Is Thrasymachus and Hobbes Right to See Human Nature in Stark Terms - Essay Example

Is Thrasymachus and Hobbes right to see human nature in such stark terms, or is Socrates rightto see justice as something good in and of itself?  Prior to deciding who the righteous intellectual is regarding claims made either for human nature or justice, one might as well begin to consider deliberating upon how each perspective is delivered and which basis or grounds satisfy the premises established. Through Plato’s “The Republic”, a significant part of Socratic philosophy may be said to have been conveyed since Plato himself is subject to the tutelage and influence of Socrates in their period. Though Plato presents a rather limited scope of democracy in dealing with liberty and nature of man, his concern for justice and resolving to define such virtue with Socrates in the light that favors human psyche instead of a perceived behavior is remarkable. On the other hand, Thomas Hobbes and Thrasymachus share a nearly common insight whereby Hobbes proposes via “Leviathan” that man, by nature, is free the logic of which is based upon natural rights whereas Thrasymachus confers to defend the opposite side of justice and takes man’s freedom to agree with matters that are only advantageous to men regardless of whether or not justice is at work. Hobbes thinks “each man has the liberty to use his own power, as he will himself, for the preservation of his own nature; that is to say, of his own life; and judgment, and reason, he shall conceive to be the aptest means that each man has a will power to do whatever he thinks can preserve his own life and consequently to do anything which he thinks is right.” Without necessitating justice rendered onto others in the process of self-preservation, upholding personal justice for such end forms the basis of Lex Naturalis or the Law of Nature as a general rule which forbids a man from doing anything which would be destructive to his life or which would omit whatever means he has for preserving his life. So there is a necessity to distinguish jus or right and lex or law. Right means freedom or liberty to carry on our will while law determines and binds someone to an obligation. The condition of man which denotes his need to preserve his life against his enemies gives every man a right to everything which means that there is a right even to one another’s body. To Hobbes, until the man possesses the natural right to everything, he cannot be secured no matter how strong or wise he can be, in order to keep on living according to man’s life expectancy. Likewise, Thrasymachus promotes the Sophist challenge of arguing that ‘justice is nothing but the advantage of the stronger’ and this originates from the primary belief in objective truth among the Sophists such as himself, who further accounts for the objective moral truth that does not acknowledge the fact with “right” or “wrong” in absolute degree. For Thrasymachus, all actions are neither right nor wrong but are ought to be figured as either coming with or without advantage to the person who executes them. Like the rest of the Sophists, he supports the idea that an individual must gain involvement only with deeds that return advantage and avoid those whose results are otherwise obtained in unpleasant disadvantage. In the similar manner, Hobbes entreats his own approach of the issue with a precept or general rule of reason stating “that every man, ought to endeavor peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek, and use, all helps, and advantages of war.” The first branch of this rule states the fundamental law of nature which is to seek peace and follow it while the second branch pertains to the sum of the right of nature which assumes by all means we can, to defend ourselves. This second law is derived from the fundamental law of nature by which men are commanded to endeavor peace, rationalizing “that a man be willing when others are so too, as far forth, as for peace and defense of himself he shall think it necessary, to lay down his right to all things: and be contented with so much liberty against other man, as he would allow other men against himself.” Leviathan proceeds to mellow in the course of enabling students to understand that despite the truth where people are naturally concerned about themselves and with attaining power, they can live harmoniously with each other through the laws of nature yet those who do not follow the rules tend to abuse the rights of those who are law-abiders. There is, hence, a need for men to voluntarily give up part of their freedom so they can live peacefully together and avoid complete chaos in nature while under the power of a sovereign, or leader, in a commonwealth. People understandably go through mental and social processes when choosing a sovereign, nevertheless, they can enjoy additional benefits by releasing part of their freedom as well. Liberty means an individual or a group is free from external restrictions imposed by other individuals, groups, government, society or restrictive conditions and Hobbes suggests that it may not be absolute but it must be necessarily relative to conform to human society. Thrasymachus, to some extent, expresses the same intellect as he utilizes the basic Sophistic moral notion in which norms that are treated to be just are nothing beyond conventions which restrain men who maintain compliance with them and benefit the ones