Western Political Thought-I

1
Lesson-01
INTRODUCTION TO POLITICAL THOUGHT

1.0 Objectives:
1. Student will learn about Western Political Thought.
2. Student will understand about concerns of Political Thought.
3. Student will know about importance of Political Thought.
Structure:
1.0 Objectives
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Political Thought before Plato
1.3 Popular Political Discussion
1.4 Orders in Nature and Society
1.5 Nature and Convention
1.6 Socrates
1.7 The Central Concern of Political Thought
1.8 Origin of Political Thought
1.9 Salient Features of Greek Thought
1.9.1. Exclusively Political Character of Treatise
1.9.2. Main Concentration on Nature of State
1.9.3. Social Nature of Man
1.9.4. The City State
1.9.5. Importance of Education
1.9.6. Rationalism
1.9.7. Concept of law
1.9.8. Views on Justice
1.9.9. Views on Citizenship
1.9.10. Belief in Inequality
1.9.11. Individualistic Element
1.9.12. Primacy of Discussions
1.10 Impact of Greek Political Philosophy over European Political Philosophy
1.10.1 Concept of Democracy
1.10.2 Religious Tolerance
1.10.3 Concept of Justice
1.10.4 State Regulation of Education
1.11 Importance of Western Political Thought
1.11.1 Political Philosophy
1.11.2 Nature of Political Thought
1.12 Subject Matter of Political Thought
1.12.1 The State
1.12.2 The Government
1.12.3 Human Nature and its Relation with Universe
1.12.4 Division of Political Thought
1.13 Sources of Political Thought
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANU ONLINE EDUCATION ACHARYA NAGARJUNA UNIVERSITY, NAGARJUNANAGAR, GUNTUR,
ANDHRA PRADESH, INDIA-522510
2
1.14 Conclusion
1.15 Model Questions
1.16 References
1.1 Introduction:
Political Thought is about the State, its structure, nature and purpose. It is nothing
but “the moral phenomena of human behavior in Society”. It follows not much explanation of
the occurrence of State as a justification of its continuation. The questions which Political
Thought is forever stressed to answer are i) what is in the State? And why should I obey it?
ii) What are the proper limits of authority and when may I refuse to obey it? iii) How is the
authority of state with which I cannot give out to be made well-suited with the liberty without
which I am less than a man?
To those questions no one can give certain answers that will persuade everybody. It
is very challenging to distinct the purpose of political life from the purpose of life itself that
the answers we give to these questions or political theory. In the last, analysis rest on upon
our conceptions of right and wrong. And because it is a branch of ethical theory it cannot
influence everybody. For science general laws can be applied by the help of which we can
get exact results, the student of politics in search of such laws would be like the experiment
and examine for the answer that would turn everything into gilt. According to Graham
Wallas, no one cannot after twenty generations of education, even two human beings
satisfactorily like each other cannot perform alike under same situations, “the lines of politics
are not like the lines of mathematics. They have broad and deep as well as long they admit
of exceptions; they demand modifications. No lines can be laid down for civil and political
wisdom. They are matter incapable of exact definition”.
But, if, to quote Sir Earnest Barker, “each Professor of Political Thought is suitable,
to feel about all the Professors, if not about himself. They argue from questionable
maxims,(sayings) by a still more questionable process of logic to conclusions that are
unquestionably wrong”. What, it may well be asked, is the value of Political Thought?
Answers of a thrilling nature have often been given to that question. One is that it has no
value, that it and immaterial, that as Bacon says, “Like a virgin consecrated of God, it is
barrow”. It is sustained, an undoubted design of that individuality of philosophers which
Berkeley noticed, their habit of first jolting up a dirt and then protests that they cannot see.
Nevertheless, the student of Political Thought has met and wide-open the expansive
solution, has come across and been made to understand in its true light of the claptrap,
sees the awful supremacy of words to clock authenticity, and is aware of the duty that lies
upon him of piercing to that reality, in spite of the surge of words which may drum on his ear
