Compare And Contrast Plato And Hobbes

1522 Words4 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: What is glaucon's view on justice

“ 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. Plato is able to refute the claim that made by Glaucon because he views justice as a political body instead of Glaucon views on it. “And to those who, not being rich, are important with old age, it may be said with equal justice, that while on the one hand, a good man cannot be altogether cheerful with old age and poverty combined, so on the other, no wealth can ever make a bad man at peace with himself” (Cahn, 2005, p. 33). This quote helps show the difference on how they look at justice between the two. With Plato it seems he views justice as fit for everyone just not a particular person. Everything is made equal no matter what part of society they come from. More with Plato he values the virtue of the should and how it helps with justice to man and to the city. “.. in his soul, there resides a better principle and a …show more content…

To be able to have these virtues are main factors building into a just person and having a just city. “ But are we to say that justice is this thing, namely to speak the truth and to give back what one has taken from another? Or is is possible for actions of this very nature to be sometimes just and sometimes unjust?..” (Cahn, 2005, p. 33). More to justice is dealing with the nature of the environment that they are in. That is being able to justify how a just person who may see the good in things compared to unjust who will see the negative things dealing with

Show More
Related

  • Comparing Government In Republic By Plato And Leviathan

    966 Words  | 2 Pages

    Broadly speaking, the main reason for their contrasting states is that Plato believes humans are inherently good, whereas Hobbes holds a considerably more negative stance

    Read More

  • Difference Between Aristotle And Hobbes

    1190 Words  | 3 Pages

    Aristotle and Hobbes have different views on what is good, which results in contrasting moral theories. These philosophers both have different views on what is good, how to act, and how to be. The way in which Aristotle defines happiness, is opposed in the views and beliefs of Hobbes. Aristotle believed that there was a final good and opposing him was the belief that Hobbes had which was that there was no final good. They both believed that being moral wasn’t only good for you but also good for others. Although both philosophers believe that you have to be moral in order to be good, their definitions of both happiness and moral virtue differ.

    Read More

  • Comparing John Locke and Thomas Hobbes

    1242 Words  | 3 Pages

    Hobbes and Locke both picture a different scene when they express human nature. Even though they both believed that men naturally have to some extent equality and freedom, what makes their concepts different is the presence or absence of the natural law. In Hobbes' theory, men in their natural state are at constant war, the war of all against all. Another Hobbes belief is that most people are selfish and tend to do everything for their own reason. To Hobbes humans are driven to maximize personal gains so in a world where there are no rules humans are in constant fear of each other as they each try to get as much as they can, enough is never enough.

    Read More

  • Glaucon's Challenge and Plato's Theory of Justice in Plato's Republic

    1807 Words  | 4 Pages

    Plato’s Republic focuses on one particular question: is it better to be just or unjust? Thrasymachus introduces this question in book I by suggesting that justice is established as an advantage to the stronger, who may act unjustly, so that the weak will “act justly” by serving in their interests. Therefore, he claims that justice is “stronger, freer, and more masterly than justice” (Plato, Republic 344c). Plato begins to argue that injustice is never more profitable to a person than justice and Thrasymachus withdraws from the argument, granting Plato’s response. Glaucon, however, is not satisfied and proposes a challenge to Plato to prove that justice is intrinsically valuable and that living a just life is always superior. This paper will explain Glaucon’s challenge to Plato regarding the value of justice, followed by Plato’s response in which he argues that his theory of justice, explained by three parts of the soul, proves the intrinsic value of justice and that a just life is preeminent. Finally, it will be shown that Plato’s response succeeds in answering Glaucon’s challenge.

    Read More

  • Compare And Contrast Plato And Orwell

    1380 Words  | 3 Pages

    Philosophy can be defined as the highest level of clarity and understanding human thought can aspire to. In some ways, Plato’s Republic can be compared to George Orwell’s book 1984. It may seem strange to compare the two, however they are quite similar. Plato writes from the Western philosophy, while Orwell tells of a totalitarian society where all free thought is banned. However, the two versions of government, one being a utopian government, and the other being horrific, contain certain connections that will be made clear over the course of this paper.

    Read More

  • Comparison of Aristotle and Thomas Hobbes

    1039 Words  | 3 Pages

    The foremost difference between Aristotle and Hobbes, and in turn classical and modern political philosophies’, with regard to a good life and happiness is that of normative judgments about the good life. While Hobbes rejects normative judgments about the good life and discusses human actions without attributions of moral quality, Aristotle offers the exact opposite. In Ethics, Aristotle differentiates between good and evil actions along with what the best good, or summum bonum, for all humans while Hobbes approach argues that good and bad varies from one individual to another with good being the object of an individuals appetite or desire, and evil being an object of his hate and aversion. In addition, Aristotle makes it clear that individuals have an ultimate purpose—that of political animals—that they should strive to become through trial and error throughout their life. Hobbes on the other hand rejects the idea of life having an ultimate purpose, “for there is no such finis ultimus (utmost aim) nor summum bonum (greatest good) as is spoken of in the books of the old moral philosophers…Felicity is a continual progress of the desire, from one object to another, the attaining of the former being still but the way to the latter”. Hobbes defines felicity as the satisfaction of one’s passions as stated in Leviathan “continual success in obtaining those things which a man from time to time desireth, that is to say, continual prospering, is that men call felicity.

