In Plato’s The Republic and Hobbes’ Leviathan they discuss sovereign power, sovereign power being the absolute power that a state is governed. They each discuss their opinion on the basis of sovereign power; in addition they found and justify the exercise of sovereign power. The ideas of two of the greatest philosophers of all time have many differences, but also have some similarities.
In The Republic, Plato discusses how the formation of societies comes from the natural weakness of humans. Plato firmly believes in a hierarchal system within a state. There are distinct classes, which need a government to keep them in check. There are class distinctions, and privileges justified by lies. These privileges and lies are to avoid alienation within the state. If there was no form of sovereignty the guardians, who are the upper class citizens, would go after all their wants and desires freely. This would cause pandemonium and violence within the state. Plato states that, “a city whose future rulers are least eager to rule will necessarily be the best governed and freest from strife, and the one with opposite rulers the worst” (520d). By this Plato means that the people who should keep the social classes in check and rule over the state should be people who are not interested in power, ruling over others, self-gain, or self-promotion. Plato says, "to become a good guardian, a man must be by nature fast, strong, and a spirited philosopher" (Plato 376e). He believes the people he describes as best suited to rule would be philosophers; this is due to their ability to stop and rationally access a citation with a nonpartisan view. The philosopher guardians would be capable of counter balancing the greed of the citizens of the state. Plato s...
... middle of paper ...
...e “another doctrine repugnant to civil society, is that whatsoever a man does against his conscience, is sin; and it dependeth on the presumption of making himself judge of good and evil” (Hobbes pt. 2 Ch. 29). He is saying there is a type of personal contract with yourself that is your right to decide what is right and what is wrong. The bottom line is that a good government is essential to rid a state of fear and to regulate the groups that people form in order to survive.
There are many similarities between Plato’s The Republic and Hobbes’ Leviathan; however, the main similarity between the two is that both Plato and Hobbes agree that a form of sovereignty is necessary, both of their basic reasons being based on their views of human nature. In addition, both philosophers agree that there different classes or groups that form and are needed for a civil society.
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke have authored two works that have had a significant impact on political philosophy. In the “Leviathan” by Hobbes and “Two Treatises of Government” by Locke, the primary focus was to analyze human nature to determine the most suitable type of government for humankind. They will have confounding results. Hobbes concluded that an unlimited sovereign is the only option, and would offer the most for the people, while for Locke such an idea was without merit. He believed that the government should be limited, ruling under the law, with divided powers, and with continued support from its citizens. With this paper I will argue that Locke had a more realistic approach to identifying the human characteristics that organize people into societies, and is effective in persuading us that a limited government is the best government.
In Plato’s reasoning he explains that everyone is born with innate qualifications that make them more fit than others for a certain occupation. He suggests that in this way each person’s function will be completed thoroughly. The same theory applies when deciding how the city with be ruled. Only people who possess superior traits will have the power to rule. These people will pertain to the highest ranking class of the state called the guardian class.
He believes that by transferring all rights to a sovereign, the threat of the state of nature will be diminished. A sovereign elected will be able to represent and protect everyone equally, they are not a ruler of the people, but a representative. The Leviathan differs from a principality and a republic by establishing the institution of the commonwealth through the social contract. To understand how the Leviathan differs from either a principality or a republic, one must look at the principles of each to decipher how Hobbes bears resemblance to and disagrees with Machiavelli. The Leviathan state resembles a principality by giving absolute power to one sovereign.
One of the versions of governing is an oligarchy, a small group of people in control of a country. In book eight of the republic Plato explains the meaning of an oligarchy and when it is very unsuccessful. It doesn't work because whoever has the most wealth can take part in ruling over the city. Plato even explains "when virtue and riches are placed together in the scales of the balance, the one always rises as the other falls...
Plato defends himself by explaining that he is thinking what is best for society, and not just for one specific group. If there is an exceptional good person, it is further exceptional for them to identify and further trained because it is what is best for the collective good, and of that exceptionally good must take justice into their own hands. (186). He argues that the guardians are always on the scent for truth, like dogs who are the most philosophical of all animals, so therefore they should rule because in a way they are like philosophers, and Plato believes the philosophers are titled to become rulers. (explain the corruption part on 188.) When Munitiz brings up the how Plato lays out only a program for the ruling class. He counteracts acts that statement and explains that he only wants a city where are the citizens are able to achieve their virtues leading them to their happiness, but for that to happen it requires rulers to be one with city and will never exploit it. He claims this would lead to not only a just city, but justice for
Above anything else, Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan is a creation story and an investigation of human nature. The story begins in a time of chaos and death and through a journey of human development culminates in the establishment of a sustainable and rational society—the commonwealth—led by a sovereign. At a first casual glance, Hobbes’ reasoning of the transformation from the state of nature to the commonwealth is not airtight. A few possible objections can be quickly spotted: the contradictions of natural law with suicide and the civil law to honor even harmful covenants. Hobbes deals with some of these issues and seems to ignore others, but he does address in detail the most significant objection to his theory: the unlimited and unchecked power given to the sovereign. The establishment of the commonwealth culminates in a covenant that grants the sovereign absolute power in enforcing the civil laws of the state, but also guarantees the sovereign’s status as above the law. How does this ensure peace and survival, as is the point of the commonwealth? Hobbes provides many convincing reasons why it would be difficult, counterproductive, and impossible for the sovereign to not be above the law, but in the end, disorder and chaos are worse than any tyranny.