drum up his sentiments. What is the state and why do men obey it? Have been of two kinds
one in that the state is an organism of which men themselves are parts and which is
therefore, greater than they are, it is actual and they are merely obstacles. The other is that,
it is an instrument which men produce for their own resolutions and which is therefore no
other than they are. They are actual and it is just a device. The idea of the state as an
organism was knockout by the Greeks. By the Stocis (indifference to pleasure or pain) it
was functional to humanity as a whole, it was then taken over by Christianity, and
throughout the Middle Ages ruled supreme. It was challenged at the time of scientific
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3
revolutions of the 17th century, which led to the development of the “mechanistic” opinion of
state. This view was maintained throughout the enlightment of the 18th century, and was
rejected by Rousseau and by German Romantics, who strained the “organic” view as
against the “bloodless” and “soulless” mechanistic doctrine. Once again the swing of
pendulum towards organic doctrine came into existence when Adam Muller, and de Maistre.
So devotedly embraced the organic doctrine in the hope of using it to block the new liberal
forces which they did not liked. The mechanistic view yet again come into favour. Only to
be powerfully argued by the organic interpretation and reinforced by 19th century biological
theories and by 20th century dictatorial practices. Both views still persevere and still resist
for domination over minds of men.
The division of political thinkers into sustains of the organic and mechanistic opinions
of the state is not, nevertheless, the only likely classification of such thinkers. Additional
classification may ascertain more cooperative, one which pressure the variances as well as
knowledge of resemblances between Aristotle and Hegel, Plato and Rousseau. This would
assign political thinkers to three different customs. 1) Rational Natural Tradition, according to
this society and state can be assumed only when they are related to a complete standard,
which be present in nature and which is therefore out of human control, but can be
acknowledged by men over the use of their reason. According to this Society, state can be
understood only when they are associated to a complete standard, which occurs in nature
and which is thus out of human control, but can be known by mean through the use of their
reason. According to this, society must duplicate the design presented by nature which
reason has detained and if we want to know whether laws and institutions are good, we
have only to ask if they are close replicas of the prevailing natural standards. The second is,
tradition of will Artifice, according to the society and the state, are artificial and not natural.
They are honestly free conceptions of man and not repetition of something that already be
present in nature. Hence, according to this tradition it is not reason of man, but the will of
man that is obligatory to produce the state, and human will have liberty to modify society.
The third is, the tradition of Historical Coherence, according to this, both of the customs are
imperfect. Since natural laws have to be altered to suit Civil Society. The balanced natural
tradition, it maintains, is really neither rational nor natural. And men’s will is always
incomplete by the will of others and by what has been willed earlier the custom of will and
artifice. From now, the tradition of historical consistency tries to pool earlier traditions, to
fuse reason and will as in Rousseau’s “General Will “ and Hegel’s “Rational will”. It stresses
the importance of historical development and challenges that complete standards be
present. The state, according to this tradition, is not a replica of the natural world, but to
some degree it can be understood as natural because it is the result of an historical
development that can be thought of as part of nature. To some degree, it can be observed
as artificial, is the outcome of men not ensuing but altering nature. All believers in the state
as a machine belong to the will and artifice tradition. Believers in the state as an organism
may belong either to Rational-Natural tradition or to the tradition of Historical Coherence.
1.2 Political Thought before Plato:

