Justice

Abstract

This chapter examines the difference between Thucydides and Hobbes on the issue of justice. The difference between what should be and what is reverberates in Thucydides' moral dramas. All the characters recognize the tension between justice and the demands of power politics. Thucydides equates justice with the avoidance of needless and excessive bloodshed and with adherence to basic war conventions, such as not killing women and children. In his treatment of Plataea, Thucydides recognizes the value of traditional notions of virtue and justice. However, he laments that men are always willing to violate these principles because of envy and need for revenge. Indeed, Thucydides holds out little hope that mankind will at any time recognize the Melian claim that its interests lie in adherence to a common code of justice. Hobbes thinks that a common code of justice is in the common interest of mankind but that the only way it can be consistently upheld is if there is an absolute sovereign to maintain it. This means that at the international level, one cannot expect all laws of nature to be observed consistently. States need only obey these laws if their unilateral obedience will cause them no harm. In this way, Hobbes makes justice and expediency coincide.