Glaucon And David Hume Analysis

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?

The well-known philosopher Aristotle once said,“At his best man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice he is the worst.” In other words, Aristotle is saying because of justice and the law mankind are partrian (a person of noble or high rank). However, if justice did not exist humanity would become barbaric. In fact, Glaucon and David Humes were both philosophers who shared a similar perspective

to Aristotle.
Glaucon states that to do injustice is good, and to suffer injustice is evil, but to suffer injustice is more likely to occur than to practice injustice. In other words, he believes, an individual is more likely to suffer the evil of injustice than the good, so this resulted in men to compromise. When men have experienced both the good and evil of injustice, they then realize that you cannot have one without the other. Therefore, men had mutual agreements to practiced neither, and this was how the law was formed. As a result, these agreements that they made among themselves were considered to be rightful.
In addition to justice, he expresses that the law is necessary not to punish the injustice but, to protect mankind from suffering injustice.

If there was a way for mankind to be unjust without any consequences, then he would be unjust. For instance, The Ring of Gyges is a fictional tale about a shepherd who took a ring from a corpse that he found after a storm. The ring gave the shepherd the ability to disappear when he turned the facet inward, but he would reappear when he turned the facet outward. When the shepherd became aware of the power of the ring he stole the kingdom by seducing the queen, and killing the king. Afterward, Glaucon made a comparison to justify what would have happened if two of the ring exist. He stated, that if one ring was giving to the just man, and the other ring giving the unjust man, they would both pursue their own self-interest. The essence of Glaucon’s story is that, if a just man had the opportunity to obtain his desires by been unjust, then he would be. Glaucon point is justice is involuntary, it is used to sustain order in society (if you do not break the law, you are more likely not to get punished).

David Humes had a similar philosophical idea about the origin of justice. He demonstrates that justice was based on its utility to the public. According to Hume, it is not required for justice to be involved when interacting with animals, because animals are inferior compared to the human species, they do not have the ability to envy or own

property. Basically, he is saying that, as a result of inequality, we should only treat animals with charisma. Although Humes does not say so directly, he apparently assumes that, because mankind is equal they need justice to maintain order in civilization.

A number of the experiment have suggested that justice would not prevail in certain societies . Humes shows in a society of abundance, where there is unlimited access to resources such as food, comfort, and clothing, people do not work and because everything is shared, property and mine does not exist. In this Euthopia mankind self-interest was of others well been. Contrastly, in another scenario, Hume presented humanity as savages. They killed and steal with no remorse for each other. Every man would be only for himself.

In the society of war justice would not prevail, mankind only interest would be to survive at any cost.

Also, in the society of abundance, justice would not exist, because humanity would be benevolent to each other. Between the most altruistic and the most barbarous society is the middle. In this society (the middle such as United States, London, Beijing, civilization) we need justice to protect our property.

It is important to acknowledge that Justice protects our possession and our rights as humans. Without justice, it would be more likely for destruction to occur than that of benevolence in a society. Glaucon and Hume philosophy of justice aligns with each other, in the sense that justice is a contract created to prevent people from killing each other. I agree that the sole purpose of justice is its utility to the public. Although, I cannot help thinking what would happen if I possessed the power to be unjust without ever suffering consequences.

As a result, I am convinced by both philosophers that Justice is needed to protect our properties and possession. Without justice, mankind would become uncontrollable, so working to attain possessions would be in vain for most people. People would steal from each other because they are aware that mankind had laws, no restriction, and no consequence for their action. Furthermore, everybody would try to become superior compared to another. Mankind would have no morality and instead of peace, one’s own self-interest would become

objective.

To summarize, Glaucon believes that if mankind was invincible he would not be just, but because he does not have that power he is just. Similarly, Humes demonstrated several scenarios to strengthen his argument, which implies that justice would only prevail in certain societies. Consequently, he alluded that justice is necessary to maintain structure and civilization. Moreover, aligning with both philosophers I have always believe that without properties justice would be diminished.