The pronounced age during the third quarter of fifth century B.C. was the great age
of an Athenian public life. Which was the inordinate age of political Philosophy, came only
after the downfall of ‘Athens in her struggled with Sparta. As in so several cases in history
replication followed accomplishment and principles were conceptually stated only after they
had long been denoted. During this age not much was given either to the reading or writing
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4
of books and even if political treatises were written before the time of Plato, were not been
well-preserved. But there are clear signs that much dynamic thoughts and discussions were
lingering upon political problems and that many of the beginnings found later in Plato and
Aristotle had already preserved. The basis and growth of these ideas cannot be
appropriately outlined, but the atmosphere of opinion must be recommended in which the
more clearly political philosophy of next century could progress.
1.3 Popular Political Discussion:

The Athenians of fifth century were engrossed in the discussion of politics necessity
hardly be understood. Public apprehensions and the conduct of public affairs were their
great topics of interest. They lived in an atmosphere of verbal discussion and dialogue
which is difficult for the modern man to visualize. It is convinced that every sort of thought-
provoking political questions were enthusiastically campaigned by the inquisitive and curious
minds of Athenian Citizens. Definitely it was more promising to certain political enquiry. The
Greek was virtually forced to think of what would be now called comparative government.
The Greek of fifth century had formed curiosity about the queen laws and institutions, which
filled his world is proved by the fund of anthropological wisdom embodied by Herodotus in
his history. The diverse custom’s and behaviors of foreign people form a consistent part of
trade. Every man favours the customs of his own country, though there may be little
difference or superior to other country. Every man must be lived in accord with some
standards. There was a proof by the Greek that they had even gone further degree to
imagining about government. In Herodotus book III, there was mention that seven persons
had debated the relative merits of Monarchy, Aristocracy and Democracy. Most of the
argument appears: The Monarch inclines to degenerate into a tyrant, while Democracy
makes all men equal before the law. But democracy becomes module and a government by
the best men is definitely desirable and nothing can be better than the rule of one best man.
This is a genuine Greek touch which Herodotus certainly did not pick up in Persia. This
standard classification of the forms of governments then, was a bit of popular theorizing long
predating anything known as political philosophy.
In the early stages of political though no doubt unbiased interest about foreign
countries counted for something, but was not the main cause.
1.4 Orders in Nature and Society:

It is clear that active thought and discussion of political and social questions headed
clear political theory and isolated political ideas of more or less importance among
themselves were matters of common knowledge, before Plato tried to combine them in an
accomplished philosophy. There were present and convinced general starts, not entirely
political, but forming a kind of knowledgeable point of view, with in which political thought
established and for first time made clear. The beginnings present and had been uttered
before they were stated as philosophical principles. Such conventions are intangible but
important, they determine what type of clarifications are felt to be logically satisfying and the
direction that later theories will try to take. The essential thought in the Greek idea of the
state was the harmony of a life shared in common by all its members. Solon highly praised
his legislation as producing a harmony or a balance between rich and poor in which each
party received its just due.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5
The first development of the principle, however, took place in natural philosophy and
this development reacted in turn upon its later use in ethical and political thought.
1.5 Nature and Convention:

There is sufficient proof that this great discussion about nature versus convention
was spread wide among the Athenians of the fifth century. It might of course, as often it has
done, since, form the defense of the rebel, in the name of a higher law, against the standing
agreements and the existing laws of the society. The classic example of this theme In
Greek literature is the Antigone of Sophocles, perhaps the first time that an artist misused
the conflict between a duty to human law and a duty to the law of God. Thus when Antigone
is burdened with having broken that law by performing the law of God and contrast of
convention with the truly right was distained to become almost of formula for the criticism of
abuses, a role in which the law of nature has appeared again and again in the later history
of political thought.
Before the end of the fifth century, the contrast of nature and conventions had begun
to develop in two main directions. The one conceived nature as a law of justice and right
characteristic in human beings and in the world. This view came to the statement that the
order in the world is brainy and benevolent; it could be critical of exploitations but it was
basically moralist and in the last option of religion. The other conceived nature non-morally,
and as demonstrated on human beings it was self- ascertain or egoism, derive for pleasure
or for power. This view might be established as a kind of Nietzschean doctrine of self-
expression, or in moderate forms it might become a kind of utilitarianism; the extreme forms
could be become theories of a definitely anti –social complexion. In the fifth century there
were ideas but not in systematic or abstract manner, which contained suggestions of most
of the philosophical systems which were produced in fourth century.
1.6 Socrates:
The personal agency by which expressive ideas were revolved into clear philosophy by
Socrates, and curiously enough all the possibilities were equally obliged to him. The
intensely exciting quality of his personality influenced men of the most different character
and persuaded conclusions which were logically quite unsuited through obviously all
imitative from Socrates. It is certain that move of Socrates personality and an entertainer
conception of his ideas must have gone into the teachings of his greatest pupil, Plato. But in
all of Socrates’s pupils were achieved the humanistic reaction which the Sophist began.
The great interest of his nature years at least was ethics, in short, the puzzling question
about the multitude of local and changeable conventions and true and abiding right.
Unlike Sophists he carried into his humanism the rational tradition of the older
physical philosophy. This is the meaning of the doctrine most typically credited to him, the
belief that virtue is knowledge and so can be learned and taught, and also of the method by
which Aristotle attributes to him the pursuit of precise definition. For given these two the
discovery of a valid general rule of action is not impossible, and conveying it by means of
education is not unviable. This vision of a rational, demonstrable science of politics, which
Plato pursued throughout his life.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6
What exactly where the conclusions of Socrates about politics is not known. But in
general the implications of identifying virtue with knowledge are too clear to be missed. He
must have been an honest critic of the Athenian democracy with its assumption that any
man can fill any office. This is broadly suggested in the Apology and practically stated by
Xenophon in the Memorabilia; and in any case Socrates’s trail and conviction are a little
hard to understand unless there was “politics” somewhere behind it. The basic political
principles developed by Socrates and were learned directly from him by Plato.
1.7 The Central Concern of Political Thought:

