Comparing Aristotle and Hobbes

Name
Institution
Lecturer
Date
Comparing Aristotle and Hobbes
Aristotle and Thomas Hobbes are some of the theorists whose works have been very influential in shaping the political theory immensely in human history (Ryan 113). Each of the two is considered to be the father of a given political school of thought applied by humankind after that. Aristotle's and Hobbes' doctrines are more divergent and tend to oppose each other in some cases. The difference between the works of these two philosophers is so immense that they can be located at the opposite ends in a spectrum, especially in regards to their philosophy of man and the ends of which he does exist and act. Human, according to Aristotle, is social by nature and, therefore, a political animal, he is ordered toward the community (Waterfield 460). Human in Hobbes’ view is just anything and is ordered naturally toward the individual and thus is individual himself (Abbott 386). The bone of contention now is in regards to whose philosophy among the two is superior to the other. It is common observation that humans act in their voluntary capacity for the general good of the community or sometimes they behave in a selfish way (Ryan 114). Aristotle appears to carry the day if a choice between the two was to be made because it is an undisputable fact that humans are social creatures. Hobbes did make some factual and accurate observations on the behavior and nature of humans, but owing to his basic epistemological and metaphysical refutations, he fails to observe the intrinsic goodness of the nature of humans and the excellence to which it is logically ordered. This paper compares Aristotle's and Hobbes' views on political communities to determine whose views were superior among the two.
Discussion
What justice means in a political argument has been a bone of contention when trying to determine who is fit to hold authority. Aristotle views justice as equality for the equals and inequality for the unequaled (Waterfield 463). But even if there is agreement regarding the relative quality of things, a disagreement is eminent when it comes to who rightfully merits which things. Self-interest is a major determinant when trying to find out the components of just treatment. Consequently, for instance, the oligarchy partisans mistake their preeminence in wealth for superiority in all inputs to the political community. Democracy partisans confuse their equality in the free birth for equality of humans in all quotas (Waterfield 463). As for Aristotle, all hold on to some justice, but they only advance so far and do not talk about justice as a whole. He offers an illustration to try to answer the question of how to judge the equality or inequality of a person correctly when compared to that of other people and, as a result, determine who should hold a given political office (Waterfield 465). Most people are of the opinion that if individuals were to be equal in other quotas, any superiority that remains would emerge to substantiate the uneven distribution of positions. Aristotle’s view opposes this notion and notes that not all superiority forms give a good reason for superior political power (Waterfield 468). It implies that the various contributions that individuals make t...