Aristotle vs. Hobbes Equality. - 2378 Words

Aristotle vs. Hobbes, constitutes a debate between two great thinkers from two profoundly different periods of time. Whereas Aristotle (384 - 322 BCE) had been a part of the Greeks and more precisely, Athenss Golden Age, Thomas Hobbes (1588 - 1679) had lived through the English Civil War of 1640s to become one of the most influential philosophers. Based on their own personal experiences and surroundings, both Aristotle and Hobbes had developed a view of what human equality should sustain. However, Hobbes understanding of natural equality is preferable, as he provides society with the extra room for equality and opportunity that the subjects of a good sovereign would experience to be available to them, in comparison to Aristotles†¦show more content†¦In fact, people would never be satisfied with what they have, since the need for more would increase with the possessions owned (Aristotle, p. 17-20). That is why the only way for people to achieve their higher virtue would have been through politics and practical reason. It is only natural to think that, as Aristotle points out, because no other being posses the ability to reason. Thus, it is the citizens main goal in life, to achieve the natural telos, the good life, by enhancing more upon his political participation (Aristotle, p. 3-5). The natural slaves, however, cannot achieve any such telos due to their natural impairment and inferiority to the citizen. Their natural purpose in life is to serve the ruler and provide for them, since the natural slave lacks such capabilities as reason, For he is a slave by nature who is capable of belonging to another - which is also why he belongs to another - and who participates in reason only to the extent of perceiving it, but does not have it (1254b16-23). Usually, as Aristotle points out, natural slaves bread other natural slaves, although, sometimes superiors are known to have natural slaves as well. However, he struggles to determine whether the natural slave is in fact completely rationally impaired and upon what reasons he should be enslaved. Thus, this creates difficulties when trying to differentiate who should be enslaved, why and how to distinguish between a natural slave and a naturalShow MoreRelatedEmpiricism Is The Theory That Experience1202 Words   |  5 Page sshould be about making citizens more virtuous vs politics should be about the â€Å"basics† like security and property rights. Throughout this paper, I will be analyzing these two different outlooks on politics and presenting a case for both. Thomas Hobbes believed that the government should essentially limit itself to the protection of property and persons. Hobbes thought that power derived from the office, not from the people. Things like virtue, social equality, and welfare were not important. To protectRead MorePolitical Theory: Comparing Locke, Rousseau and Plato Essay3770 Words   |  16 Pagescalm and peaceful - men give up some of their freedom to secure the advantages of civilized socity - men have the right to protect their freedom (killing if necessary) - bound by the laws of nature - contrast with hobbes: everyone has the right over everything, there exist no private property - Liberty to do as he will, but not harm others Purpose of government: - to secure the natural rights of property rights and liberty - we need lawRead MoreLaw and Justice4680 Words   |  19 Pagesstarting point to understand this whole world of law and justice. In this paper an attempt has been made to understand and analyze Rawls theory of justice. This work has been done to distinguish the concept of justice as propounded by utilitarian’s (Aristotle[1] and Benthem[2]) vis-a-vis Rawls. Finally an analysis is done to examine how well the concept of justice given by Rawls is relevant in India, a multilayered pluralistic society. Introduction: Justice is defined as the quality of being just or