who deviate from them. In which case, unjust behavior is rather conducive for natural acquisition of power by the strong people in the society who prefer to rule outside of normal order. Consequently, justice weaves its definition about the stronger people who are well within advantage as opposed to the weak and stupid who fall out of the range to meet undesirable ends of disadvantage. Given all these thoughts formulated under the constraints set by Hobbes and Thrasymachus whose philosophies on human nature seem to converge toward a point of common interest, Socrates views justice beside the affair of addressing human nature and speaks of ‘just’ at the right of its own in a way that is more sensible than ethical. It turns out that Socratic justice is one of human nature that arises from a substance of conscience or spirituality that is to be inherent in men even though such terms merely find rare occasions of use in philosophic reasoning. One instance is in a forum wherein Polemarchus approves of Socrates on explicating “Then if a man says that justice consists in the repayment of debts, and that good is the debt which a man owes to his friends, and evil the debt which he owes to his enemies, --to say this is not wise; for it is not true, if, as has been clearly shown, the injuring of another can be in no case just.” On reflecting over justice with respect to an intrinsic spiritual value as such, Socrates considers designating ‘conscience’ above the law, having witnessed justice officials who are capable of demonstrating natural compassion as they hold back punishments or grave sanctions against offenders. To Socrates, the love of wisdom is itself a holy passage while Plato, his mentee, believes that God did create the world and designed it according to a divine plan. Placing this in proper context with “The Republic”, it is proposed that in search of appropriate meaning or description for justice, the composition of the soul being the three elements – reason, appetite, and spirit which should be present in the soul of individual and state alike, must be signified. By justice, “The Republic” puts forth “we shall conclude that a man is just in the same way that a state was just; And we have surely not forgotten that justice in the state meant that each of the three orders in it was doing its own proper work” and to which is added “So we may henceforth bear in mind that each one of us likewise will be a just person, fulfilling his proper function, only if the several parts of our nature fulfil theirs.” On behalf of the entire soul, any reason ought to reign with wisdom under which the element of spirit may stimulate so that it becomes possible for one to act in virtuous or sincere justice. While by human nature, there is sufficient basis to justify that human beings are governed by the principle of advantage or pleasure which apparently receives satisfaction through the instincts, Socrates would likely point out that a man who is conscientious to avoid temptations and maintain reverence for wisdom would advance to a level that enables him to take control or even break being further ruled as such. Only then can he claim the real essence of righteousness in addition to inalienable rights after the sight of a flexible justice with its characteristic elements. After the exhibition of pertinent details from the philosophers in question, it now feels convenient to respond to the principal query. Both Thrasymachus and Hobbes are able to communicate their arguments in the fundamental understanding of what man is in the absence of society in which humans live to survive and are in every manner anxious regarding security from harm. Such state of an instinctive man is true though it is not right to keep him or for himself to function selfishly despite knowledge of the basic truth his nature is made of. At certain stages, a man would spontaneously learn how to identify the path toward harmonious means of living without anxiety once he manages to sustain not just himself but the other men or neighbors who might be struggling to achieve proper or peaceful living as well. The nature of man according to Hobbes and Thrasymachus is right, however, it is wrong to tolerate any tendency around injustice for the sole aim of preserving oneself. It would be right to incorporate a Socratic worth of justice in this case so that a justice with sacrifice or one that goes with a sense of selflessness is the kind that serves everyone with all fears abolished since it is safe to move about, knowing that justice is not limited to a few who are far above the weak. The type of justice in the proposition of Hobbes and Thrasymachus can be the right form when it is frequently the economy that matters to people over other vital aspects of life. Socrates has proven that this is not often so. Each individual’s set of potentials by which one may be identified of strength must be justified as ‘right’ by respecting and obeying the confines within which to accumulate the objects of desire yet taking diligence and attentive care not to have the naturally brutish side of man prevail or sought after. Works Cited Goldstein, Yael. The Republic – Plato. NY: Spark Publishing, 2002. Hobbes, Thomas. The Leviathan: Chapter XIII of The Natural Condition of Mankind as Concerning Their Felicity and Misery. Jowett, Benjamin. “The Republic by Plato.” 2011. Web. 23 Feb 2012. http://classics.mit.edu//Plato/republic.html Read More