“Political Thought begins with Greek. Its origin is associated with the calm and clear
rationalism of Greek mind” – Earnest Barker.
‘Man is a rational creature, and has shown affinity to understand himself and
institutions around him, he has started studying the physics, biological and social
environments and indulged theories about them. These speculations like state, its nature,
purpose, functions, organization etc., have occupied important position. This speculation
about the different problems connected with the state is generally designated as political
though it can be said that the study of political thought is as old as the state itself.’
Certain scholars opined that political thought is not related with the problems of the
state government but also includes study of the nature of man and his relations with the
universe. According to Doyle three important aspects are included in the study of political
thought. These include 1) The Nature and Functions of Man; 2) His Relation to the rest of
Universe which involves a consideration of the meaning of life as a whole; emerging from
the interaction of these two problems of relation of man to his fellowmen. The latter is main
concern of political theory in the narrowest sense and involves a discussion on the nature,
purpose and function of the state.
1.8 Origin of Political Thought:

Some of the scholars consider the origin of political thought to the ancient Greek,
Earnest Barker says “political thought begins with Greek. Its origin connected with calm and
clear rationalism of the Greek mind”. He came to this conclusion because Greek political
thought is one of the most ancient thoughts which was preserved and passed on to next
generations in the form of one treatise or other. It has now been recognized that political
philosophy is not the exclusive domain of ancient Greeks, but certain countries like India,
Bobylonia, Egypt etc. also produced political philosophers which are as old as ancient Greek
philosophy. They have also made unsettled works of Greeks. However, the Greeks have
an edge over them as they could preserved their national heritage and passion to the next
generations, while other countries failed to do so. According to Maxey “The closer and fuller
acquaintance with the civilization of remote millennium, which we now enjoy reveals an
astonishing abundance of the political ideas among the people of those vanished areas and
shows how both in thought and practice they anticipated parallel and to some extent laid the
foundations for ideas which subsequently appeared in European political consciousness”. It
was in those ancient political systems that the human mind first come to grips with the
problems of government and first attempted to formulate ideas to account for the
phenomena of politics and to structure the exercise of political authority.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7
The opinion conveyed by Maxey is acknowledged, because non-availability of non-

Greek works of politics made them insignificant. “Greeks were the first to present the
political ideas and concepts in systematic form and their ideas greatly molded the European
thought and form the basis of modern political thinking.” A reasonable question stand up
why the Greeks alone able to laying the foundations of an independent political philosophy?
This can have number of factors like the rational character of Greek mind, their secular
outlook on life. The incidence of huge number of city states which differed from the states of
Babylon, Egypt, India, etc., the Greeks could able to practice verity of political experiments
due to existence of different forms of government in those city states. The growth of
systematic political thought amongst Greek was due to “the free play of speculative
intelligence, the brilliant formulation of vocabulary of thought in language expressive of
sublet shades of meaning and purposive Coherence of Greek Ideals”.
1.9 Salient Features of Greek Thought:

