Civility In Plato's Republic

To be just or not to be: a question of civility

In Plato’s Republic, all concepts and ideas proposed by the great philosopher come in the manner of a dialogue. Effectively putting great minds at odds, to flesh out the intricacies of human life by speech. It is thus only natural that scholars should attempt and pit Plato’s Socrates to some of his more modern contemporaries. Consider Socrates’ debate with Glaucon on the origins of justice. One offering a dire account of human nature and the other seemingly redeeming it. This seems somewhat familiar to Locke and Hobbes’ differing accounts of the same. As such, this paper will examine and compare Locke and Glaucon's account on the origin and essence of justice. Moreover, in comparing both accounts,

XX)

So, what in the State of Nature brings people to enter a social contract? What development brings about such a change in people’s perspective, that they would give up their absolute freedom for civil society?

Locke begins his answer by exploring the natural condition. Indeed, in the State of Nature, everyone is free and independent: all are subject to natural law and may exert it whenever someone threatens another’s (natural) rights to life, liberty, or property.

Following this principle of equality, people lead simple lives, amassing property through the mixture of their labor to the land and its products. Then, following the typical history of commerce, people improve their condition through trade, and by accumulating monies; all the meanwhile developing a framework for industry.

At this point, natural law is no longer able to insure the protection of people’s property. So, people must resort to entering a social contract to preserve themselves. Indeed, the achievement of industry creates a strong economic imbalance in society, so much so that the “upper” class needs a central authority to protect their property from the