His method is to use dialectic, the asking and answering of questions. This method leads the audience from one point to another, supposedly with indisputable logic by obtaining agreement to each point before going on to the next, therefore, building an argument. Interestingly about the work of Socrates is that its not known very well, since nothing was recorded during his time. Everything that we know about Socrates has come through the writings of his greatest pupil, Plato.
Aristotle and Hobbes on Justice Essay - Paper Example Aristotle and Hobbes on Justice Essay Both Aristotle and Hobbes employ interesting and insightful views of the definition of justice, from which certain issues have surfaced that enrich the discussion - Aristotle and Hobbes on Justice Essay introduction.
The two thinkers begin their discussion of justice by making an observation concerning the ambiguity of the term. In fact, they consider justice to be in many ways an ideal that is achievable in theory but not necessarily in practice.
The ambiguity detected in the term justice leads to the separation of justice into two schools, which include a commutative and a distributive form. These two forms of justice, according to Aristotle, operate upon two bases—the bases upon which any action might be considered just.
The Aristotelian view of the two forms justice may be terms distributive and corrective. The distributive sense of justice is concerned with the dealing out of benefits that are deserved by persons.
Such benefits may include honors and other symbols of eminence, such as property and titles. The distribution of these are said to be just because of the matching of the honor conferred with the duties done to deserve them.
This form of justice rewards humans with the retribution worthy of their actions. This idea of distributive justice as a form of reward given by Aristotle would also appear to take into consideration unfavorable retribution as a reward for misconduct.
In this view, the definition of justice might also be stretched to contain the idea of punishment for wrongdoing or losses that come about as a result of unwise or irrational behavior. Within the context of the state, this form of justice accords to the citizen what is due him as a Justice and injustice in the state of nature essay right, yet withholds these rights from the non-citizen, who is considered as undeserving of them Aristotle, In his opinion, justice is founded upon the idea of giving to individuals what is rightly their due.
It is based upon the analysis of the actions of a given individual and the calculation of a reward that is based upon that analysis. This accords with giving to each man his own reward and not the reward deserved by another. On the other hand, the according of a benefit that is of greater or lesser proportion to the action that has been performed by that individual is an act of injustice that gives to a man what is not rightfully his own Hobbes, It can already be seen that to some extent the idea of justice is concerned with fairness, because it has to do with the fixing of a situation that for some reason has been judged as unfair to one or more of the parties involved.
This form of justice reassesses the situation and reallocates the benefit previously distributed. The reallocation is usually based on criteria that would appear to be quite similar to those on which distributive justice rests Aristotle, It has been mentioned that Aristotelian justice operates upon two distinct bases.
The idea of what fairness means according to his view is immediately addressed, and on a personal level has to do with the reasonable share that should be accorded to any person in a given circumstance.
It is opposed to the notion of greed, and consequently of distribution that takes into consideration what should rightfully be accorded to individuals. Fairness is calculated therefore as a mean average of the unjust actions that favor the individual parties of a group.
According to Aristotle, when the benefit to each gained by unfairness is summed together and then divided equally among them, the result is the sort of fairness that is a part of true justice Aristotle, The second basis upon which Aristotelian justice is bases is that of the law.
When justice is to be considered in the context of a political state, this virtue is deemed to be meted out by the authorities that are placed in charge of its laws. Therefore, the guardians of the law have the most authority in determining what should be considered just.
Justice, in this sense, appears almost to be identical to the laws of the particular state. This sort of justice might be said to be a selfless form because the magistrate is considered to be a disinterested party who is impartial to the dealings over which he presides Aristotle, This allows justice to take on an unselfish aspect, as it operates for the good of another rather than for oneself since the magistrate who presides receives no benefit from his ruling.
The extreme Hobbesian view appears to be that without the state there can be no justice, and in such an absence only anarchy and unfairness exists. In his view, the law appears to have an even greater bearing upon the notion of justice, yet the according of rights to an individual is not as automatic as it appears to be in the Aristotelian view.
To Hobbes, the state is considered to be an extremely strong force and is responsible for the distribution of justice to a much greater extent than is portrayed in the Aristotelian form of distributive justice.
Yet, unlike Aristotle, the citizenship of an individual does not by that fact grant rights to an individual in a given situation.
Before any rights can be accorded to an individual, prior agreements must have been made that enumerate precisely what the right entails as well as the conditions of that right Hobbes, When no covenant has been made between individuals or entities, no action that passes between them or that is executed by one upon another can be deemed just or unjust.
However, in the event that a contract has been developed between the two, there exist criteria upon which judgments can be made about the justice or injustice of a particular action.
This deviates from the Aristotelian view, which merely considers the situation in analyzing the extent to which an individual is harmed by the actions of another.
Then based on whether the injury is premeditated makes a judgment concerning its justness, regardless of the existence of a covenant between the parties involved Aristotle, ; Hobbes, Yet this view presupposes no contract. Certain actions of one individual may result in injury or misfortune to another, and the justness of the act is based on the premeditated nature of the act.
It becomes an injustice when the injurious action is found to have been premeditated Aristotle, Essay on Justice ‘Justice is such an elusive concept that it hardly seems worthwhile for a legal system to strive to achieve it’.
Justice is something that we all want from a Law and believe should be an integral part in any legal system. Justice And Injustice Essay The concepts of justice and injustice have been deployed for about two and a half millennia to evaluate human beings, human actions, and the consequences—discrete and aggregate—of human actions.
Hobbes vs Plato on Justice essaysPlato on Hobbes' view of justice According to Hobbes, justice must be defined as nothing more than abiding by the law. However, from Plato's point of view, this notion of justice is not adequate.
Regards to human nature, Hobbes is very pessimistic, while P.
Read this Miscellaneous Essay and over 88, other research documents. Plato on Justice and Injustice. Plato on Justice and Injustice In The Republic, Plato attempts to demonstrate through the character and discourse of Socrates that /5(1).
Free Essay: One 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 And Injustice INSIDE THE State Of Nature - Essay According to Hobbes, in the State of Nature there is absolutely no property and both justice and injustice are impossible, whereas for Locke both property and justice and injustice exist before the Community Contract.