    Read More

  • Comparing Machiavelli and Hobbes

    1482 Words  | 3 Pages

    To be successful, one must have the appearance of virtuousness, but not necessarily be virtuous. At least, this appears to be true according to Niccolo Machiavelli's works. Machiavelli's idea of the virtuous republican citizen may be compared to Hobbes' idea of a person who properly understands the nature and basis of sovereign political power. Hobbes' ideas seem to suggest that most anyone can claim rightful authority as there is a belief in God, and one can under Hobbes, claim legitimate authority rather easily. There are few proofs. Machiavelli, on the other hand, takes a strong position and suggests specific criteria in terms of power. With Machiavelli, there is a sense of righteousness and fairness and while he does not sanction authoritarian rule to save man from himself, it is also true that Machiavelli puts a lot of faith in leaders also. In some respects, one can see that the two theorists agree yet Machiavelli’s proposed Political society is more feasible thus superior to that of Hobbes.

    Read More

  • Hobbes Punishment Theory

    1387 Words  | 3 Pages

    Alan Norrie, Professor at the University of Warwick, presents a systematic examination of Hobbes’s philosophy of punishment with the intention of demonstrating its connection to the development of modern punishment theory. Norrie begins by attempting to address the contradiction between the sovereigns right to punish and the individual’s inalienable right to self-preservation. Although punishment seems to be the central function of the sovereign, it is described as the infliction of an evil, which no individual of sound and rational mind would ever agree to. Thus, it seems implausible (even impossible) that rational beings would consent to their

    Read More

  • Comparing Aristotle and Plato

    791 Words  | 2 Pages

    The Republic is the most important dialogue within Plato's teaching of politics. It deals with the soul, which, as we know from the beginning, at the level where one must make choices and decide what one wants to become in this life, and it describes justice as the ultimate form of human, and the ideal one should strive for both in life and in state. Justice as understood by Plato is not merely a social virtue, having only to do with relationship between people, but virtue that makes it possible for one to build their own regime and reach happiness.

    Read More

  • Thrasymachus Vs Hobbes

    678 Words  | 2 Pages

    The concept of justice has been a crucial factor in determining governments and the structure of society. In this essay I will argue two thinkers, Thrasymachus and Hobbes, as represented in the writings of The Republic, by Plato and Leviathan, by Thomas Hobbes divergent ideas on justice.

    Read More

  • Justice and Moderation of the Soul in The Republic, by Plato

    3023 Words  | 7 Pages

    In his philosophical text, The Republic, Plato argues that justice can only be realized by the moderation of the soul, which he claims reflects as the moderation of the city. He engages in a debate, via the persona of Socrates, with Ademantus and Gaucon on the benefit, or lack thereof, for the man who leads a just life. I shall argue that this analogy reflecting the governing of forces in the soul and in city serves as a sufficient device in proving that justice is beneficial to those who believe in, and practice it. I shall further argue that Plato establishes that the metaphorical bridge between the city and soul analogy and reality is the leader, and that in the city governed by justice the philosopher is king.

    Read More

  • Analysis of Plato's The Republic

    2022 Words  | 5 Pages

    ...is own desires rather than his subjects needs is not virtuous.  Second, a person in the military, who is supposed to be courageous may desert his fellow troops in fear.  Third, many common people commit crimes,  and create conflict within the community.  None of these people are virtuous.  However, this is exactly what Plato was getting at.  Plato believes that when each of these classes performs its own role and does not try to take over any other class, the entire city as a whole will operate smoothly, showing the harmony that is genuine justice. (ln 433e)  What makes the Republic such an important and interesting piece of literature is that by examining what brings true justice and harmony to the world, we can therefore understand all of the virtues by considering how each is placed within the organization of an ideal city.

    Read More

  • Compare And Contrast Aristotle And Plato

    1234 Words  | 3 Pages

    Greek philosophers Aristotle and Plato were two of the most influential and knowledgeable ancients in our history. Their contributions and dedication to science, language and politics are immensely valued centuries later. But while the two are highly praised for their works, they viewed several subjects entirely differently, particularly education practices, and human ethics and virtue.

    Read More

  • The Importance Of Justice In Plato's Republic

    1440 Words  | 3 Pages

    For Plato’s thesis – justice pays – to be validated, he has to prove two things, the first being that justice is inherently good. In

    Read More

  • Comparing Thomas Hobbes and Niccolo Machiavelli

    2258 Words  | 5 Pages

    Two of the greatest philosophers of all time are Thomas Hobbes and Niccolo Machiavelli. Hobbes was born in 1588 in England, when absolutism was taking hold in Europe. His most famous work was 'Leviathan', written in 1651. Hobbes discussed the ideal state and innate laws of man and nature, among other things. Machiavelli was born in Italy in 1469, a time when his home country was ruled mostly by foreign powers. His hometown, Florence, was still independent. Machiavelli's most famous work, 'The Prince', tells of his ideal state and ideal ruler. Machiavelli goes on to describe the perfect prince, a picture of cruelty and cunning. Though both genius philosophers, their views differ greatly. Hobbes believed in a minimalist government where the state only interfered with the lives of the citizens when it had to. The ideal kingdom was the kingdom of God, in Hobbes' mind. In Machiavelli's 'The Prince', he describes his ideal government with a strong monarch, and fearful subjects. In Hobbes' system, a close relationship was kept with God, while in Machiavelli's reason was the only rule. The most important and most dealt-with area of dialogue is the 'ideal' government.

    Read More

More about Compare And Contrast Plato And Hobbes

Open Document