The Supreme Court decision in Humanitarian Law Project v. Eric Holder, Jr. ruled that it was possible to limit the organization’s activities without infringing on their constitutional rights. Given that Socrates believes that governments are not infallible in upholding justice, and Hobbes that a government is incapable of injustice, Socrates would deem the Court’s decision unjust while Hobbes would claim that it is just. I am inclined to support Socrates’s reasoning over Hobbes’s, as I find that Socrates depicts the natures and relationship of sovereignty and justice more realistically, whereas Hobbes presents a more idealized version of government..
Socrates and Hobbes are not wholly different in their perspectives. They agree on the purpose
…show more content…
Socrates finds law to be ambiguous and values the intent of the accused in deciding whether laws have been broken, whereas Hobbes is certain that the law is absolute and is not subject to varied interpretations from subjects of the sovereign. Socrates feels that the terminology of the law is open to the interpretation of a government’s subjects, and finds that a person’s intentions should be considered when deciding their guilt. In his defense against accusations of his impiety, Socrates shows that ambiguous legal terminology makes the law unclear. He says that by investigating the legitimacy of the Oracle’s proclamation, he is actually performing a religious duty. Although his definition of piety differs from that of his sovereign, Socrates believes that his interpretation absolves him of any of the perceived malevolence of his actions, and that as such, there would be no justice in punishing him. Socrates finds that intent is a factor in deciding guiltiness, and that if the law is not broken willfully, the duty of the sovereign is not punishment. In the case of the Humanitarian Law Project’s desire to interact with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam (LTTE) and Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), the group claimed that they did not have any wish to act maliciously if they could legally collaborate with the LTTE and PKK. The HLP’s goals were to “provide support …show more content…
Socrates has a more realistic view of the government, in that it is composed of people every bit as fallible as those they govern. Hobbes finds that the government is incapable of injustice as perceived by its subjects, but not consider the limitations of a government’s knowledge of justice and holds the government to unreasonable standards of perfection. These views would make Hobbes support the Court’s decision while Socrates would doubt it, and I would side with Socrates, if only because I know that no legal system can be as perfect as Hobbes would like to
To highlight such differences between Aristotle and Hobbes we must first discuss the definition of virtue laid out by each. According to Aristotle virtue is a “mean between two vices, one of excess and one of deficiency”. From what we already know about Aristotle’s ...
In book four of Plato's “The Republic” Socrates defines justice in the individual as analogous to justice in the state. I will explain Socrates' definition of justice in the individual, and then show that Socrates cannot certify that his definition of justice is correct, without asking further questions about justice. I will argue that if we act according to this definition of justice, then we do not know when we are acting just. Since neither the meaning of justice, nor the meaning of good judgement, is contained in the definition, then one can act unjustly while obeying to the definition of justice. If one can act unjustly while obeying this definition, then Socrates' definition of justice is uncertifiable.
However, after closely examining Hobbes’ sovereign we can find many problems with it, the first one being his immunity from civil law. While he is still held accountable for actions such as punishing innocent citizens, his punishment comes God and not man. He abides by the law of nature and not the civil law enacted. But, what good does it do for the subjects in Hobbes’ version of a commonwealth that the sovereign is subject to the laws of nature and not the laws created in the state. The logic Hobbes presents in defense of this is reasonable; to be subjected to civil law does not only mean that the law is above the sovereign’s power but that there is a judge that can punish the sovereign. The judge in this case acts as a new sovereign, and since the judge is also subjected to the law of the commonwealth, he too will need a judge, and so on and so forth until confusion sets in and the commonwealth dissolves. (Hobbes, 215) However, because of this, the sovereign is able to do as he please, changing and creating laws that suit him. (Hobbes, 176) We must ask ourselves this question: why would a sovereign need immunity from the law for his personal interest if he acts as the representative for the subjects? Why would Hobbes create this figure, the sovereign, to rule over the subjects in their name for their benefit and safety, yet allow him to also change laws on whim, where such actions can possibly
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are two political philosophers who are famous for their theories about the formation of the society and discussing man in his natural state. Their theories are both psychologically insightful, but in nature, they are drastically different. Although they lived in the same timeframe, their ideas were derived from different events happening during this time. Hobbes drew his ideas on man from observation, during a time of civil strife in Europe during the 1640's and 1650's.
The writer however, feels that it was a wise decision for Socrates to simply condemn the jury and accept his fate. In a statement the writer states, “Socrates had agreed to abide by whatever Athens required of him in return.” Analyzing Socrates commitment and obligation to Athens is vital. However, his decision not to escape and flee are reasonable, but his acceptance of his unjustly sentencing is not. Therefore, Socrates’ decision to not act on an illegitimate sentencing was foolish and as a citizen he should have appealed his
This paper will introduce and analyze Glaucon’s and Socrates’ differing views on justice and their different viewpoints on the matter. Glacon claims that justice is about taking a position but when others act unjustly, this can be to their harm. An individual realizes that doing something wrong can benefit them. Glacon believes that Justice belongs in the first group which he believes justice is valued only as a necessary evil. Socrates believes that Justice belongs in the second group which is the highest class of goods. I agree more with the argument of Socrates than Glaucon because I believe that we want to be valued for our actions and the benefit to fulfill ourselves and others.
In Plato’s The Republic, we, the readers, are presented with two characters that have opposing views on a simple, yet elusive question: what is justice? In this paper, I will explain Thrasymachus’ definition of justice, as well as Socrates’s rebuttals and differences in opinion. In addition, I will comment on the different arguments made by both Socrates and Thrasymachus, and offer critical commentary and examples to illustrate my agreement or disagreement with the particular argument at hand.
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 to 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.
On the similarities and dissimilarities of the theories of human nature by Aristotle, Machiavelli, and Hobbes, there is a single common denominator that resonates throughout all of their works: in some way, shape, or form, they all attempt to outline and convey to the reader a sense of political understanding derived via a methodical approach to the interpretation of human society. Thomas Hobbes, author of The Leviathan, argues that mankind cannot be readily trusted to uphold the terms of certain covenants, and from this one can derive that Hobbes believes men to be fickle and capricious in their decisions, and that they should generally not be trusted. Hobbes also asserts that there exists a natural law that dictates that man will adhere to the policy of self-preservation above all else. These two arguments form the basis for what Hobbes refers to as the state of nature, in which the “will to contend by battle is sufficiently known” (Hobbes Ch. 13). The renowned Greek philosopher and author of Politics, Aristotle, contradicts Hobbes’s theory of human nature with his assumptions of man and the the polis. Aristotle’s belief that “man is a political animal”
Socrates refuses to disobey the law. He believes in the correctness of the cities laws. He believes it is never right to act unjustly. He thinks that if you do not agree with the laws of the area that you are living at, then to leave and go somewhere else. He argues that the government could be seen as “his parents, also those who brought him up,” (Crito, 51e), since he has lived there his entire life and when you live somewhere for so long you should “persuade us or to do what we say,” (Crito, 52a) or leave. Socrates tells Crito that
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.
Socrates reaches a conclusion that defies a common-sense understanding of justice. Nothing about his death sentence “seems” just, but after further consideration, we find that his escape would be as fruitless as his death, and that in some sense, Socrates owes his obedience to whatever orders Athens gives him since he has benefited from his citizenship.
John Locke and Thomas Hobbes each supported different fundamentals of human nature and government amid the seventeenth century. Thomas Hobbes distributed his point of view of the human soul as negative, persuading others to believe that its evilness should be controlled by concealment under an outright ruler. John Locke advanced an idealistic perspective of human instinct in which they lived under a legislature that secured the privileges of the general population.
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.
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.