This paper examines and compares how Plato and Thomas Hobbes conceptualize the human concern with good in their respective foundational works, The Republic and Leviathan. Plato presents good as an absolute, archetypal Form intimately linked with justice and universal harmony, while Hobbes frames good as a relative, utilitarian concept grounded in human judgment and the pursuit of pleasure over pain. The paper explores both thinkers' treatments of moral goodness, virtue, benevolence, and their applications to political leadership and social harmony. Despite their differences, both philosophers ultimately equate political harmony with goodness and recognize the necessity of virtuous leadership for a well-ordered society.
In The Republic, Plato conceptualizes the concept of the good primarily in terms of justice. Justice in turn extends from and manifests as harmony, both at the macrocosmic or universal level — as with the movement of the celestial bodies — and at the microcosmic or mundane level, as in political and social life. Plato also discusses the nature, essence, and importance of absolute good as an archetypal Form. The Form of Good is the seed of all things good, just, and harmonious in the universe. Plato is only slightly less concerned with good from a moral standpoint, as he seems to take for granted that moral good and virtue fall under the rubric of the Form of Good.
In Leviathan, Hobbes's concern with good has much more to do with the process of critical thinking and understanding the relative nature of human judgment. Human concern with good reflects the constant need to make judgments, which are often rooted in erroneous beliefs, falsities, or irrationalities. Hobbes is more concerned with the application of good judgment and therefore plants the seeds for a more utilitarian, situational, and relative concept of good as it applies to political decisions and social justice.
Plato investigates several different facets of the human concern with good through characters like Socrates in The Republic. For example, good pertains to musical harmony, which "will give harmony to the soul," just as "good gymnastic … will give health to the body" (Book I). Good is therefore anything that actually feels good on a subjective level to the individual. Plato then discusses the issue of having good taste — the ability to perceive truth and beauty in a subject.
On this level, Plato comes closest to agreement with Hobbes on the issue of good, because of the way Hobbes becomes uniquely concerned with the application of human judgment. Just as Plato talks about having good taste as a matter of intellectual discernment, Hobbes also discusses the need for good judgment in Chapters 7 and 8 of Leviathan. The human concern with good is therefore important because understanding good leads to effective judgment, and from effective judgment comes good governance. Good governance in turn leads to desirable — essentially good — political outcomes.
"Moral dimensions of good in both philosophers"
"Retributive justice, power, and political harmony"
Both Hobbes and Plato therefore value political harmony, and that harmony is equated with goodness. Moral goodness leads to harmony, which creates the situational conditions that prompt good behavior and virtuousness. Likewise, good behavior begets more harmony. Ultimately, the human concern with good is far more absolute and immutable for Plato, who views the nature of good as equitable with justice and harmony. For Hobbes, good is more utilitarian, situational, and relative in nature.
You’re 43% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.