Justice Vs. Hobbes: The State Of Justice
analytical Essay
1589 words
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…
In this essay, the author
- Argues that justice is perhaps the most formidable instrument that could be used in the pursuit of peace. however, the fool believes that it is a mere tool to acquire power and rule at his own discretion.
- Explains that hobbes believes that power is the ability for an individual to obtain "future apparent good." morality is completely relative to the individuals desires at that moment and what he believes is in his best interest for survival.
- Analyzes how hobbes argues that there is no justice when humans are living in the state of mere nature. justice must battle all of human desire to establish a foothold in an arena where force and fraud are the supreme virtues.
- Explains that absolute liberty cannot exist if human beings wish to bring about a condition of peace.
- Explains the power of the sovereign to produce justice does not mean that any and every law can be thought of as good. good laws should always seek to protect and preserve an individual's inalienable rights.
- Opines that justice for the fool is just a means to obtain or maintain one's own power, not an end in itself.
- Argues that the fool does not obtain his power by his virtue alone if the ninth law of nature is correct. hobbes implies that no one man is that virtuous.
- Opines that the fool is foolish to believe that justice could exist for any length of time if it did not pursue and maintain certain inalienable rights of the individual.
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
Related
- analytical
- opinionated
- Justice in Plato's Republic and Hobbes' Leviathananalytical essayOne of the main concepts in both Plato's Republic and Hobbes' Leviathan is justice. For Plato, the goal of his Republic is to discover what justice is and to demonstrate that it is better than injustice. Plato does this by explaining justice in two different ways: through a city or polis and through an individual human beings soul. He uses justice in a city to reveal justice in an individual. For Hobbes, the term justice is used to explain the relationship between morality and self-interest. 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 at Hobbes? 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. By analyzing the Republic, it will be shown that Plato would most likely differ with the statement made by the fool because the main of premise the book in itself is to discover the definition of justice.
In this essay, the author
- Analyzes the concept of justice in plato's republic and hobbes' leviathan.
- Analyzes hobbes' reply to the fool by stating that justice is men performing their covenants made and the constant will of giving every man his own.
- Explains that the question is not of promises mutual, where there is no security of performance on either side, or where one of the parties has already performed.
- Analyzes how hobbes claims that a covenant is beneficial if both people involved comply, but dangerous, since one cannot count on another to act rationally. the second statement contradicts the fool's statement.
- Analyzes how hobbes asserts that it is unreasonable to break contracts even if there is a possibility that they will be beneficial because people might not gain from the circumstances.
- Analyzes how hobbes asserts that man must enter into cooperation with others to survive in a state of constant war.
- Analyzes hobbes' argument that breaking a particular covenant may be beneficial, but in the long run it will be detrimental. no man is strong enough to be dependent or self-sufficient.
- Analyzes hobbes' final reply to the fool's statement that if a man violates an agreement, it will become known to members of society and those members will most likely exclude the violator.
- Analyzes how hobbes implies that people are capable of rational cooperation in the state of nature and because this is possible justice prevails.
- Compares plato's and hobbes' notions of justice, stating that both believe that justice is good in itself. both the city and the individual human being are composed of three different parts.
- Analyzes how plato responds to glaucon's challenge to show that being just is better than being unjust.
- Analyzes how plato and glaucon debate whether justice is good in itself or only when one is forced to be just. the ring of gyges allows a person to become invisible whenever he chooses.
- Analyzes how plato refutes glaucon's claim that people are only just when compelled to be by showing people will eventually come to act justly.
- Analyzes glaucon's depiction of two men, one perfectly unjust and the other perfectly just, and how he tests the just man by depriving him of all the benefits of being just.
- Analyzes how plato discusses the virtues of wisdom, courage, moderation, and justice in the city.
- Analyzes how plato introduces his notion that the soul had three parts: reason, spirit and appetites. the idea that a person must complete one's task is an image of justice and not the entire picture.
- Explains plato's claim that only a just man will be the happiest man because he will have more true pleasure than anyone else.
- Analyzes plato's claim that a city governed by dictatorship is the unhappiest. the unjust man lacks justice in his soul.
- Analyzes how plato successfully demonstrates that a truly just man is happier than the truly unjust man.
- Analyzes how both plato and hobbes present different views of justice in reply to the fool's statement.
