Is it instead the case that we have an absolute and incorruptible duty to obey the moral law, consequences be damned?

1. Hobbes, in his magnum opus Leviathan , provides us with an account of human nature upon which he grounds his conception of the natural rights of the human being. For Hobbes, we saw that justice is a condition that can only necessarily exist amongst people who have entered into a social contract. Before entering into this social contract, there is no justice or morality, and human beings find themselves in a state of “war of all against all,” in which there is only the most fundamental right of all, the pursuit one’s own self-preservation by any means whatever. Since this state of nature is necessarily a rather solitary, unpleasant, and violent condition, in which life has the general character of being “nasty, brutish, and short,” people choose to enter into what is known as the “social contract” in order to establish peace. In the social contract, we agree to trade away some of our rights of unlimited pursuit of self-interest in order to thereby gain some rights of security and liberty from our fellow human beings. This social contract then forms the basis of sovereign government insofar as a sovereign, with the monopoly on the legitimate and overwhelming use of violence, is necessary in order to put this contract into force and thereby truly abolish the state of nature (without the sovereign, the social contract would only be a flimsy verbal agreement which anyone could violate at will, therefore the state of nature would remain intact). Firstly, is this a compelling account of human nature, the rights of human beings, and the nature of justice? Second, does Hobbes provide a convincing argument for the ultimate justification or grounding of the sovereign (the State)? Why or why not? 2. Some of the longest going and most active most recent (or “live”) debates among contemporary ethicists concern the conflict between the competing ethical frameworks of Utilitarianism and Deontology. Utilitarianism presents us with a moral philosophy in which the primary concern is the pursuit of the greatest good by way of min maxing happiness (i.e., pleasure) and suffering (i.e., pain). Whatever course of action will lead to the greatest good, on the Utilitarian account, is the one that ought to be pursued. Deontology, in contrast, posits the existence of an absolute moral law, the terms of which can be understood by human reason, and which ought to be obeyed unconditionally (without exception). Kant proposes that, even if one never managed to have any practical impact upon the world, then a will which desired to be in accordance with the moral law would still be in possession of a moral worth that shined like a “jewel.” Kant also says that we never have any excuse to violate the moral law, even if the entire world should go to hell as a result. Is the practical impact of our moral decisions all that ultimately counts? Is it instead the case that we have an absolute and incorruptible duty to obey the moral law, consequences be damned? Could there potentially be a (intellectually or morally) consistent middle path between these two competing views? Why or why not?Try to make use of at least one example in order to illustrate your position on the merits of Utilitarianism vs. Deontology.