Hobbes vs. Thrasymachus: Justice, Power, and the Social Contract
This paper compares Thomas Hobbes's and Thrasymachus's definitions of justice, asking whether Hobbes's account—that justice is covenant-keeping within the commonwealth—merely restates the sophist's claim that "might makes right." While both thinkers recognize power's role in governance, Hobbes distinguishes his position by arguing that justice is a requirement for social stability, not an instrument of private ruler interest. The paper shows that Hobbes's sovereign is constrained by the need to maintain law and protect subjects, whereas Thrasymachus sees rulers as justified in pursuing any advantage. This fundamental difference establishes that Hobbes's theory of justice is not reducible to relativism or pure power politics.
- Thrasymachus's Definition of Justice: Sophist claim that justice equals ruler advantage
- Government Structure and Justice: How each thinker evaluates different government forms
- Hobbes's Defense Against the 'Might Makes Right' Objection: Why Hobbes differs fundamentally from relativist power politics
- Conclusion: Hobbes's government as justice enabler
✍️ How to write this paper — guide & tools ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Directly addresses a philosophical objection (Is Hobbes just saying "might makes right"?) rather than restating definitions passively, which shows critical engagement.
- Uses concrete historical examples (colonial treatment of Native Americans and Africans) to illustrate Thrasymachus's relativist logic, making abstract claims concrete.
- Identifies a structural difference in how each thinker views government legitimacy: Thrasymachus sees all governments as equally just (power-relative), while Hobbes sees some forms as inherently unjust by design.
- Explains why the distinction matters functionally: Hobbes's framework requires law and justice for social survival; Thrasymachus's does not.
Key academic technique demonstrated
This paper employs comparative philosophical analysis with a focus on rebuttal. Rather than merely summarizing two positions, it structures the argument around an objection ("Isn't Hobbes just saying the same thing?") and builds a defense. This move-and-counter pattern is characteristic of rigorous philosophy writing, where showing why positions differ is more important than listing differences. The paper also shows awareness of nuance: both thinkers acknowledge power, but the role of power differs fundamentally.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a direct question framing the problem, then establishes Thrasymachus's position with both textual quotation and contemporary example. A middle section compares how each thinker treats different government forms—the pivot point where their theories diverge. The final section argues that Hobbes's theory is not "might makes right" because the sovereign's authority is functionally tied to law and social stability, not personal advantage. This structure moves from definition, through comparison, to differentiation—a classical pattern for philosophical argument.
Thrasymachus's Definition of Justice
To address whether Hobbes's account of justice resembles Thrasymachus's claim that "might makes right," we must first recall the sophist's position. Thrasymachus defined justice as "nothing other than the advantage of the stronger." This is the essence of the might-makes-right doctrine: those with power act justly by definition whenever they exercise that power in their own interest.
Consider a historical example to illustrate this logic. By Thrasymachus's reasoning, European colonizers acted justly in their treatment of Native Americans and Africans precisely because they possessed superior military and technological power. Under his framework, strength confers moral justification—justice itself becomes whatever the powerful declare it to be.
Thrasymachus applied this principle across different government types, observing that "Democracy makes democratic laws, tyranny makes tyrannical laws, and so on with the others. And they declare what they have made—what is to their own advantage—to be just for their subjects." For Thrasymachus, this means that all governments are equally just, because in each case, the ruling power simply defines justice to match its interests. There is no objective standard; justice is purely relative to whoever holds power.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.