2781 wordsRead More - What is Justice?analytical essayJustice, for the great Greek philosophers of ancient times and even for the great philosophers of today, is a controversial issue and has been up for immense discussion and review. The nature of justice and injustice has been stated and reviewed many times, however, the origin of the reviewing comes from the Greek Thrasymachus, who's thesis is later reviewed and modified by Glaucon. Glaucon's position is revised yet again by Thomas Hobbes, who's version is now the accepted form of explanation for the origin of justice and injustice. Although there are various examples for the origin and nature of justice and injustice provided by these three men, I will provide supporting examples for the conclusion that the thesis and arguments made by Hobbes are the ones most acceptable and relevant in today's society.
In this essay, the author
- Explains that the nature of justice and injustice has been discussed and reviewed many times by thrasymachus, glaucon, and hobbes.
- Analyzes how thrasymachus says that justice is doing what is advantageous to the stronger. he concludes that injustice is good counsel, stating the way of the unjust.
- Analyzes glaucon's thesis that justice is good solely as means but not in itself.
- Analyzes how glaucon adds to thrasymachus in that no one is willingly just and they are only compelled to be as such by nature.
- Analyzes how hobbes states that the justice of persons has to do with the want of doing the actions that are just. everyone is equal in mind and body, they act based on passion, and they are able to kill everyone else.
- Analyzes hobbes' reasons for the escape from the state of nature for those who feel they can't survive on their own and need a sovereign to rule them.
- Compares hobbes' arguments with glaucon and thrasymachus on the origin and nature of justice.
- Concludes that hobbes' arguments are the most convincing for the idea of justice in america's society today.
- Opines that hobbes makes three points pertinent to the lifestyles of the americans today: making peace, transferring rights while not being judgmental and keeping the covenants.
1503 wordsRead More - Hobbes Versus Rawles On The Foolanalytical essay...ct. Even if the fool does not believe in justice, Hobbes believes he will be cast out of society, which makes the promise for anyone's survival bleak.21
In this essay, the author
- Analyzes how hobbes and rawls propose an idea of a social contract, for society.
- Analyzes how hobbes' leviathan does a better job of dealing with the fool's argument than john rawls.
- Analyzes how hobbes believes it is not wise to uphold contracts. the fool takes a high risk, high reward gamble that he won't be caught by the leviathan.
- Explains that rawls does not have leviathan in his contract theory because his theory uses the veil of ignorance, which results in an egalitarian liberal democracy being proposed.
- Argues that rawls is specific about what one needs to be ignorant of, such as social status or class, fortune, abilities, intelligence, strength, conception of the good, political and economic circumstances, and psychological features.
- Analyzes how rawls' theory requires a thought experiment, but the fool's argument is one in reality, not in an experiment. he argues that it is in his best interest to cheat others.
- Analyzes how hobbes' theory is more suited for the argument, because his theory shows how he thinks society is, while rawls simply says how it would be in its ideal.
- Explains the prisoners dilemma, a simple game theoretical model with two criminals interrogated separately, meaning they have no idea what the other player will do.
- Analyzes how rawl's theory creates a standard prisoners dilemma for the fool, if he doesn't know what others will do.
- Analyzes how hobbes gives a powerful response to why the fool shouldn't break the social contract. rawls' theory of justice makes an excellent case for fairness and rights.
1623 wordsRead More - Being Unjust Analysisanalytical essayHave you ever ask yourself how much being unjust impacts your everyday life and decisions, and how your life would change when you are just? Plato wrote in this book’s expect about how Glaucon perceives the basic idea of justice and how we humans perceive justice as. People created own laws and are deciding whether or no to follow them. One of Glaucon’s argument is that we follow justice to get things or because of its consequences. He also argues that we should preserve justice as a way to gain things not to value it for its own sake. The first of Glaucon’s two claims is the descriptive claim which talks about and explains that humans instrumentally value justice instead of intrinsically valuing it.
In this essay, the author
- Analyzes how glaucon's assumption about human nature is that our nature makes us greedy and drives us to get the things we want.
- Analyzes how glaucon defines perfectly unjust person as a person that has reputation for being just. the comparison in normative argument is not fair because just person is put into more extreme situation.
- Analyzes how glaucon's argument is that people follow justice to get things or because of its consequences. he also argues that we should preserve justice as a way to gain things.
- Analyzes how glaucon describes how we view justice and that we like justice for its advantages.
1194 wordsRead More - The Logical Response To The Fool, By Thomas Hobbesanalytical essayAlthough 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
In this essay, the author
- Argues that hobbes' logical response to the fool is problematic because he only considers the element of self-sacrifice, which conflicts with the concept of civic obligations.
