INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY-PHIL 101

Aristotle and Hobbes views on the purpose of life

Both Aristotle and Hobbes were philosophers who developed theories using the concept of social justice. These two great thinkers tried to seek answers to most of the political, social justice, moral virtues, and ethical issues in society. They tried to prove that moral virtues and social justice are linked to the worth of human life and account for human good and happiness (Murphy, 637). The philosophers emphasized the proper principles of justice and argued that there is a great connection between justice and the social contract. The research will explore the ideas of Aristotle, including his belief in entelechy. The aspect which supports that every man has a role in fulfilling in life. It will explore how Aristotle argued about the importance of the political and social life of humans. It will also expose why Aristotle insisted that humans are political creatures by nature. On the other side, the research will discuss Hobbes’ thoughts about the relationship between humans and moral virtues. Hobbes’ beliefs about life in social communities will give insight into how much he agreed and differed with Aristotle.

Aristotle indeed linked the “moral virtues of justice to an account of human goods and happiness” (Murphy, 637). The philosopher based his argument on two types of justice, namely distributive justice and corrective justice. In distributive justice, it involves the allocation of common goods that human depends on life and are in the form of property, military service, political office, and honor (Olsthoorn, 15). It does not support the redistribution of private goods but instead commands for equality and fair distributions of goods. Distributive justice encourages impartial jurisprudence, where all humans are equal in terms of the allocation of common goods. Aristotle related distributive justice with the law of nature that supports equity without regard to the position or ranks a person holds in life. The philosopher argued that distributive justice fights for fairness in the allocation of goods, and it commands people to treat each other with respect and value. Distributive justice also supports equal distribution of human rights (Olsthoorn, 22).

The second type of justice that Aristotle firmly stood with was corrective justice. The philosopher knew that in human lives, there is a need to rectify unjust actions. To him, corrective justice was meant to compensate the victims of unjust acts such as murder, adultery, and theft. Aristotle felt to introduce the third type of justice, referred to as reciprocal justice. In this justice, he urged society to understand that any goods exchanged should be of equal value. The idea aimed to regulate voluntary and involuntary transactions to control the events of buying, hiring, selling, buying, theft, murder, and adultery (Olsthoorn, 15). These types of justice enable citizens to achieve their purpose of life because justice distributes equal rights and fair allocation of goods in society. The big question is, did Hobbes supported Aristotle’s philosophical thoughts?

Hobbes felt that the term distributive justice could be redefined and replaced using the term equity. He argued that equity serves and “ensure the justness of distributive laws” (Olsthoorn, 13) and that sovereign should not fail to distribute equal rights to its citizens. However, Hobbes disagreed with Aristotle when he insisted that distributive justice can also result in unjust actions. To him, citizens need to be contented with what the sovereign gives them because that is what they deserve. He argued that distributive justice stands with merit, and depends on benefactor’s gift, unlike Aristotelian theory, which explains that merit depends on age, status, wealth, and excellence. Hobbes defended equity more than distributive laws because he mentioned that citizens tend to evoke equity to claim fair distribution of goods. He did not concur with the Aristotelian theory of distributive justice because Aristotle advocated for equality rather than equity. According to Hobbes, equity is “a moral notion traditionally associated with fairness and even-handedness” (Olsthoorn, 13), and through it, humans can achieve the purpose of life.

As a social and political philosopher, Hobbes also accounted for equity with politics, and he insisted that humans are prone to conflicts over the fight to own goods and rule. He argued that humans are biased towards their interests; that is why the question of ‘mine’ and ‘thine’ remains a big challenge in distributing goods. Politics help humans institute an arbitrator who will settle conflicts and decides on the allocation of goods in a fair and equal manner. Hobbes acknowledges politics help human embrace the love of liberty and peace in society. Through peace, humans have also learned how to agree with each other, “accept an equal and impartial distribution of common goods” (Olsthoorn, 31). Hobbes’ ideas about equity, impartiality, and politics as the state of nature enabled humans to understand the purpose of life and work on achieving it.

Aristotle exposed that a society ought to work towards virtues that will allow citizens to cultivate honor. He argued that citizens should determine worthy virtues that “reflect on the most desirable way of life” (Swanson 1367). He came with Aristotelian virtue of liberality, which describes giving in three aspects, giving “to the right people, the right amounts, and at the right time” (Swanson 1381). Society is full of men who fall short of the ideal of liberality, but Aristotle emphasized that these men can still be praised for justice as long they have not stolen from anybody. Another thing that Aristotelian virtue entails is that a man needs not to look out for himself only but also reach out for others. Liberalism can help humans see the importance of the purpose of life and thus works towards achieving it. The characteristic of a liberal man is not to look to himself only. Greediness prevents humans from achieving their purpose in life (Swanson 1383).

