Why is there no justice in the state of nature? What does this
say about the...
Why is there no justice in the state of nature? What does this
say about the nature of justice? would it make difference if God
looked over (and created the state of nature?)
Solutions
Expert Solution
According to Hobbes, in the State of Nature there is no
property and both justice and injustice are impossible, whereas for
Locke both property and justice and injustice exist before the
Social Contract.
For Hobbes, the State of Nature is a state of war, in which
everyone regards one another as ememies, opposing against each
other. In such situation, there is no guarantee that one can keep
his or her own possessions constantly; also, there is no justice
and injustice because no law has been established. Hobbes's
arguments are as following.
In short, Hobbes claimed that with equal faculties, everyone
has even opportunities to get what they want. However, because
living resources are limited, it results in avoidlessly intense
competitions among mankind. With consciousness that the others may
have chances to get things we desire, we are commonly in an uneasy
mental state.
Since there is no arranged order or reasonable distribution in
the state of nature, the best way to ensure one's living is to make
efforts to get things as many as one can. What one is capable of
obtaining is one's, no matter with what kind of methods, and that
is why Bobbes said that force and fraud are two crucial virtues in
the State of Nature, not justice. In the State of Nature, there is
neither "yours" and "mine", nor "right" and "wrong".
People do not have their respective legal possessions as their
property. Everyone has to fight constantly to overcome their
diffidence and earn their living. There is no justice and injustice
because there is no law in the State of Nature. Property, justice
and injustice, if they do exist, they will exist in the agreements
of the members of a civil society.
When people find that they can live in a more stable and
peaceful state by composing society, they decide to consult with
each other, set some social contracts besed on their mutual profits
and transfer their right to the ruler. In this way, people start a
recognized game in society and everyone who joins the game has to
obey the commom rules, i.e., the laws. Then, we will have property,
justice, and injustice.
While there is no justice in a state of nature, there is
justice within a society. When man empowers an artificial man to
become sovereign over a group of people, the sovereign creates
covenants for those below him to follow. Since there are now laws
within this society, breaking one of these laws would be considered
unjust.
Hobbes makes the claim that it is impossible for a sovereign to
act unjustly. The basis of his claim is that if there was no
sovereign, there would be no laws. If there were no laws, there
would be no such thing as justice. Hobbes also states that a man
cannot punish himself. Since a man is always following the first
law of nature, to condemn himself in any way would be an impossible
task against his own prosperous being.
Due to time limit,remaining questions can be asked as
another question,they will be answered,thankyou for your
cooperation
Consider sports: why are we humans drawn to competition, and
what does that say about our chances for survival on earth?
What survival skill does basketball mimic? How about baseball?
Football (either kind!)?
In Hamlet, what's up with Ophelia? Why does everyone seem to
have a say about what happens to her body and her relationships but
her? Did she actually kill herself, or is she just so passive that
she won't even save herself?
Who
are the currently uninsured, and what does this tell us about the
nature of the problem that national health reform has tried to
address in your state as well as in the entire country
1)For Hobbes, what is a contract?
2) Why are all contracts in the state of nature potentially
void?
3) What is the principle reason for the fact that the state of
nature is a state of war of all against all?