In sophisticated prose, Hobbes manages to conclude that human beings are all equal in their ability to harm each other, and furthermore that they are all capable of rendering void at will the covenants they had previously made with other human beings. An absolutist government, according to Hobbes, would result in a in a society that is not entirely focused on self-preservation, but rather a society that flourishes under the auspices of peace, unity, and security. Of all the arguably great philosophical discourses, Hobbes in particular provides one of the surest and most secure ways to live under a sovereign that protects the natural liberties of man. The sovereign government is built upon the idea of stability and security, which makes it a very intriguing and unique government indeed. The aforementioned laudation of Hobbes and his assertions only helps to cement his political theories at the forefront of the modern
In this essay, I will present three reasons as to why the absolute authority of the sovereign in Hobbes’s state of nature and social contract is justified. The three reasons Hobbes uses are: the argument from contract, the argument from authorisation and the argument from weakness of mixed or divided sovereignty. Firstly, I shall explain Hobbes’s understanding of human nature and the natural condition of humanity which causes the emergence of the social contract. I shall then analyse each argument for the absolute authority of the sovereign being justified. I shall then consider possible objections to Hobbes’s argument. I shall then show why Hobbes’s argument is successful and the absolute authority of the sovereign is justified.
While Thomas Hobbes believed that all people were wicked only fighting for their own interests, John Locke believed that person were naturally good and once they were born, they were empty slates which makes them learn from their experiences instead of just being outright evil. John Locke believed in democracy because if a government is like an absolute monarch, it won’t satisfy all the needs of the people and this is why the people have a right to revolt against an abusive government as proven in the American Revolutionary War with King George III or the French Revolutionary War with King Louis XVI who didn 't support their citizen’s ideas and goals. Thomas Hobbes believed that people couldn 't be trusted because they would only fight for their own interests, so an absolute monarch would demand obedience to maintain order, but John Locke States that people can be trusted since all people are naturally good but depending on our experiences as they can still govern themselves. The Purpose of the government, according to John Locke is to protect the individual liberties and rights instead of just keeping law and order because with law and order being put strictly, the people would rebel because it didn’t represent them and then the country will collapse because the king was too
Hobbes’ Leviathan and Locke’s Second Treatise of Government comprise critical works in the lexicon of political science theory. Both works expound on the origins and purpose of civil society and government. Hobbes’ and Locke’s writings center on the definition of the “state of nature” and the best means by which a society develops a systemic format from this beginning. The authors hold opposing views as to how man fits into the state of nature and the means by which a government should be formed and what type of government constitutes the best. This difference arises from different conceptions about human nature and “the state of nature”, a condition in which the human race finds itself prior to uniting into civil society. Hobbes’ Leviathan goes on to propose a system of power that rests with an absolute or omnipotent sovereign, while Locke, in his Treatise, provides for a government responsible to its citizenry with limitations on the ruler’s powers.
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.
the state exists exactly as Hobbes had presented in The Leviathan. The Sovereign rules absolutely; every
Wisdom, courage, moderation and justice are four essential virtues the ideal state must be built upon, as explained by Socrates in Plato’s Republic. Throughout the eight books of Socratic dialogue the ideal state and ideas of justice are debated, on both individual and state levels. The guidelines for a perfect state and how it will come about are thoroughly described. Socrates covers every aspect of political life and how it should work stating that “until power and philosophy entirely coincide… cities will have no rest form evils” . In Plato’s Republic Socrates emphasizes the superiority of the philosopher and their abilities to rule as kings above others. He believes that they are best suited to rule as a result of their pure souls and lust for knowledge, the desire for truth over opinions and things that are tangible. The philosopher is best able to fulfill the four essential virtues of the state and thus must be the king. He evokes the idea of a cave, a parallel to the effects of education on the soul and a metaphor for human perceptions, to describe how humans will act and show distinctions between groups of people. This conception of the ideal state has been heavily criticized by his successors, but when applied according to how Plato perceived the state and human capacity, in theory the idea of the philosopher-king is extremely convincing. According to Socrates the soul is made up of three parts, and each person is governed primarily by a different one. Which aspect of the soul occupies a person affects their access to the four virtues deemed ultimate. The appetitive part of the soul is at the bottom of the divided line; it controls the unnecessary desires and is undesirable to be governed by. The spirited element of the s...
In The Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes talks about his views of human nature and describes his vision of the ideal government which is best suited to his views.
Plato’s view of division of labour is divided into three types of peoples’ task in life which are workers as farmers, military type and guardians. Actually, the ruling task of Plato’s Republic is the guardian’s responsible who had achieved the greatest wisdom or knowledge of good. Due to that, Plato claims that “philosopher must become kings or those now who called kings must genuinely and adequately philosophise’’ (Nussbaum1998, p.18). However, people argue about the reasons that the philosopher should rule the city, while the philosophers prefer to gain knowledge instead of power, thus they don’t seek this authority. Therefore, the argument should alter to why the philosophers are the best ruler to govern people. Indeed, Plato states much evidence to prove his view. Firstly, these kinds of kings are interested in simple life and helping people for better communication. Secondly, as Plato points out that each type of workers has a deficiency and conflict in his erotic attachments such as a worker is a lover of money, but the philosopher is a devotee of wisdom and knowledge. Thirdly, their disapproving of being a king comes from their fear of being unjust (Nussbaum, 1998).Not only these evidence does Plato claim, but he also adds the characteristics of being a king and the education system of philosophy.