Welcome to this SE, Daniel. I think the problem with the argument is what you are trying to prove:
how can I disprove that there exists an inherent privilege (an entitlement) to believe whatever you want?
Even Patrick Stokes agrees that people are entitled to their opinions. He writes:
If “Everyone’s entitled to their opinion” just means no-one has ...
Welcome, El Ectric
Hobbes is not the easiest historical philosopher to interpret; and the area of your question is still much contested but I think I can provide pointers towards an account that will make some things clearer.
Subjective theory of value
Hobbes is widely regarded as a subjectivist about value on the basis of texts such as the following:
Given our limited knowledge of the earliest Western and Eastern philosophy, we shall probably never know who originated or first analysed the concept of property. But in the Western tradition, a provisional first place may be held by Plato.
Plato is clear in Republic III.416d-417a, IV.543b , and V.464c-e, 466b-c that the Guardians are not permitted ...
That depends on what the problem is with killing people.
A Deontologist could argue that the zombies have no inherent duty of care, being entirely imaginary entities, and so declare Open Season without qualm.
A Consequentialist could notice that killing philosophical zombies has no effect IRL, and grab a shotgun.
A Virtue Ethicist could acknowledge the ...
So is there anyway to justify the first stance using consequentialist ethics (again I'm assuming a deontological approach is a no starter) ?
In the middle eastern countries you can get executed for being a member of that group and it's because the government is strongly tied to their religion, so for many tolererance may be a matter of eternal punishment as ...