Comparing Plato's 'Republic And Hobbes' Leviathan
Justice is an important concept that is incorporated in both Plato’s Republic and Hobbes’s Leviathan. Each philosopher has their reasons for choosing the just life. The purpose of the Republic was to explore and identify the true meaning of justice. Plato’s pursuit to find the meaning of justice is based on yearning for greatness in the city and the human soul. In the Leviathan, Hobbes defines justice through the relationship between obligations and self-preservation. In Chapter 15, Hobbes responds to the Fool’s criticism on justice. In the Republic, Plato refutes Glaucon’s argument against a just life. Both of their respective challengers claim that people naturally prefer the unjust life in comparison to a just life. I will analyze how Hobbes and Plato responds to their corresponding critics. Through the investigation of how Hobbes and Plato interpret justice and their different viewpoints, I believe that Plato presented a stronger argument as to why individuals should live a just life.
…show more content…
In the Leviathan, Hobbes undertakes a criticism against justice that was presented by someone he refers to as the “Fool.” The Fool was introduced after Hobbes stated his third law of nature, where he described justice as the keeping of covenants.
He goes on to say that “when a covenant is made, then to break it is unjust; and the definition of injustice is no other than the not performance of covenant” (215). The Fool stated that,
Every man’s conservation and contentment being committed to his own care, there could be no reason why every man might not do what he thought conduced thereunto, and therefore also to make or not make, keep or not keep, covenants was not against reason, when it conduced to one’s benefit
(216).
In other words, he is saying that we should keep or break our covenants according to the benefits that result, implying the idea that it’s sometimes rational for one to act unjustly. The Fool challenges Hobbes’s view by arguing that it is good for one to act unjustly. He begins with the premise of every man’s natural right to self-preservation. Self-preservation is a right that grants every individual to be free to preserve himself or herself by any means, as long as it’s reasonable. Therefore, the Fool could argue that an individual could reasonably break his or her covenant, as long as it would be their benefit and further their preservation. Hobbes is willing to acknowledge that it’s not always reasonable to one’s covenant or promises, such as in the situation where there is a fear that the other party will not perform their part of the bargain. In that case, an individual is justified to not fulfill their end of the contract. If an individual fears that their sovereign is not acting justly, they are justified in not fulfilling their promise because that particular promise is not a covenant. Hobbes says that it wouldn’t be considered unjust because “the nature of justice consisteth in keeping of valid covenants” (215). However, Hobbes strongly argues that it’s vital to perform and fulfill one’s covenant. Hobbes believes that its reasonable to honor one’s contract and does so by providing an example from the state of nature. He contends that it’s unreasonable for one to perform actions that would cause one’s own destruction. In this case, the laws of nature restrain an individual from ruining their own life. Another counterargument Hobbes presents is that the law of nature enforces restrictions on what one can covenant. Therefore, an individual is restricted from creating a covenant that would conflict with their own self-interest. All covenants are created for the purpose of preserving one’s life. However, if one finds themselves in a covenant that would later lead to their destruction, they are allowed to break their covenant because it was baseless in the first place. In this case, this act would not be considered unjust. In other words, any covenant that would lead to one’s destruction is considered to be void. Every individual has the right to perform an action that will preserve their life, making that action reasonable and not unjust.
In the Leviathan, Hobbes undertakes a criticism against justice that was presented by someone he refers to as the “Fool.” The Fool was introduced after Hobbes stated his third law of nature, where he described justice as the keeping of covenants.
He goes on to say that “when a covenant is made, then to break it is unjust; and the definition of injustice is no other than the not performance of covenant” (215). The Fool stated that,
Every man’s conservation and contentment being committed to his own care, there could be no reason why every man might not do what he thought conduced thereunto, and therefore also to make or not make, keep or not keep, covenants was not against reason, when it conduced to one’s benefit
(216).
In other words, he is saying that we should keep or break our covenants according to the benefits that result, implying the idea that it’s sometimes rational for one to act unjustly. The Fool challenges Hobbes’s view by arguing that it is good for one to act unjustly. He begins with the premise of every man’s natural right to self-preservation. Self-preservation is a right that grants every individual to be free to preserve himself or herself by any means, as long as it’s reasonable. Therefore, the Fool could argue that an individual could reasonably break his or her covenant, as long as it would be their benefit and further their preservation. Hobbes is willing to acknowledge that it’s not always reasonable to one’s covenant or promises, such as in the situation where there is a fear that the other party will not perform their part of the bargain. In that case, an individual is justified to not fulfill their end of the contract. If an individual fears that their sovereign is not acting justly, they are justified in not fulfilling their promise because that particular promise is not a covenant. Hobbes says that it wouldn’t be considered unjust because “the nature of justice consisteth in keeping of valid covenants” (215). However, Hobbes strongly argues that it’s vital to perform and fulfill one’s covenant. Hobbes believes that its reasonable to honor one’s contract and does so by providing an example from the state of nature. He contends that it’s unreasonable for one to perform actions that would cause one’s own destruction. In this case, the laws of nature restrain an individual from ruining their own life. Another counterargument Hobbes presents is that the law of nature enforces restrictions on what one can covenant. Therefore, an individual is restricted from creating a covenant that would conflict with their own self-interest. All covenants are created for the purpose of preserving one’s life. However, if one finds themselves in a covenant that would later lead to their destruction, they are allowed to break their covenant because it was baseless in the first place. In this case, this act would not be considered unjust. In other words, any covenant that would lead to one’s destruction is considered to be void. Every individual has the right to perform an action that will preserve their life, making that action reasonable and not unjust.