- Analyzes how glaucon presents an argument against justice in order to pressure socrates to give a more convincing argument.
- Analyzes how glaucon concludes that anyone in possession of the ring would stick by justice and keep away from what belongs to others.
- Analyzes how socrates introduces the three parts of the soul: spirit, reason, and appetite. he answers these questions through an analogy with the body and its soul.
1004 wordsRead More - Thomas Aquinas And Thomas Hobbes Interpretation Of Natural Lawanalytical essayTopic sentence. Thomas Hobbes interpretation of natural law is not only radically different, but inconsistent with the traditional view. This can be seen through the similarities and differences found when comparing Thomas Hobbes theory, and Thomas Aquinas’ theory in regards to their view of man’s ultimate goal, their definition of natural law in regards to its relationship with human rationality, and lastly how they view the meaning and relationship of divine providence and religion in natural law. The following pages will define natural law, and will analyze all three issues listed above through comparing and contrasting Hobbes and Aquinas’ view. Hobbes view is utilitarian. The Leviathan is the marking of when traditional natural law ends, and a new scientific version from a realistic perspective begins through Hobbes.
In this essay, the author
- Analyzes how hobbes' interpretation of natural law is inconsistent with the traditional view. the leviathan marks the end of traditional natural laws.
- Explains that the roots of natural law lie in aristotle's doctrine that every substance or nature contains a telso, or in other words the law of development. thomas aquinas is known for being one of the most influential moral philosophers
- Analyzes how hobbes interprets natural law in exactly opposite terms as aquinas, stating that he believes that men cannot be satisfied by the "cultivation of virtue."
- Compares hobbes and aquinas' views on the term natural law, arguing that it is only necessary when man arrives at a point in life where he generally agrees to seek peace.
- Argues that hobbes' writing style differs from that of aquinas in regards to his view of natural law because he consistently seeks to explain god in rational terms.
- Analyzes how hobbes disregards viewing any degree of good as realistic or achievable because in doing so he would contradict his very own principles.
- Argues that hobbes does not share the same idea of divine providence as aquinas and is therefore not in line with the tradition of natural law.
1258 wordsRead More - Analysis Of Thrasymachus's Argument Against Justiceanalytical essayGlaucon’s continuation of Thrasyamachus’s argument against “justice” is broken down into three parts in which he described that his argument will make an attack on different points. First, he began by asking the questions of “what sort of thing people claim justice is” and “where they say it comes from”. Second, he went on to note that “everyone who pursues it pursues it unwillingly as something necessary but not good”. Finally, he articulated that “people do it fittingly since the life of someone who’s unjust is much better than that of someone who’s just as they say”.
In this essay, the author
- Analyzes glaucon's continuation of thrasyamachus’s argument against "justice" in three parts.
- Analyzes how glaucon altered thrasymachus' argument by taking a different approach on his attack of justice.
- Analyzes how glaucon's second argument established freedom for both the just and the unjust to do whatever they want.
- Analyzes how the ring of gyges is an example in which a person who would no longer suffer consequences wouldn't resist. men are naturally thinking how they can gain more than they have in their current situation.
- Analyzes glaucon's challenge to socrates on the fact that greed and the desire of "want" drives people, not merely the thought of being a good person.
- Analyzes socrates' rebuttal, which discusses the virtuous of a person and how it affects their outlook on themselves and society around them.
- Analyzes plato's concept of moderation, which is the idea of well-orderedness or a harmony of one’s self.
- Analyzes socrates' and glaucon's arguments on the subject of wisdom and knowledge.
2259 wordsRead More - The Ethical Implications Of Self-Censorship In Robert Hobbesanalytical essayHobbes seems to be much less interested in what subjects actually think than in how they appear or present themselves to each other. Hobbes’s laws of nature have nothing to say about the interiority of the subject, that is, about whether and how far the goodness of an action is connected to the intentions or beliefs or dispositions of the would be do-gooder. Instead, Hobbes’s attention centres on the outward demeanour of citizens without any reference to their internal beliefs.
In this essay, the author
- Analyzes how hobbes's laws of nature have nothing to say about the interiority of a subject, that is, whether and how far the goodness of an action is connected to the intentions or beliefs of the would-be-gooder.
- Analyzes how samantha frost suggests that this direction of attention is definitive of hobbes's ethical approach, in which the vital condition of peace is the willingness of individuals to simulate appropriately peaceable qualities in the public sphere.
- Analyzes how hobbes's willingness to censor his own views is reinforced by evidence that he would have preferred to keep these views private for fear of the wider implications of publicising them widely.
