Although Hobbes has created a logical response to the Fool, I have some objections to his argument. According to Hobbes, every man has the right to self-preservation and are permitted to do whatever it takes to hold that right. This also means that the world’s worst criminal could reasonably refuse punishment. That person could escape imprisonment, lie under oath while in court, or commit theft and he or she could argue that it was all necessary for their self-preservation. Strictly speaking, this means anything one does could be deemed as necessary for his or her self-preservation and it could never be considered unjust or unreasonable. It would be difficult to determine what actions can be properly defined as unjust because everything by …show more content…
This includes those who are willing to risk their lives for their own country. It’s not uncommon for people to refer to this when they are thinking about justice. However, the concept of self-sacrifice is absent from Hobbes’s view on justice. Hobbes’s view only considers the element of self-interest. This is problematic because the commonwealth requires its citizens to risk their lives in order to defend the commonwealth. One would face terrible consequences for avoiding military service so they would be willing to take their chances on the battlefield. Therefore, the obligations to the commonwealth conflicts with the concept of civic obligations. Although Hobbes does provide a valid, coherent argument in reply to the fool about justice that attempts to avoids the concept of conventionalism, logical consistency is not enough to prove his …show more content…
Glaucon presents an argument against justice in order to pressure Socrates to give a more convincing argument for living a just life. He was unsatisfied with Plato’s counterargument against Thrasymachus. Glaucon wants to believe that justice is good and that living a just life will result in a good life, unlike the Fool in the Leviathan. However, Glaucon strengthening the argument that the unjust life is better. Glaucon starts his argument with the three ways in which something can be good: good in itself, good in itself and good for its consequences, and bad or indifferent in itself but good for its consequences. After presenting these three types of good things, Glaucon asks Socrates to place justice into one of the three categories. Socrates’s responds by saying the he would define justice as the kind of good that we like both for its own sake and for its consequences. Glaucon then requests that Socrates present a convincing argument that justice is good for its own sake, regardless of its consequences. He essentially wants to hear a compelling argument that shows justice as a kind of good that is good for its own sake. Glaucon eventually developed a case that supports the unjust life. He argues that anyone, just or unjust, would commit acts of injustice if they could get away with it and not suffer any consequences. To support his claim, he
The three men discuss justice as if it's a good thing. Glaucon wants Socrates to prove that it is, and argues if it is just to do wrong in order to have justice, or on the other hand, is it unjust to never do wrong and therefore have no justice. For example; a man who lies, cheats and steals yet is a respected member of the community would be living a just life, in comparison to a man who never lied, cheated, nor stole anything but lives in poverty and is living an unjust life. Glaucon assumes the life of a just man is better than the life of an unjust man.
Clearly, explain in what way Glaucon’s description of what people say about the origin of justice (about laws and mutual covenants in page 40) aligns or compares with what Hume says about the utility of justice. How do Glaucon’s and Hume’s conception of Human nature compare to each other? Do you agree with any of them? Why or why not?
Hobbes views human nature as the war of each man against each man. For Hobbes, the essence of human nature can be found when we consider how man acts apart from any government or order. Hobbes describes the world as “a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man.” (Hobbes mp. 186) In such a world, there are “no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” (Hobbes mp. 186) Hobbes believes that laws are what regulate us from acting in the same way now. He evidences that our nature is this way by citing that we continue to lock our doors for fear of theft or harm. Hobbes gives a good argument which is in line with what we know of survivalism, and evidences his claim well. Hobbes claims that man is never happy in having company, unless that company is utterly dominated. He says, “men have no pleasure, (but on the contrary a great dea...
...cting unjustly. Therefore, justice is determined to be intrinsically valuable from the negative intrinsic value of injustice that was demonstrated, as well as from parts of the soul working together correctly. Glaucon also wants Plato to show that a just life is better than an unjust life. It has been shown that when the soul is in harmony, it only acts justly. It is in a person’s best interests to have a healthy soul, which is a just soul, so that the person can be truly happy. This means that by showing justice has an intrinsic value, it can also be concluded that it is better to live a just life opposed to an unjust life. The conclusion that I have drawn is that Plato’s argument against the intrinsic value of injustice is sufficient to prove that the just life is superior, even if the unjust life may be more profitable.
Self-preservation is an important factor in shaping the ideologies of Hobbes and Locke as it ties in to scarcity of resources and how each of them view man’s sate of nature. Hobbes and Locke both believe in self-preservation but how each of them get there is very different. Hobbes believes that man’s state of nature is a constant state of war because of his need to self-preserve. He believes that because of scarcity of goods, man will be forced into competition, and eventually will take what is others because of competition, greed, and his belief of scarce goods. Hobbes also states that glory attributes to man’s state of nature being a constant state of war because that drives man to go after another human or his property, on the one reason of obtaining glory even if they have enough to self preserve. Equality ties in with Hobbes view of man being driven by competition and glory because he believes that because man is equal in terms of physical and mental strength, this give them an equal cha...
