Plato and Hobbes on Justice

Plato and Hobbes on Justice

There are some similarities between the speech of Thrasymachus, the character in Plato's Republic, and the ideas of justice presented by Thomas Hobbes in his work, Leviathan. Plato's influence can be traced to the works of many later philosophers and some elements presented by him can be underlined in the work of Thomas Hobbes. If one is to draw a parallel between the speeches of Thrasymachus in Plato's Republic on justice. He would discover that there are some obvious similarities. However, in the Republic, the ideas presented by Thrasymachus are rebutted by the character Socrates. As some of the arguments put forward by Socrates, Hobbes' theory of justice can be rebutted as well.

Thrasymachus' position on justice as "simply what is good for the stronger" (Republic 338c) continues to be a matter of debate for analysts of Plato's writing. Despite some controversial factors related to the interpretation of Thrasymachus' speeches in the Republic, it remains clear what is the position sustained by the character related to his idea of justice.

Thrasymachus disagrees in the text of the Republic with the conclusion of Socrates' discussion with Polemarchus about justice. He begins his speech starting from that conversation, clearly arguing against the arguments presented by Socrates and unsatisfied with the results of the polemic. He claims that "justice is the advantage of the stronger" (Republic 338c) and that "injustice, if it is on a large enough scale, is stronger, freer, and more masterly than justice" (Republic, 344c). Despite the ideas presented and the arguments brought in support of his theory, Thrasymachus does not manage to defend his position in a sufficient manner in front of Socrates' arguments. Forcing Thrasymachus to admit that there is some standard of wise rule which suggests a standard of justice beyond the advantage of the stronger, Socrates manages to destroy Thrasymachus' arguments. From this point on, the discussion about justice is continued by Socrates and Glaucon.

These dialogues present two points-of-view, one of Thrasymachus and one of Socrates. By analyzing Hobbes' works and the theory he supports on justice, one would clearly identify that there are some similarities between Thrasymachus' speech and the theory supported by Hobbes.

Hobbes denies the existence of justice and presents a completely naturalistic approach of the subject. For Hobbes, there is no such thing as a fundamental standard of justice outside of the social contract. There is no standard of morality or justice because there can be no such thing, according to Hobbes, without laws, and there can be no laws without a common power to enforce them. (Hobbes, 78)

To Hobbes, self-preservation is the only law that one respects and because of this law other laws of morality and justice do not exist. Out of this need of self-preservation comes the need for security and the only way in which one can be secure is in the institution of commonwealth, in which there is a restriction of natural right. This social contract proposed by Hobbes restricts the rights of individuals in return of security. Justice is also artificially created out of the need for laws that must be respected in the contractual society. However, the need for justice and respect for justice is not a natural component of individuals, but it is something they agree to in order to be part of a society.

As Thrasymachus argues, injustice is freer, meaning that individuals that do not live according to the laws of just and unjust are the only ones that can be free, free of a restrictive society.

Thrasymachus sustains that obedience to rulers is just (Republic, 399b7) and this comes in no contradiction with what Hobbes sustains. In a contractual society, laws must be obeyed, but this is simply the result of the renunciation of one's freedoms in return of security. However, what Hobbes always argues for in his writings is that individuals pursue their self-interest because this is their nature. Laws are restrictions in the path of pursuing one's interest. Thrasymachus makes it clear in his argumentation that he is in favour of everyone supporting their own interest and that this is the position he defends. This is one of the most obvious similarities with Hobbes. He described justice as seeking another's interest, and injustice as involving seeking one's own interest.

Hobbes supports that the ideal state of the human being is the state of nature, from which people moved to the commonwealth presented in the Leviathan. This state of nature is ideal because people are free and not constrained by any law. There is no such thing as justice or injustice in the state of nature. As individuals become part of the contractual society, they are forced to obey the laws imposed and agreed to and so they renounce their ideal freedom. With the notions of just and unjust imposed by the social contract, the individual is no longer free to pursue his own interest unless facing the consequences imposed by law. As Thrasymachus argues in his speech, those that are free and pursue their own interest are considered to be unjust.

Hobbes argues in the Leviathan that justice appears only at the creation of the commonwealth and he connects the appearance of justice with the "third law of nature," which is presented in the beginning of Chapter 15 of the Leviathan. According to this third law, men perform their covenants, meaning that they act justly. Breaking covenants represents being unjust. Outside of a covenant, in the state of nature, individuals are free to pursue their own goal, without being obliged to respecting any law. Therefore, justice appears only when an individual agrees to be part of a contractual society.