Plato, Hobbes & Locke
...tart to lose the sense of where justice is being explained as a whole and more into what is needed to develop an “ideal” justice. Thomas Hobbes “Leviathan” is in part about maintaining peace and social unity among the people of the state. He describes this leviathan creature as the commonwealth and the leading sovereign as the head of this massive “human.” This is Hobbes “ideal” state and perfect government, in this way, that the leaders have full control and power but must at the same time ensure the well-being and defend the commonwealth. Hobbes begins his text by considering the elementary motions of matter, arguing that every aspect of human nature can be deduced from materialistic principles. Hobbes depicts the natural condition of mankind--known as the state of nature-- inherently violent and awash with fear. The state of nature is the "war of every man against every man," in which people constantly seek to destroy one another. This state is so horrible that human beings naturally seek peace, and the best way to achieve peace is to construct the Leviathan through social contract. The sovereign is a monarchy and rules all, he is subject to make all the laws by himself and does not have to follow any himself, at his leisure, at any time. The law of nature and the civil law contain each other and are of equal extent. For the laws of nature, which consist in equity, justice, gratitude, and other moral virtues on these depending, in the condition of mere nature, are not properly laws, but qualities that dispose men to peace and to obedience. When a Commonwealth is once settled, then are they actually laws, and not before; as being then the commands of the Commonwealth; and therefore also civil laws: for it is the sovereign power that obliges men to obey them. For the differences of private men, to declare what is equity, what is justice, and is moral virtue, and to make them binding, there is need of the ordinances of sovereign power, and punishments to be ordained for such as shall break them; which ordinances are therefore part of the civil law. The law of nature therefore is a part of the civil law in all Commonwealths of the world. Reciprocally also, the civil law is a part of the dictates of nature. For justice, that is to say, performance of covenant, and giving to every man his own, is a dictate of the law of nature. But every subject in a Commonwealth hath covenanted to obey the civil law; either one with another, as when they assemble to make a common representative, or with the representative itself one by one when, subdued by the sword, they promise obedience that they may receive life; and therefore obedience to the civil law is part also of the law of nature. Civil and natural law are not different kinds, but different parts of law; whereof one part, being written, is called civil the other unwritten, natural. But the right of nature, that is, the natural liberty of man, may by the civil law be abridged and restrained: nay, the end of making laws is no other but such restraint, without which there cannot possibly be any peace. And law was brought into the world for nothing else but to limit the natural liberty of particular men in such manner as they might not hurt, but assist one another, and join together against a common enemy. This excerpt I felt explained how Hobbes felt towards justice in society. A sovereign can make the laws for all to follow but civility is not made if the commonwealth does not follow. In here I feel that he is saying that there is natural law and man-made laws and it is up to society whether they choose to follow them. In the end, it is peace and alliances that decide if a state is ‘ideal’ and what the ‘true justice’ of that state is. Which I’m sure could be debated with a further explanation, but this is just my opinion of his theory. John Locke on the other hand had a very different theory of social contract. Unlike Hobbes he felt as if his theory was more realistic and open for human error instead of pure goodness of the commonwealth and sovereign. Although many concepts brought up by him are questionable, many believe his theories are comparable to theorists today. His whole concept was the theory of consent. Feudalism, absolute monarchy, rule by divine and lineage were all things of the past. For the liberal, only the agreement of the adult human beings can give another human being political authority over them. This social contract that we as people get into limits the power of both sides, it defines the power of the government as we see fit. This is justice upon his theory, each party has its own responsibilities. Every man being, as has been shewed, naturally free, and nothing being able to put him into subjection to any earthly power, but only his own consent; it is to be considered, what shall be understood to be a sufficient decla...