1.  What is Justice?
    Paying one's debts
        too narrow; exception
    Giving everyone his due
        vague
    Benefiting friends; harming enemies
        If justice is a virtue and a virtue is an excellence, and an excellence is good, how can HARM be a good thing?
    Whatever is in the interest of the stronger
        What is the function of a thing?  What is the object of an art?  Can the art of ruling have as its function (or object) the interest of the artist, or must it be the improvement of the art or the improvement or benefit of the subject of the art?
        The function of a political leader is to rule well.

2.  Socrates' view of Justice
    A harmony of the elements of the state and the individual soul
        Thrasymachus and Glaucon have described justice such that it seems foreign and external to the individual.  Socrates' position is much more complete than this....

    Gyges' Ring
    The Luxurious State - from the basics to a completely functional social arrangement

Specialization is necessary:
        Rulers            Wise (Wisdom)        Rational        Philosopher Kings
        Protectors        Courage (Bravery)    Spirited        Auxiliaries
        Producers            Temperance            Appetitive    Artisans

When each group performs its appropriate function, when all "mind their own business," the state will function properly.

Now see the same distinction in the individual soul:

        Rational Element            Spirited Element            Appetitive Element
            Wisdom                            Courage                        Temperance

JUSTICE is the result

These are the four cardinal virtues:  wisdom, courage, temperance, and justice

Natural Associations/Development of them

    Man and Woman - procreation
    Family - every day needs
    Village - More than daily needs; less than self-sufficing
    State - nearly self-sufficing

All of these are natural, and within them there are natural rulers and natural servants; there are those who are naturally superior and those who are naturally inferior.  For Aristotle, the best, the wisest, the most rational, ought to rule.

For Aristotle, the state is the highest of all communities.  It aims at the good in a higher degree than any of the other, smaller, less complete communities.

The state is prior to the individual.  The individual is not self-sufficing.
    Husband and Wife
        Servants and Slaves - there are natural slaves
            Children

Governments regarding the common interest are best; those with the interest only of the rulers are defective.
 
 

	One	Few	Many
True State	Monarchy	Aristocracy	Polity/Constitution
Perverted State	Tyranny	Oligarchy	Rule of the Masses

Justice:  Distributive and Rectificatory

Distributive - equals should receive equal shares; unequals should receive unequal shares.
Rectificatory - to repair damage - to return the condition of equality or fairness that existed prior to a wrong done to a person or institution.

Background - method/resolutive-compositive (compare Descartes)

1.  Natural Equality - destruction, hope experience
        Hobbes's general view of human nature:  We are naturally acquisitive, fearful of inability to maintain the power we have at any given time.
        We are, like all other things, nothing more than matter in motion.  All material things follow necessary physical laws of causation.  We are no different.  Our "motions" are our desires (emotions) and we call 'good' that which we desire and we call 'bad' that to which we are averse.  The ultimate desire is the maintenance of life; the ultimate aversion, and the ultimate pain, is death.
2.  Augmentation of dominion - power is necessary to a person's preservation - "A restless and perpetual desire for power after power that ceases only in death."
3.  Creates the causes of quarrel - competition (gain), diffidence (safety), glory (reputation)
4.  Leads to the state of war in the natural condition - a necessary and unavoidable consequence of the state of nature
        The state of war is a hypothetical condition used for argumentative purposes.  Hobbes does not claim that a state of nature ever existed historically.  The S of N is the result of the resolutive part of Hobbes' method.  It is used to show why government is necessary in general, and why absolute government is utlimately necessary (in particular).
5.  Results in unbearable living conditions.  No commodious building, no arts, no letters, no society, no culture..., no industry
        Shows why government is necessary - to protect life.  In this condition, the life of man is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short."
6.  BUT THIS BEHAVIOR IS NOT SINFUL.  There is no law, morality, justice, or property in the natural condition.  Everyone has a right to everything and anything, even to another person's body.  In this condition, there is no SECURITY.  Hobbes claims that those in the state of nature who are in possession of a right to everything are fathers of families.  Doesn't this indicate that he DID NOT actually hold that everyone in the state of nature is naturally isolated, anti-social, completely self-interested, uncooperative, and even possibly mean?  Notice, too, what Hobbes says about equality in the natural condition.  Didn't he say that when a person finds himself in a position in which he cannot defeat an adversary, he may join forces with others who are "in an equal danger" with himself?  If this is happening in the natural condition, what do you make of his claim that we are all uncooperative and isolated?   Force and fraud are, in this condition (war), the two cardinal virtues.
        For Hobbes, it makes sense to claim that something is wrong or right for everyone only when there is a force, sufficient in power, to force compliance with rules.  In the state of nature, every person is his or her own judge of good and bad, the desirable and the undesirable.
7.  Morality and peace are gained through a combination of reason and passion.  Reason is recognitioin of the laws of nature.  Passion is fear of death, desire of things necessary to "commodious living," and our hope that by our industry, we will be able to obtain those things.
    For Hobbes, the TRUE SCIENCE OF MORALITY IS THE SCIENCE OF THE LAWS OF NATURE.  Science does not admit of variation, but the desires of individuals in the state of naure, and what they see as conducive to their maintenance, do vary.
8.  The right of nature - a liberty - to preserve oneself
9.  The law of nature - an obligation.  To preserve one's own life and omit doing anything that will be destructive to one's life.
        For Hobbes, the laws of nature are discovered by reason and are "convenient articles of peace" - unfortunately, people cannot be trusted always to follow them.  There is no reason in the condition of mere nature to trust anyone.
10.  The Fundamental law of nature - seek peace and follow it/utilize "all helps and advantages" of war.
11.  2nd law of nature - give up the right to all things and be contented with so much liberty against others as you would allow against yourself.  In Hobbes's view, there is no assurance that what a person possesses at any moment will remain in his possession in the next moment.  For Hobbes, property (and an assured right to it) is granted only by government.
12.  To give up a right = to renounce or transfer it.  Transfer - expectation of benefit = contract.  CONTRACTS MADE IN FEAR ARE  NOT VOID.
13. 3rd Law of Nature - perform covenants (agreements) made.  This is the foundation of justice and morality
14.  The result is absolute government that is AUTHORIZED by the original contractors AND IS THEREFORE, FOR HOBBES, JUSTIFIED.  Anything less than absolute government is not real government at all.  For Hobbes, there are no limits on government power EXCEPT that the subject is not obligated to submit to death at the hands of the sovereign.  For Hobbes, human nature is such that we are all essentially egoistic - all voluntary actions are done with a view to one's own benefit, and nothing more.
    For both Hobbes and Locke, the notion in social contract theory is that government exists by the consent and agreement of the governed.  This is the center-piece of social contract theory.  A good question, however, is this:  Whose contract theory most completely satisfies the dictates of reason and an accurate portrayal of human nature?

