obligated to repay it as demanded. He also mentions princes that have lost a war. As the losing party, they must respect the terms of peace imposed upon them, regardless of their disadvantages. For Hobbes, that there exists a contract between two parties tends to be the important part. These additional details (whether one of the two parties has been intimidated by the other, for example) are irrelevant, overruled by the fact that said contract exists.

The second half of your assignment is to argue against Hobbes' viewpoint (while also anticipating Hobbes' possible response). In modern democratic societies, for example, we tend to have a very different view on the subject, often holding that contracts created by way of intimidation or fear are not truly voluntary, and thus are deemed invalid. Another option is to try to use Hobbes's own arguments against him. After all, if we hold that the natural state of man is one where everyone is at war with everyone else, then why should any such contracts be viewed as holding any validity whatsoever? Why should they not be viewed instead as nothing more than pragmatic agreements, fundamentally malleable and capable of being abandoned at any time?

In Leviathan, Hobbes expresses the view that covenants and contracts entered into under conditions of fear are generally valid in any case. He explains his reasoning in chapter 14:

Covenants entered into by fear, in the condition of mere Nature, are obligatory. For example, if I Covenant to pay a ransom, or service for my life, to an enemy; I am bound by it. For it is a Contract, wherein one receiveth the benefit of life; the other is to receive money, or service for it; and consequently, where no other Law (as in the condition, of mere Nature) forbiddeth the performance, the Covenant is valid.

Hobbes therefore dissents from the common view that duress invalidates a contract even in ordinary circumstances. However, he also says that a contract which authorizes a sovereign to govern a populace is even more binding than other contracts, because every individual gives up the right of self-determination to form a commonwealth. Hobbes explains this in chapter 17, in one of the key passages of the book. When people alienate their own rights and authorize a sovereign to act on their behalf, he says:

This is more than Consent, or Concord; it is a real Unity of them all, in one and the same Person, made by Covenant of every man with every man, in such manner, as if every man should say to every man, “I Authorise and give up my Right of Governing my self, to this Man, or to this Assembly of men, on this condition, that thou give up thy Right to him, and Authorise all his Actions in like manner.” This done, the Multitude so united in one Person, is called a COMMON-WEALTH, in Latin CIVITAS. This is the Generation of that great LEVIATHAN.

This social contract, whereby people accept the government of the Leviathan, is actuated by fear, but this is primarily fear of other subjects, who would prey on each other if the Leviathan were not there to restrain them all. Fear is, therefore, an inevitable factor in the creation of the social contract and cannot invalidate it.