- Analyzes how hobbes' solution is to create a mechanism, sovereign power, by which individuals limit themselves to expressions of opinion and belief that do not create political instability.
- Argues that hobbes's anti-utopian scepticism has led some commentators to suggest that his underlying argument has less to do with modern rationalism than with the machiavellian statecraft of the late renaissance reason of state tradition.
- Explains that machiavelli's prince stands at the beginning of the reason of state tradition in the early modern period, infamously counting wrong-doing on the part of princes seeking to secure their states.
- Argues that hobbes's work is a variant of the anti-utopian techniques recommended by the reason of state writers.
- Analyzes how hobbes's treatments of religion and theology remained in play, but the rules of the game had been quietly but fundamentally altered.
- Opines that the distinction between mutually exclusive public and private spheres may have provided a temporary self-censoring solution to the political problems identified by the politiques, but it stored up future trouble by generating an authoritative moral self at odds with the public
- Analyzes how hobbes' demolition job involves the redefinition, rewriting or brute rejection of what were conventionally understood to be itative sources of the self. his absolute commitment to materialism precludes the possibility that anything identified with an autonomous self might enjoy a mode or manner of existence that could not be explained in material terms.
- Analyzes how hobbes systematically reformulated the traditional constituents of the self according to this logic, in a way that undermines their potential for acting as independent sources of authority.
- Analyzes how hobbes's materialism and nominalism cut through putatively authoritative claims about the self by his predecessors, but his aim is positive as well as negative.
- Explains that understanding the self is no longer a search for an authentic inner self, but rather an attempt to identify the external conditions that cause the thoughts and passions that lead to certain sorts of action.
- Explains that the quest for self-knowledge is now entirely reoriented towards the conditions required for the continued existence of the self.
- Opines that hobbes' vision of the world is strikingly original and relevant to contemporary politics. his main concern is the problem of social and political order.
- Opines that hobbes' political conclusions can be avoided if we adopt a more realistic picture of human nature, but most scholars now accept that he had more complex views on human motivation.
1397 wordsRead More - Utilitarianism In Thomas Hobbes's Theory Of Sovereignityanalytical essayhe attempt to appeal to what alone would attract their own self-interest. Thus, the argument itself is utilitarian in nature and character that it will be to every man’s interest in the future to follow these rules. Because if the rules are followed and fulfilled, he will get the peace and security which he desires that the security which will relieve his fear and the peace which will enable him to satisfy his various desires. This argument, in fact, is unsatisfactory because Hobbes recognizes the breakdown and he also knows no other consideration which would lead men to be obedient and amenable to social discipline that he has to appeal, over and above utilitarian in discipline, the force as the factor which will be introduce and maintain order.
In this essay, the author
- Analyzes how hobbes' argument is utilitarian in nature and character that it will be to every man's interest in the future to follow these rules.
- Analyzes how hobbes argues that a mere multitude cannot have rights and cannot act but only individual men can do this, which follows from the proposition that any collective body is artificial.
- Analyzes how hobbes' theory of sovereignty explains how society depends on mutual trust. it is hopeless to expect society to respect other's rights unless there is an effective government.
- Explains that a utilitarian calculation of relative advantages does not end decisively in favor of conformity to the ‘laws of nature’.
1123 wordsRead More - Glaucon And David Hume Analysisopinionated essayAs 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
In this essay, the author
- Explains how glaucon's description of what people say about the origin of justice aligns or compares with what hume says about its utility.
- Opines that aristotle is saying that humanity is partrian because of justice and the law. glaucon and humes were both philosophers who shared a similar perspective.
- Explains glaucon's view that to do injustice is good, and to suffer injustice, is evil, but it is more likely to occur than to practice injustice. this resulted in men to compromise.
- Analyzes glaucon's point that justice is involuntary, it is used to sustain order in society.
- Explains that humes had a philosophical idea about the origin of justice. he demonstrates that justice was based on its utility to the public.
- Analyzes how hume's experiment suggests that justice would not prevail in certain societies.
- Opines that justice would not prevail in a society of war and abundance, because humanity would be benevolent to each other.
- Opines that justice protects our possession and our rights as humans. glaucon and hume philosophy of justice align with each other.
- Opines that justice is needed to protect our properties and possessions. without justice, mankind would become uncontrollable.
- Explains that glaucon believes that if mankind was invincible he would not be just, while humes demonstrated several scenarios to strengthen his argument, which implies that justice would only prevail in certain societies.
955 wordsRead More