Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Justice according to thomas hobbes
Plato and hobbes on justice
Justice according to thomas hobbes
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
One of the main concepts in both Plato's Republic and Hobbes' Leviathan is justice. For Plato, the goal of his Republic is to discover what justice is and to demonstrate that it is better than injustice. Plato does this by explaining justice in two different ways: through a city or polis and through an individual human beings soul. He uses justice in a city to reveal justice in an individual. For Hobbes, the term justice is used to explain the relationship between morality and self-interest. Hobbes explains justice in relation to obligations and self-preservation. This essay will analyze justice specifically in relation to the statement ? The fool hath said in his heart, there is no such thing as justice? Looking at Hobbes? reply to the fool will demonstrate that his main goal was to declare what people ought to do when interacting with others and what can be expected in return for that behaviour. By analyzing the Republic, it will be shown that Plato would most likely differ with the statement made by the fool because the main of premise the book in itself is to discover the definition of justice.
To understand Hobbes? reply to the fool, one must first define justice according to Hobbes. He believes that justice is men performing their covenants made and the constant will of giving every man his own. A covenant is a part of a contract, or ?mutual transferring of right, in which at least one of the parties ?is to perform in time to come?. Hobbes maintains that it is never against reason to complete a covenant when man has the security that others will also perform covenants made with him. However, the problem that arises from forming covenants is that just because people enter into a covenant to perform some actio...
... middle of paper ...
...ing so he also showed that there is such a thing a justice within a city as well as in an individual. Thus, Plato?s reply to the fool would be that indeed there is such a thing as justice. And justice is good because it benefits in this life as well as the next. Therefore, even though a man may wish to behave unjustly when he can, as with the myth of the ring of Gyges, behaving justly will have the most rewards.
Both Plato and Hobbes present different views of justice in reply to the fool. Plato, claiming one should be just because it is good in itself, where as Hobbes claims being just is good for the pursuit of self-interest or preservation. Despite the difference of opinion on justice between the two philosophers, it is clear that the fool?s statement has been refuted. For there is such a thing as justice despite the differences in how the term is defined.
There is a diverse amount of themes that could be compared in Republic by Plato and Leviathan by Hobbes. Through these books the two authors each construct a system in which their ideal state can thrive. Both writers agree that government is necessary for the good of the people, however what that government entails drastically differs. Their images of a utopian society are largely based on their perception of human beings. Seeing as how their views on human nature are quite opposite from the other’s, it is understandable that their political theories have many dissimilarities.
“ They say that to do injustice is, by nature, good; to suffer the injustice, evil; but that the evil is greater than good”- Glaucon. Between Plato and Hobbes they have very different views on how justice and unjust can be served. Plato disagrees with what Glaucon has said about it but does say how it has reason. Hobbes refer to the justice as laws within the human nature and life. I will be showing the contrast between Plato and Hobbes views that are against or for Glaucon.
Hobbes’ claim that, there is no form of right or wrong when society is man against man, is exemplified by Jack’s mission to kill Ralph, as they are enemies. Hobbes believes that “When there is no common power, there is no law; where no law, no injustice” (Hobbes, 3). When it is man against man, the ideas of justice and injustice
When analyzing Hobbes case for justice, one must first establish the conditions where justice can even begin to exist at all.
307). Subsequently, he denies the possibility that the sovereign could maintain his natural right without the consent of his subjects. In this situation, every act of punishment would constitute a return to the state of nature. Ultimately, Norrie concludes that Hobbes’s attempt to rectify this contradiction is inadequate. Subsequently, the author proceeds to compare Hobbes’s punishment theory to modern retributivist and utilitarian theories. In terms of its retributivist elements, the social contract serves as an individual qualification for punishment because the individual enters into an agreement directed by their own reason. In other words, the subject “establishes a law for himself, and his punishment for crime is his ‘own act’ returning to him” (pg. 314). Hobbes punishment theory also contains clear utilitarian elements as well. For example, the purpose of punishment is that “the will of men may thereby the better be disposed to obedience” and maintains the “possibility of disposing the Delinquent, or (by his example) other men, to obey the Laws…”
From Polemarchus we learn that justice is "giving each his due" as he quotes from Simonides. After some debate, Socrates and Polemarchus conclude that this definition can be refined into he...
Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan, or The Matter, Forme, and Power of a Common-Wealth Ecclesiasticall and Civill lays out his argument for why it is best to have a strong monarch as the sovereign of a country. He terms this ideal ruler as the “Leviathan”, and the sovereign is granted this power by the people, a notable change from the reasoning of the supposed divine right to rule, used by kings and monarchs as well as their supporters. Hobbes realized that this philosophical reasoning, as opposed to a biblical or religious one, would be more likely to resonate and make more logical, coherent sense to the subjects that the “Leviathan” ruled over. In this work, Hobbes writes of the essential natural right pertaining to all mankind. Hobbes also
In Book 1 of the ‘Republic’, Socrates, in answer to the question ‘What is Justice?’ is presented with a real and dangerous alternative to what he thinks to be the truth about Justice. Julia Annas believes Thrasymachus thinks Justice and Injustice do have a real existence that is independent of human institutions; and that Thrasymachus makes a decided commitment to Injustice. She calls this view ‘Immoralism’: “the immoralist holds that there is an important question about justice, to be answered by showing that injustice is better.” This essay identifies this ‘Immoral’ view before understanding if and how Plato can respond to it. How does Plato attempt to refute Thrasymachus’s argument? Is he successful?
Plato’s The Republic and Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan are key texts within the conservative tradition. They each explore the human condition and its relationship to society at large. The two theorists recognize the need for a hierarchical form of government to maintain order; however, they differ in their account of the effect of desires, and emotions on political order and hierarchy. Plato asserts that desires lead to the ultimate corruption of society, whereas Hobbes believes that certain innate desires can contribute to peace. For Plato, all human desires must be controlled to maintain order, while Hobbes argues that people’s innate desire for life is central to maintaining the hierarchy.
To be just or unjust. To be happy or unhappy? Men fall into these two categories. Why does a man act according to these 2 extremes? Is it because they fear punishment? Are they quivering in fear of divine retribution? Or do men do just things because it is good for them to do so? Is justice, good of its rewards and consequences? Or is it good for itself. What is justice? Are the people who are just, just as happy as the people who are unjust? Plato sheds light on these questions and says yes, I have the definition of justice and yes, just people are happy if not happier than unjust people. Plato show’s that justice is worthwhile in and of itself and that being a just person equates to being a happy person. In my opinion, Plato does a good job and is accurate when explaining what it is to be just and this definition is an adequate solution to repairing an unjust person or an unjust city or anything that has an unjust virtue and using the definition of what justice is accurately explains why just people are happier than unjust people.
When looking at Hobbes’ idea of the state and its relation with the citizen, it is strikingly shocking how supportive of the authoritarian and absolutist form of monarchical government he is. His ideas are extreme for today’s democratic world however, he is seen as the founder of great liberal political thoughts such as the natural contract. Furthermore he gives great emphasis to the study of the individual in the first book of his work. Although, obviously monarchical, Hobbes also argues in favor of democracy and aristocracy: two less authoritarian forms of government. Hobbes has a historical reputation for validating absolute monarchy, and his work is often dismissed as dictatorial. But it must be remembered that, for Hobbes, sovereignty does not only reside in a king but also in sovereign congresses and sovereign democracies and ultimately the people enable any of these three forms of government to rule, according to what best suits the community.
Hobbes also talks about reason and because of reason, there are laws that we can all agree on, these are called natural laws. Hobbes’s natural laws say that 1. Man ought to seek
Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacque Rousseau weigh into the discussion about justice and morality both in the state of nature and within their defined civil societies. Hobbes enforces that individuals do not have moral obligations, but instead are are based on rationality. Locke argues that humans are moral in the state of nature and in civil society. Lastly, Rousseau takes a view that merges both Hobbes and Locke’s views of morality by claiming that humans are not moral in the state of nature, but the obtain morality once they enter into civil society. ___________________here is my thesis and that means a thing.
In the excerpt, Hobbes expresses that, justice is impossible in the state of nature in reference to human nature. According to Hobbes, justice can exist as long as every individual has the right of self-preservation. In these texts, self-preservation is defined as the "individual having the liberty to do anything in order to preserve and protect his own life, regardless of the consequences to others". Because we are naturally wicked in Hobbes opinion, the absence of a social contract or any laws to control our right of nature, individuals can kill one another for the sake of protecting their own life and the cycle will continue when in constant conflict with everyone else.
Hobbes’s third “Law of nature” is saying, no one has the right to be unjust. Hobbes also introduces a character that he named, the fool. The reason he thinks the fool is a fool is because of what the fool claims, “there is no such thing as Justice….keep, or not keep Covenants, was not against Reason, when it conduced to ones benefit” (14). The fool is showing his objection to what Hobbes says in his third law, there is a connection between the third law and reason. If the fool has a good reason to break covenant, then why not just break it instead of keeping covenant. In Hobbes’s view of the fool, the fool is not irrational, the fool used Hobbes’s third “Law of nature” to go against him. But Hobbes disagree with the fool and says, “you are a fool” because the fool doesn’t have any “good” reason to break covenant, the only “good” reason the fool has is coming from his own self-interest to benefit, and that is not against reason. In Hobbes’s first reply, he says, “when a man doth a thing, which notwithstanding anything can be foreseen...could not expect, arriving may turne it to his benefit; yet such events do not make it reasonably or wisely done” (15). He explains