Phi 173 Justice And Society Spring 2019 Lehman College ✓ Solved

Phi173justiceandsocietyspring2019lehmancollegeonlineho

Analyze the concept of authority, social contract, and justice as discussed in Hobbes’s Leviathan, Frederick Douglass’s experiences and ideas on human equality and justice, and Aristotle’s views on societal structure and natural hierarchy. Discuss how these perspectives interpret the necessity and legitimacy of government, the nature of human dignity and equality, and the justification for social stratification based on natural ability or virtue. Relate these philosophical ideas to contemporary society, examining similarities and differences in ideas of justice, authority, and social order, and reflect on implications for modern political and social issues.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

The philosophical perspectives of Thomas Hobbes, Frederick Douglass, and Aristotle offer divergent yet interconnected visions of authority, justice, and societal structure. Analyzing these frameworks reveals essential insights into the justification of government, the nature of human dignity and equality, and the perpetuation or critique of social hierarchies, with profound implications for contemporary society.

Hobbes’s View on Authority and Social Contract

Thomas Hobbes’s seminal work, Leviathan, posits that in the absence of a governing authority, humans would exist in a state of nature characterized by chaos, violence, and perpetual fear. Hobbes famously describes the natural condition as a state of "war of all against all," where life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" (Hobbes, 1651/1996). This bleak outlook underscores his assertion that human beings, driven by self-interest, consent to relinquish their natural liberty in favor of a sovereign power that maintains order and security. Such authority, embodied in the Leviathan, is necessary to prevent societal collapse into disorder.

The social contract, in Hobbes’s view, is an agreement among individuals to cede their rights to a powerful sovereign, ensuring collective safety. This sovereignty, whether a monarch or an emerging governmental structure, possesses absolute authority, which is justified by the need to restrain human passions and impulsive tendencies. Hobbes’s depiction emphasizes that the legitimacy of political authority stems from its ability to preserve peace, even if it entails surrendering natural freedoms. This perspective raises questions about the limits of governmental power and the balance between security and individual liberty in modern democracies.

Frederick Douglass’s Conception of Justice and Human Equality

In contrast to Hobbes’s pragmatic view of authority, Frederick Douglass emphasizes the inherent dignity and equality of all humans. A former slave and prominent abolitionist, Douglass’s autobiographies, such as My Bondage and My Freedom, advocate for justice grounded in moral recognition of human rights. His storytelling highlights the brutality of slavery and the resilience of the human spirit, asserting that social and political injustices distort the true nature of human equality.

Douglass’s assertion that enslaved people are fundamentally human—worthy of respect and equal treatment—challenges the social hierarchies justified by notions of natural superiority. His famous fight with Covey demonstrates the awakening of self-awareness and dignity through resistance, illustrating that societal norms, which often reinforce oppression, are socially constructed rather than biologically determined (Douglass, 1855). His emphasis on education, autonomy, and moral justice underscores the importance of recognizing every individual's innate worth, rejecting views that justify inequality based on race, class, or gender.

Aristotle’s View of Society, Hierarchy, and the Good Life

Aristotle’s political philosophy offers a different lens, emphasizing the naturalness of social roles and hierarchies. In Politics, he articulates a vision where society is stratified into classes—rulers, artisans, farmers—each fulfilling specific functions. He advocates for a "natural aristocracy," where those with the most virtue and wisdom govern, aiming toward the collective good and individual happiness (Aristotle, trans. 1984).

Aristotle believes that some individuals possess inherent capacities for leadership and rationality, which justify their role as rulers, while others are naturally inclined toward labor. Justice, in his view, involves distributing goods according to merit, and political participation is limited to those deemed most virtuous. While this perspective aims at societal stability and the realization of the "good life," it inherently endorses social stratifications rooted in natural differences, thereby excluding or marginalizing groups deemed inferior. Modern critiques highlight that Aristotle’s natural hierarchies have historically been exploited to justify inequalities based on race, gender, and class (Malouf, 1999).

Comparison and Contemporary Implications

Comparing these perspectives reveals fundamental debates about the source and legitimacy of authority. Hobbes’s emphasis on security and order justifies strong centralized power, often at the expense of personal freedoms, paralleling modern authoritarian or security-focused regimes. Douglass counters this by championing moral justice and human dignity, advocating for equality and resistance against oppression. Aristotle’s acceptance of natural hierarchies raises concerns about inherent inequalities, influencing ideas of meritocracy and social stratification that persist today.

In contemporary society, these philosophies intersect in debates over national security, social justice, and equality. For example, Hobbes’s model underpins arguments for strong government authority to maintain order, while Douglass’s ideals inspire movements towards civil rights and social justice. Aristotle’s notion of natural aristocracy is echoed in debates over merit-based advancement and the risks of justifying inequalities based on perceived innate qualities (Sen, 2009). Recognizing the historical misuse of such ideas emphasizes the importance of critically examining the basis for social hierarchies and the legitimacy of authority.

Conclusion

Hobbes, Douglass, and Aristotle provide foundational perspectives on justice, authority, and societal organization. Hobbes highlights the necessity of a powerful sovereign to prevent chaos, Douglass advocates for moral recognition of inherent human dignity and equality, and Aristotle defends hierarchies based on natural capacity aimed at societal harmony. Their ideas continue to influence modern political discourse, prompting ongoing debates about the legitimacy of authority, the nature of justice, and the ethical foundations of social inequality. Critical engagement with these philosophies remains essential as societies strive to balance order with justice and equality.

References

• Aristotle. (1984). Politics (C. Lord trans.). University of Chicago Press.
• Douglass, F. (1855). My Bondage and My Freedom. Banner Publishing.
• Hobbes, T. (1996). Leviathan (R. Tuck, Ed.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1651)
• Malouf, M. (1999). Aristotle's Politics. Routledge.
• Sén, A. (2009). Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny. W.W. Norton & Company.