 So, we have Hobbes, and he's essentially an ethical egoist. He says that your one obligation, your one and only one obligation, is to protect your own life. Do nothing to threaten your own life. Okay, so here's a question then. According to Hobbes, should you stay in the state of nature? Well, to answer this question, we have to wonder whether we can fulfill our obligation in the state of nature. Remember that the state of nature is a state of equality, diffidence, and war. And in that state, the question is, can you protect your own life? Can you save your own life? Okay, well, let's just suppose that you're the baddest of the bad. That you're strong, you're not a handle yourself. You never really had to worry about whether justice is enforced. You never had to worry about whether you can be taken care of. Because frankly, you've been able to whoop anybody who come across your path. You just have to rattle your saber and then go running. You're kind of like Glaucon with that ring. You could take down your enemies and not have to worry about it. Well, I guess one person, this seems fine. But suppose that you have to deal with all other people. Well, in the state of nature, the question is whether you can defend yourself, whether you can enforce your will against all these other people. One on one? Not much of a problem. Against a whole lot of other people. Well, you remember, according to Hobbes, we have equality. This does not mean that we have equal rights, we have equal moral worth. What it means is we have roughly equal capabilities. One person may be able to take out another. But one strong person, no matter how strong, going against all others? This likely will not end well. Likely, you will not survive war. So yes, according to Hobbes, you should leave the state of nature. You should enter the social contract. Okay. Well, both Hobbes and Glaucon are essentially ethical egoists. So here's a question. Does Hobbes agree with Glaucon? Would Glaucon also say that you should leave the state of nature? I mean, Glaucon doesn't have a conception or talk about the state of nature. But would he agree with Hobbes about whether the social contract is a good thing? Remember what Glaucon has to say. He says your interest is the most important, and he asks what would happen if you were to put on the ring. Well, you know, as we kind of talked about this, again, maybe taking out your enemies stabbing the back might be a bit of an extreme. But you'd probably work against your enemy if you had to, if you wanted to, if it was in your interest. If you were to put on the ring, yeah, you'd probably go ahead and take advantage of certain situations knowing you can get away with it. And one of the reasons why we say this is because you already do. You violate the social contract because you're looking out for your own interests. And even, you know, maybe setting aside rules, just how you get back at people online, or maybe you lied to protect your own interests. These are violating norms within society. You're not playing nice with others. So that's what Glaucon says. Glaucon says your interest is most important, therefore justice is bad. Okay, the social contract is bad. Alright. Well, Hobbes calls this kind of person the fool. The fool agrees to the social contract because the fool knows that you cannot survive on your own without the social contract. Leaving the social contract, living in the state of nature is a threat to your own life. You are not strong enough. You are not powerful enough to take on everybody else. So if you enter the social contract and then violate its rules, you have left the very situation that protects by your own reason that you've acknowledged protects your own life. You are at once deciding to protect your own life and threaten it. So according to Hobbes, if you violate the social contract that you've entered, you're a fool.