Is Thrasymachus and Hobbes right to see human nature in such stark Essay

Is Thrasymachus and Hobbes right to see human nature in such stark terms, or is Socrates right to see justice as something good in and of itself - Essay Example The researcher states that 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 â€Å"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 â€Å"Leviathan† that man, by nature, is free the logic of which is based upon natural rights whereas Thrasymachus confe rs 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 â€Å"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.† ... 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 â€Å"right† or â€Å"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 entr eats his own approach of the issue with a precept or general rule of reason stating â€Å"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 â€Å"that a man be willing when others are so too, as far forth, as for peace and defense of himself