Justice is perhaps the most formidable instrument that could be used in the pursuit of peace. It allows for people to rise above the state of mere nature and war with one another. However the fool believes that justice is a mere tool to be used to acquire power and rule at his own discretion. Can it be possible for anyone to be that virtuous? Or does power acquired in that manner actually come from somewhere else? Through justice it’s possible to produce a sovereign that is in harmony with the very people that constitute its power. The argument against the fool and for justice will proceed from this foundation.
When analyzing Hobbes case for justice, one must first establish the conditions where justice can even begin to exist at all.
…show more content…
There is no justice when humans are living in the state of mere nature in “this war of every man against every man...nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong or just and unjust have there no place.”(188) These are the conditions that constitute mere nature. Justice has to battle all of human desire just to begin to establish a foothold in an arena where force and fraud are the supreme virtues.(188) Anything and everything is allowed in mere nature and absolute liberty “without impediment”(189) is used accordingly, as ones own reason dictates. When Human desires and aversions are pursued for only self preservation this puts us in a state of perpetual war with one another on an individual level, each of us doing whatever is necessary to survive. Therefore to establish justice is to first institute laws and government, but before this can be done you have to decide who or what entity has the right to do so? How is this power transferred to them? And at what …show more content…
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
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
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.
Plato's Book I of The Republics presents three fundamental views on justice which are exemplified in Thucydides' On Justice, Power and Human Nature. Justice is illustrated as speaking the paying one's debts, helping one's friends and harming one's enemies, and the advantage of the stronger.
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...
In chapter XIII Hobbes states "To this war of every man against every man, this also is consequent; that nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice have there no place. Where there is no common power, there is no law: where no law, no injustice." In the state of nature where self-preservation is inevitable, justice and injustice have no place. Since Hobbes asserts that there is no justice, the sovereign again must govern through fear. Hobbes states “The passions that incline men to peace are fear of death, desire of such things are necessary to commodious living and by a hope by their industry to obtain them” When there is no justice or injustice, the sovereign must implement laws through fear to maintain the
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.
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 for Hobbes & Hobbies? 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.
Thrasymachus’s definition of justice is incoherent and hard to conceptualize within the context of the debate. What remains unclear is Thrasymachus’s ideal definition of justice. At first, Thrasymachus definition of justice after passage 338c remains disputable. Justice, Thrasymachus states, “… is simply what is good for the stronger” (338c). Therefore, on its own, this statement could infer that, what can benefit the stronger is just and therefore can be beneficial to the weaker as well. Therefore Thrasymachus definition can be taken in different contexts and used to one’s discretion. Additionally, Thrasymachus changes his definition of justice multiple times during the discussion. Thrasymachus states t...
Upon the summation of the debate between Polemarchus and Socrates, Thrasymachus enters into the fray. He states that justice “is nothing other than advantage of the stronger” (Republic 338c), and also that the greatest life is that of perfect injustice, to be found in the life of a tyrant. This definition leaves no room for the common good because it creates a life of compet...
Traditionally justice was regarded as one of the cardinal virtues; to avoid injustices and to deal equitable with both equals and inferiors was seen as what was expected of the good man, but it was not clear how the benefits of justice were to be reaped. Socrates wants to persuade from his audience to adopt a way of estimating the benefits of this virtue. From his perspective, it is the quality of the mind, the psyche organization which enables a person to act virtuously. It is this opposition between the two types of assessment of virtue that is the major theme explored in Socrates’ examination of the various positions towards justice. Thus the role of Book I is to turn the minds from the customary evaluation of justice towards this new vision. Through the discourse between Cephalus, Polemarchus and Thrasymachus, Socaretes’ thoughts and actions towards justice are exemplified. Though their views are different and even opposed, the way all three discourse about justice and power reveal that they assume the relation between the two to be separate. They find it impossible to understand the idea that being just is an exercise of power and that true human power must include the ability to act justly. And that is exactly what Socrates seeks to refute.
Within two classical works of philosophical literature, notions of justice are presented plainly. Plato’s The Republic and Sophocles’ Antigone both address elements of death, tyranny and immorality, morality, and societal roles. These topics are important elements when addressing justice, whether in the societal representation or personal representation.
Individual liberty is the freedom to act and believe as one pleases. It is a widely controversial issue when it comes to the power of the government policing over individual�s freedoms. In this paper, I am going to compare two well known philosophers, Thomas Hobbes and John Rawls. In part one, I will explain the political and social positions taken by each philosopher. I will explain how Thomas Hobbes is associated with the �social contract theory,� and how John Rawls� theory of government is a �theory of justice.� In doing so, I will describe their different viewpoints on the government and its power over the people. In Part two, I will describe the differences between Hobbes and Rawls. I will argue that Rawls position on the government is the most reasonable, and I will explain why I believe so. In part three, I will explain my own theory and viewpoint with the example of sex laws, including prostitution. With this example, I will tell how and why I believe individual liberty is important. In part four, I will explain how someone might disagree with my position. I will explain how conservative individuals would argue that the government should regulate sexual activity to protect the greater good of society. Finally, I will conclude with discussing the power of the government and individual liberties in today�s society.
Thomas Hobbes and John Stuart Mill have completely differing views on affairs consisting of liberty and authority. Hobbes believing that man is inherently unable to govern themselves and emphasizes that all people are selfish and evil; the lack of governmental structure is what results in a state of chaos, only to be resolved by an authority figure, leading him to be in favor of authority. Throughout “On Liberty” Mill believes that authority, used to subvert one’s liberty, is only acceptable in protecting one from harm. In Leviathan Hobbes uses the Leviathan as a metaphor for the state, made up of its inhabitants, with the head of the Leviathan being the sovereign and having sovereignty as the soul of the Leviathan. Hobbes’ believes that man needs the absolute direction of the sovereign for society to properly function, deeming liberty practically irrelevant due to authority, as the government’s power is the only thing that allows society to go anywhere. The views that Mill has on liberty are not simply more applicable in modern and ancient society, but the outcome of his views are far more beneficial on society as a whole compared to Hobbes’ who’s views are far too black and white to be applied in outside of a theoretical situation and would not truly work in real world scenarios.
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.
Selbourne, David The Principle of Duty, An Essay on the Foundations of the Civic Order London 1994