On the other side, Hobbes had distinctly different thoughts from Aristotle, and he acknowledged that moral virtues are among the best instrument for securing peace and therefore linked to the worth of human life and as well account for social goods and happiness. Hobbes mentioned that both human virtue and civic virtue are valuable and required for all citizens. He emphasized that “human virtue is intrinsically valuable while civic virtue is merely instrumentally valuable” (Murphy, 641). In the sense that civic virtue connects citizens with genuine liberal politics while human virtue allows citizens to value their own lives. As a virtuous theorist, Hobbes got interested in virtues because of the social benefits they bring to society (London, 13). In contrast, both Aristotle and Hobbes saw the value of civic virtue within the civil sphere, but Hobbes did not see it as an extension of natural law the way Aristotle did. A society with civic virtues appears more like a politically organized community that allows its citizens to become virtuous and move toward achieving their purpose of life and, in the end, fostering human good (Murphy, 644).

Aristotle also emerged with some thoughts about the relationship between citizenship with political participation. He insisted that humans are political creatures by nature, but the big challenge is distributing political authority. The chief privilege of citizenship is to participate in politics because everybody in the society is entitled an opportunity under the government to engage in political life that promotes human good (Murphy, 644). Aristotle observed that the majority of human being engage in politics which do not care about virtue. The majority are attracted to the politics of fighting for rights, freedom, and liberty. He referred to the government having these characteristics of open citizenship to everyone as democracy. To him, democracy rarely cultivates a culture that fosters virtues (Swanson 1396). He supported a society of ideal aristocracy that is passionate about virtue. Aristotle’s ideas of society adapting virtuous culture can play a vital role in making humans achieve their purpose in life.

Hobbes also contributed to political philosophy, and he argued that “political philosophy requires the support of a whole range of moral requirements beyond the requirements of justice” (Sorell, 227). Just like Aristotle, he thought there is a great connection between politics and justice. According to his theory of justice, Aristotle insists that justice should be “precise and authoritative for both subjects and sovereigns” (Sorell, 227). But Hobbes felt his theory of justice is weak without morality. As a political philosopher, he insisted that humans naturally compete violently in politics, and therefore restrained under the government. He argued that “without government, the human nature would lead every human into a war against every other” (Wilcox, 111). Morality is beyond justice and hence required to keep peace in society and help humans achieve purpose in life.

To conclude, both Aristotle and Hobbes emerged with philosophical ideas that helped humans achieve their purpose of life. The great thinkers allowed us to understand that humans possess excellences such as virtues, equity, social justice, and political life. All these aspects account for human good and happiness (Murphy, 637). The two philosophers based their arguments mostly on social justice, politics, moral virtues, and ethics. They helped us understand that humans are political creatures by nature. Lastly, despite differing in terms of philosophical ideas, their contributions in the study of philosophy are still valid and popular in our educational institutions.

Work Cited

Murphy JB. From Aristotle to Hobbes: William Galston on Civic Virtue. Social Theory & Practice. 2007; 33(4):637-644. http://search.ebscohost.com.allstate.libproxy.ivytech.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=27731338&site=eds-live. Accessed July 21, 2020.

London AJ. Virtue and consequences: Hobbes on the value of the moral virtues. Social Theory & Practice. 1998; 24(1):1. http://search.ebscohost.com.allstate.libproxy.ivytech.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f6h&AN=783513&site=eds-live. Accessed July 21, 2020.

Swanson, J. A. (2011). Michael J. Sandel’s Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? A Response of Moral Reasoning in Kind, with Analysis of Aristotle and Examples. Boston University Law Review, 91(4), 1375–1403.

SORELL, T. Hobbes and the Morality Beyond Justice. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, [s. l.], v. 82, n. 3/4, p. 227–242, 2001. DOI 10.1111/1468-0114.00126. Disponível em: http://search.ebscohost.com.allstate.libproxy.ivytech.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=5304325&site=eds-live. Acesso em: 21 jul. 2020.

Olsthoorn J. Hobbes’s Account of Distributive Justice as Equity. British Journal for the History of Philosophy. 2013; 21 (1):13-33. doi:10.1080/09608788.2012.689749.

Wilcox C. Governing Galactic Civilization: Hobbes and Locke in Outer Space. Extrapolation (Kent State University Press). 1991; 32 (2):111-123. doi:10.3828/extr.1991.32.2.111