According to Hobbes the fool believes that if it is our duty to self preserve at any cost then reason should dictate that breaking of laws for our own benefit should not be thought of as injustice. (203) Therefore the fool seeks to use his virtue to acquire power after power in accordance with Hobbes general inclination of all mankind to establish himself as the sovereign. He does this by manipulating the notions of justice for his own purposes and using violence whenever it suits him, but especially when taking the “power of other men” (203-204). There is no doubt that the convention of justice and injustice can be a powerful concept, yet that doesn 't make its existence anymore real. Justice for the fool is just a means to obtain or maintain ones own power not an end in
Thomas Hobbes derived his theories by concluding that man in and of itself was evil. In addition, he felt that if left without a government authority, life would be "nasty, brutish, and short". In a direct result of the evilness of man comes the theory that self-preservation is the most imperative component of life. At all costs, one must uphold this right and do whatever is necessary to preserve it. Because every man in a state of nature can be based on one theory, it creates a state of equal mentality. If one man basis life around self-preservation, so will the next. With a society being in this perpetual condition, it creates a state of war. One man against all others—all equal in ability regardless of size or intelligence due to circumstances and willpower that can always level the playing field.
tradition. Characteristic of his approach is an attempt to justify absolute political authority by an appeal to our rational nature, i.e., in order to avoid a state of war, the appointment of such an authority is considered to be in our best rational interest. By this is implied that we are to collectively give up our naturally endowed freedom in order to ascertain a prolonged existence. This allows for Hobbes to grant such an authority unbounded and absolute power: as long as this authority ensures our continued existence—which reflects our most fundamental drive—rebellion is strictly forbidden. Since the guarantee of our continued existence seems to function as the only criterion for a legitimate authority, one can question some of its implications.
According to Hobbes, every human being has the right to put into practice his talents for the sake of self-preservation and growth. There is a constant struggle between man and in humanity. He states, “ For such is that nature of men, that howsoever they may acknowledge many others to be more witty, or more eloquent, or more learned; yet they will hardly believe there be many so wise as themselves, for they see their own wit at hand and other men’s at a distance” (Hobbes 68). This eternal state conflict leaves Hobbes to believe it is better to accept the established laws and customs of their nation. Regardless if unjustly inflicting hardship is shown in a minority or in subordinate group. For the sake of obtaining civil peace and security, we must turn away from natural and divine laws. Hobbes then states: “As if it were Injustice to sell dearer than we buy; or to give more to a man than he merits. The value of all things contracted for, is measured by the Appetite of the Contractors: and therefore the just value, is that which they be contented to give” (Hobbes 69). Here is another example in which Hobbes believes that man should stick to man-made laws and break from basically the notion of “ universal rights”. He expresses how human beings are selfish, anti-social, and competitive. The conclusion in Hobbes “ state of nature” teaching is the
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...
If you can obtain anything you ever wanted but in order to obtain this item you have to break your moral codes; would you go for it? Glaucon feels like most people would jump at the opportunity and the people who do not would be an idiot not to. An idiot because they did not take full advantage of injustice and the benefits that can be reaped from it. Glaucon advocates that it pays to be unjust. He believes that our true nature would lead us to be unjust. For example, you have two people who now have Gyge’s Ring, which now grants them control over invisibility, prior to getting the ring one was just and one was unjust. Henceforth, now the unjust person will waste no time and continue being unjust. That unjust person would follow their human nature naturally which are one’s desires, greed, lust, and revenge. Eventually, the just person will succumb to his own desires and act unjustly. This ring now gives them power and the confidence to acquire whatever they could possibly want. So now he can do what he pleases morally or immorally and will not be reprimanded about it.
Glaucon attempted to prove that injustice is preferable to justice. At first, Glacon agreed with Socrates that justice is a good thing, but implored on the nature of its goodness? He listed three types of “good”; that which is good for its own sake (such as playing games), that which is good is good in itself and has useful consequences (such as reading), and that which is painful but has good consequences (such as surgery). Socrates replied that justice "belongs in the fairest class, that which a man who is to be happy must love both for its own sake and for the results." (45d) Glaucon then reaffirmed Thrasymachus’s position that unjust people lead a better life than just people. He started that being just is simply a formality for maintaining a good reputation and for achieving one’s goals. He claimed that the only reason why a person would choose to be unjust rather than just due to the fear of punishment. This is supported by the story of the shepherd who became corrupted as a result of finding a ring which made him invisible. He took over the kingdom through murder and intrigue since he knew there could be no repercussions for his unjust actions. In addition, Adiamantus stated that unjust people did not need to fear divine punishment since appeals could be made to Gods’ egos via sacrifices. Finally, Glaucon gave an example of the extreme unjust person who has accumulated great wealth and power which he juxtaposed with an extreme moral man who is being punished unjustly for his crimes. Clearly, injustice is preferable to justice since it provides for a more fruitful life.
The main critics of Thomas Hobbes’ work are most often those with a more optimistic view of human nature. However, if one is to really look at a man’s actions in depth, a self-serving motivation can always be found. The main problem with Hobbes’ claims is that he does not account for the more Darwinian perspective that helping one’s own species survive is at the same time a selfish and unwar-like act. Thus his conclusion that without a governing body, we are essentially at war with one another is not completely true as years of evolution can help disprove.
In Book one of the Republic of Plato, several definitions of justice versus injustice are explored. Cephalus, Polemarchus, Glaucon and Thracymicus all share their opinions and ideas on what actions they believe to be just, while Socrates questions various aspects of the definitions. In book one, Socrates is challenged by Thracymicus, who believes that injustice is advantageous, but eventually convinces him that his definition is invalid. Cephalus speaks about honesty and issues of legality, Polemarchus explores ideas regarding giving to one what is owed, Glaucon views justice as actions committed for their consequences, and Socrates argues that justice does not involve harming anybody. Through the interrogations and arguments he has with four other men, and the similarity of his ideas of justice to the word God, Socrates proves that a just man commits acts for the benefits of others, and inflicts harm on nobody.
Hobbes, on the other hand argues that justice is needed for people to live together in civil society. He outlines this idea down to human beings in the