so seem to be rooted in a great amount of his individual belief in his subject matter. Smart is extremely capable of displaying his passion for his thesis through his writing. Although not as well known as Thomas Hobbes, Smart does have a worthy reputation within the realms of philosophy. Conversely to Hobbes, Smarts work was published at a significantly more recent time. Similar to Hobbes, Smarts thesis remains relevant throughout time. Given that it relates a philosophical view, it does not become irrelevant with time. Therefore his writings will always be current in the respect that they are pertinent to what is relevant in the world community.Probably the strongest argument against Hobbes the Leviathan, is the argument against psychological egoism itself. The basic concept of psychological egoism is that all acts done by man are selfish in nature. This viewpoint is unverifiable in that any contention against it can be disputed away by the simple argument that whether man believes it or not his subconscious drives him to be selfish in all of his endeavors. Since their can be no argument against the unknown motives of the subconscious mind, Hobbes stands without strong opposition, which does not make for a good source. Another weakness, though not as egregious as the first is this sources distance in theme to the topic. There is in no part where Hobbes argues on the ethical obligation and violence. However, his arguments can very easily be analyzed and connected to the thesis of my term paper.Smart, although not without opposition as Hobbes appears to be, does not give a spot in his writing to the common opposition that utilitarian views sometimes receive. He fails to identify and argue away these counter-arguments and subsequently weakens his points. Likewise as with Hobbes writing, there is no point in which Smart discusses the specific points of ethical obligation and violence. However, similar to Hobbes, Smarts arguments can ...
