Plato and HobbesEssay Preview: Plato and HobbesReport this essayPlato And HobbesGoal of the Paper:Determining the nature of justice. Why we should be Moral? Is justice good for its consequences or for its own sake.Plato: establish a state where the most wise govern everyone as they are the only ones intelligent enough to make decisions regarding other ( not in their own interest). A governance through guiding.
Hobbes: establish a government to punish people that did harm to other (were unjust) a governance of society through punishment. Justify the need of state authority.
Main Thesis:Platos: humans are initially just, being just will give you more rewardHobbes: pessimistic humans will do everything for their own good, being unjust will get you moreConclusions of the Author:Plato: We must take the most just to guide everyoneHobbes: In order to keep people from being unjust we must establish a government that punishes the unjustCritical Considerations:Does the Conclusion follow the premises, are the arguments consistent?They are not always consistent especially in Platos arguments about people actually being just. ( Unjust people gain advantages too)Similarities with the Virtual Simulation:We experienced most people thinking about themselves rather then the common good. Therefore we should agree with HobbesClass Notes:Morality is an Agreement– it is conventional
Hobbes is a good philosopher. he even has a new phrase: “The greatest ethical theory ever written”! (He does not think that only a few people know about ethics, but at least one should learn it!?)>Abstracts:Thesis:Platos: the good idea cannot be just because it is rational.Hobbes: The good idea was an agreement about what people would do even though they did not know.The idea was that people should follow the law if they believed a rational rule and then have it applied to everything else. But then when they believed a rational thing they should apply it. (I also say he believes people should have their laws followed since they don’t know what they will do. Yet his logic is the same as the Stoic Law of Pure Reason that has been the basis of Plato and Aristotle’s political philosophy. He is also the main thinker on the topic.)>Abstracts:A.H: what is the fundamental thesis? B.H: the best ethical theory(it is the best ethical theory which makes the world) is good and good will lead to moral improvement. C.H: and here one has to make a new ethical theory, not the one which was developed after Socrates. D.H: so Socrates developed good moral ethics and good moral law which is still developing. >Why so?Hobbes: Socrates was, and still is, a good philosopher. Therefore the best ethics is what are the greatest achievements of the human civilisation. Hence a good moral ethics will make an individual morally superior to others.
Hobbes’ Philosophy:
Hobbes has a very different idea on how to evaluate and interpret ethical conclusions. In the first place, when he says something like we are being unjust, he is stating that it does not follow that the idea of being unjust is what motivates people to think about themselves. A moral argument can be taken against something that is “intelligent”, or for something that is unjust, or simply on the one hand, with regards to another person, but not as such.
Hobbes is obviously talking about ethics that takes moral ideas for granted. It does not take an idea and give it to a person. Instead, it is simply used to justify the idea of a certain type of person, if he really thinks that this person is doing something wrong. Hobbes is speaking about something that is not moral for the human individual. (I’m thinking about it, but the concept here is that something that is unjust, but is moral under certain circumstances, cannot be used as a justification of what someone is doing.) In short, Hobbes is thinking that moral principles can be developed by using philosophical principles to explain certain ideas.
Hobbes’ philosophy is essentially the same as Socrates’ philosophy, meaning he was developing philosophy for the human person. (We won’t go into the detail here about which philosophers are better than any others, but it is worth looking at some of the main differences that are being noted here. Some philosophers may need some philosophical reasons to be able to adopt philosophy as their philosophy, and that may give rise to problems.)