POLS 1401 Western Political Thought Midterm Exam (Take Home)

Western Political Thoughts
Western Political Thoughts
1 How does Socrates disprove that justice is the interest of the stronger, and what does he offer as a definition of justice in its place?
Socrates argues that rulers are not always in a position to make decisions that are suitable for their citizens, and this makes it them weaker due to elements of injustice. Also, Socrates asserted that justice is a representation of wisdom and virtue, and it is only in the presence of these elements that one can eliminate ignorance, which is a component of injustice. Despite the assumption that justice is a benefit for the dominant members of society, Socrates refutes this claim by not necessarily abandoning this definition but adding value to it (Cohen & Fermon, 1996). He posits that the definition of justice being a position of the dominance in society is so when it is beneficial to all and the occurrence of injustice as a form of ignorance to the law. Moreover, even though the rulers are taking charge of justice it does not necessarily benefit all, and it is at this point, it comes a mere assumption. Therefore, justice needs to be beneficial to society and not only the ruler is, and if a ruler does not harm his subjects with his decisions, then he is advancing justice.
     Socrates believes that justice is a form of weapon against the weak responses of the injustice, and a just man is one who is committed to doing good and exhibits wisdom. The leader or ruler must have the good of subjects in mind. This affirms that injustice is a form of ignorance, and ignorant individuals naturally exhibit weakness as opposed to wisdom, and this translates into their negative actions (Cohen & Fermon, 1996). Also, the occurrence of ignorance in an individual lead to unjust actions, and this makes one weak as they are not able to show wisdom. In this regard, if the ruler is follows justice then it also means they want to ensure that the subjects also benefit. Overall, Socrates argues that unjust leaders treat their subjects poorly, and by doing so, they create a rift between themselves and the community; it is a natural phenomenon as it lacks the benefit to all. This leads to more conflicts in the society.
2 Compare the state of nature as described by Hobbes and Locke.
On human nature, Hobbes is a bit pessimistic, and he speaks about the state of nature in a more theoretical manner. In contrast, Locke addresses the state of nature from a potential benefit point of view and also discusses the dangers of not addressing human nature. Both advocate social contract, and they address the state of nature and its contribution to risks to humanity and the man being equal in every given point (Cohen & Fermon, 1996). Moreover, Hobbes asserts that man has been equated to as a result of the uniformity in faculties, as demonstrated by the presence of the mind and body. Men also have the means to dominate each other, regardless of whether the person uses cunningness or strength to gain a favorable position. Pride, the competition to gain profits, and the need for security are some of the factors that result in the state of conflict. Also, the element of equality has consequences, as cited by the two men.
Hobbes asserts that m...