapter XIII that he famously notes that the life of man is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short,” a product of the “condition of war…(in which case everyone is governed by his own reason…)…[where] man has a right to everything, even to one another’s body” (Hobbes 80). It is from this anarchic view that Hobbes departs to create a theory of absolutist sovereignty. Individual rights, ironically, conflict to the point where there are no rights in the state of nature. To solve this problem, Hobbes’s model forfeits “person” to an individual, because even two individuals – two rulers – with “person” will have conflicting rights claims.
