What are some deifferences between Aristotle's and Hobbes idea of justice?

Question

any help is really really really really appreciated, thanks!

i dont understand, --"Aristotle then says that the good is what has its end in itself (teleion)." ??

"Telos" is a source of constant confusion for me.
By my understanding, if you murder someone, isn't that an end in itself, and therefore good, according to the definition?

Answer 1

Hobbes believed that all men have the same political worth, whereas Aristotle felt that men differ in the capacity to discern, and therefore should be afforded greater or lesser political rights in proportion.

Edit:
The good is it's own end. Death does not strive for itself, but good actions seek that goodness in the action itself. That is telion.

Answer 2

From Hegels lectures:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hp/hparistotle.htm#s3ba


Aristotle defines the principle of morality or the highest good, as happiness (eudaimonia), which later on became a much disputed expression. It is good generally, not as abstract idea, but in such a way that the moment of realization is what actually answers to it. Aristotle thus does not content himself with the Platonic idea of the good, because it is only general; with him the question is taken in its determinateness. Aristotle then says that the good is what has its end in itself (teleion).

b. Politics.
We have still to speak of Aristotle’s Politics; he was conscious more or less that the positive substance, the necessary organization and realization of practical spirit, is the state, which is actualized through subjective activity, so that this last finds in it its determination and end. Aristotle hence also looks on political philosophy as the sum total of practical philosophy, the end of the state as general happiness. “All science and all capacity (dunamiς),” he says (Magn. Mor. I. 1), “have an end, and this is the good: the more excellent they are, the more excellent is their end; but the most excellent capacity is the political, and hence its end is also the good.” Of Ethics Aristotle recognizes that it indubitably also applies to the individual, though its perfection is attained in the nation as a whole. “Even if the highest good is the same for an individual and for a whole state, it would yet surely be greater and more glorious to win and maintain it for a state; to do this for an individual were meritorious, but to do it for a nation and for whole states were more noble and god-like still. Such is the object of practical science, and this pertains in a measure to politics.”

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hp/hparistotle.htm#s3ba
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hp/hparistotle.htm

Hobbes maintained that “The origin of all society is to be found in the mutual fear of all its members;” it is hence a phenomenon in consciousness. “Each association is thus formed in its own interest or for its own renown, that is, from selfish motives.” All such matters as security of life, property, and enjoyment, are not to be found outside it. “But men have in all dissimilarity of strength a natural similarity as well.” This Hobbes proves by a characteristic reason, viz. that “each individual can make away with the other,” each is the ultimate power over the others. “Each can be supreme.”(6) Thus their similarity is not derived from the greatest strength; it is not, as in modern times, founded on the freedom of the spirit, or on an equality of merit and independence, but on the equal weakness of mankind; each man is weak as regards others.
........

“In the condition of nature a certain irresistible power grants the right to rule over those who cannot resist; it is absurd to leave those whom we have in our power to become free and strong again.”

From this Hobbes draws the conclusion that “man must go forth from the natural condition.”(7) This is true; the natural condition is not what it should be, and must hence be cast off.

c. Hobbes finally passes to the laws of reason which preserve tranquillity. This condition of law is the subjection of the natural, particular will of the individual to the universal will, which, however, is not that of all individuals, but is the will of the ruler; this is consequently not responsible to individuals, but is directed against this private will, and to it all must be obedient.(8) Thus the whole matter is now placed on quite another footing. But because the universal will is made to reside in the will of one monarch, there nevertheless proceeds from this point of view, which is really correct, a condition of absolute rule, of perfect despotism. The condition of law does not, however, mean that the arbitrary will of one man constitutes absolute law, for the universal will is no despotism, being rational, inasmuch as it is consistently expressed and determined in laws.

Rixner (Handbuch der Geschichte der Philosophie, Vol. III. p. 30) says: “Law to him is nothing but the sum of the conditions of peace extorted by iron necessity from the original wickedness of mankind.” We might add that in Hobbes we at least find this, that the nature and organism of the State is established on the principle of human nature, human desire, &c.


http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hp/hpgrotiu.htm#hobbes

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hp/hpconten.htm