The function of government - regulation and preservation of property.
    This claim implies, of course, that for Locke, property ALREADY exists in the natural condition.

The state of nature - a condition of freedom and equality in which each person is free to "dispose of his person and possessions as he sees fit within the bounds of the law of nature."  For Locke, the state of nature is to be used as a measure of the rights people ought to retain in the political state.
    What is the Lockean Law of Nature?  An obligation to preserve oneself and, when one's own life "comes not in competition," one ought, "as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind" and not interfere in others' rights to life, liberty, or property.
        Locke's view appears to be that people will generally follow the law of nature because they are naturally rational and not given to constant war (as Hobbes supposed).

The state of war - a consequence of the state of nature OR of a political state that is contrary to the natural rights that people possess.  The S of W occurs when one or more people attempt to put another person or persons under their absolute, arbitrary power.
    For Locke, the state of war shows why government is necessary, but also why it must be limited - to protect and regulate property.  It must be limited in order to preserve peace, life, and property.
    The state of war is caused by a "noxious few" who do NOT make conditions in the state of nature unbearable, but instead make it INCONVENIENT.  It is inconvenient to have to be the enforcer, the judge, the jury, and the executioner of the requirements of the law of nature.  The creation of a political society would cure the inconveniences of the natural condition.  But no Lockean would EVER found a government that caused them more trouble than they had in the natural condition.  Locke puts it like this, in section 93:  "To ask how yo may be guarded from harm, or injury, on that side where the strongest hand is to do it, is presently the voice of faction and rebellion:  as if when men quitting the state of nature entered into society, they agreed that all of them but one, should be under the restraint of laws, but that he shoudl still retain all the liberty of the state of nature, increased with power, and made licentious by impunity.  This is to think, that men are so foolish, that they take care to avoid what mischiefs may be done them by pole-cats, or foxes; but are content, nay, think it safety, to be devoured by lions."
    For Locke, then, to establish an absolute government is not only practically absurd, it is also logically absurd.  Why would a person who wishes to protect his life and property submit to a government that could take both away?  Absolute government would be self-defeating.  At least in the natural condition, every person has a right to self-defense.  Why would a person who possesses in himself LESS THAN ABSOLUTE POWER OVER HIMSELF ever be able to grant absolute power to anyone else?  You can't give to another more than you have.

How does Locke argue for the natural right to property?

God as creator/man as creation---> Property in one's own person/the gift of life is given by God --> Property in one's own person --> Property in one's own labor --> Property in "necessities" gained by labor --> The "spoilage limitation" -->  How does one transcend the spoilage limitation?  Results in unequal, but not unjust, distribution.
    Locke describes the condition of nature as generally abundantly supplied with necessities.  Compare this to Hobbes's claims about scarcity.
For Locke, law, morality, justice and property all exist prior to the formation and establishment of government and any government that transgresses the law of nature has put itself into a state of war with its own citizens.  AND SO, REVOLUTION IS JUSTIFIED AGAINST A GOVERNMENT WHEN IT VIOLATES THE NATURAL RIGHTS OF ITS CITIZENS.
    Notice that in Hobbes's contract theory, revolution is never justified UNLESS the government fails reasonably to assure the maintenance of the lives of its citizens from danger INTERNAL to the government/society created.