Consider the following argument:
If the state has the right to command, then I am obliged to obey, even if I disagree with its orders. It makes no sense to say that someone has a right to do something unless there is a corresponding obligation to allow that activity. To say that I have a right to free speech, for example, means that others have the obligation to allow me to speak freely, even if they disagree with what I say. Therefore, if I admit that the state has a right to command, that the state is a legitimate authority, then I give up moral independence and allow myself to be guided by the will of another. But this forfeit of moral authority is never legitimate, and this means that no state has legitimate authority over its citizens. We, not the state, are the rightful arbiters of what we ought to do.
In your paper, please do the following:
1. Drawing on our readings and class discussions, explain how a person holding Aristotle's ethi- cal and political theories could respond to the above argument. With which parts of it, if any, would he or she disagree?
2. Compare and contrast Hobbes' theories with the above argument as you did Aristotle's, again drawing on our readings and class discussions. How might a person holding Hobbes' views re- spond to the above argument? With which parts of it, if any, would he or she disagree?