The Greek political thought have positive significant features which justify our consideration.
1.9.1. Exclusively Political Character of Treatise:
The ancient Greek Political Thought varies from the Political Thought of other ancient
countries like Egypt, Bobylonia, Syria, Persia, India, China etc., formed treatise of purely
political nature. On the other hand ancient civilizations the political ideas were inter-mixed
with mythology and religious literature. For example in India the Ramayana, Mahabharata,
Manu Smriti, deal with political problems which are not totally political treatises. They were
mainly religious works in which political ideas were inter- mixed with religion and mythology
and has to make special efforts to distinguish the politics form religion. In the case of Greek
Political Thought the existence of number of independent treatises which are meant to study
the political problems.
1.9.2. Main Concentration on Nature of State:
‘One of the important feature of the ancient Greek Political Thought was that it
related itself mainly with the nature of the state and the concept that man is a political
animal. The Greek writers did not reflect themselves with the problems relating to the
relations between the State and Church, or State and Industry which was the part of political
thought of later thinkers.’ When they consider man as a social animal they did not consider
him as an isolated and independent individual and tried to understand him in relation to the
social whole viz., the state. And the state become the centre of Greek political thinkers.
They discussed the origin and end of the state and distinguished between various forms of
states like Monarchy. Aristocracy, Oligarchy, Democracy, Tyranny etc. they also highlighted
the points that forms of government, determine the order in which the changes take place in
governments and the laws governing them.
1.9.3. Social Nature of Man:
‘The Greek thinkers were the first to put weight on social nature of man and highlight
that an individual could not think as an lonely and independently. He could get perfection
only in a healthy state, so they considered state as essential for the sake of life as well as
good life.’
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8
1.9.4. The City State:
Another significant feature of Greek political thought was that it is positioned around
the city states, in which men shared with community for common life and purpose, it was an
ample social organization in which citizens uninterruptedly took part. Greek political thinkers
did not identify the state and society. As Barker has observe, “the Greeks were never tried
of telling themselves that while in their communities each man counted for what he was
worth and exercised his share of influence in the common life. It was place of a common life
and the home of a union of classes. Like within common walls drew new natural intimacy. It
did not abolish the prestige of wealth and birth and culture, it established a tradition of easy
inter course between all classes. The city state was also not different from church. It was be
–all and end-all of the actions of its citizens and included the entire cooperative actions of
the citizens.
1.9.5. Importance of Education:
Greek thinkers gave top significance to education and stressed its importance in
making the people on par with the spirit of constitution. They highlighted on practical system
of education which could help in promoting modesty, self- control, patriotism, sociability and
other similar qualities. The responsibility to promote education was of state among the
citizens and was considered as a moral and political institution but also an educational
institution. The Greeks laid main pressure on state to skillful system of education.
1.9.6. Rationalism:
Greek given an important position to rationalism in their thought. They consider that reason
is an aspect of the importance and man was free, when he had freedom of reasoning, this
made man to identify himself with corporate life, which made to stop his personal and selfish
interests and just into the jurisdiction of wider interpretations and higher purposes. Greek
thinkers gave advantaged positions to persons who had the rational faculty and demoted
those persons who did not have reason, have much low status. ‘They gave much
importance to reason and ware against of a thing which was not justified on ground of
reason.’
1.9.7. Concept of law:
‘The Greek concept of law was connected with their belief in reason. They
measured life-breath of the state was law, because it characterized the cane of the rational
being.’ The people who make laws were stimulated by the divine power and was also
pronouncement of God. They thought that law and justice as two sides of the same coin,
and considered the justice done by the law.
1.9.8. Views on Justice:
‘The Greek political thinkers gave top priority to justice, which enabled a citizen to
discharge his duties properly, and contributed towards development of human faculties.’
Justice was implied to mean willing obedience to the laws of state. According to Plato
“Justice was the virtue of social and injustice it’s vice”.
1.9.9. Views on Citizenship:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9
‘The Greek thinkers opined that merely payment of taxes and vote did not mean
citizenship. It meant the direct contribution in the management of state as a soldier, as
judge, as a legislator in person not through Deputy. The Greeks ruled out the concept of
representative government, the Greek did not extend rights of citizenship to slaves,’
because they felt the slaves could not discharge their duties towards the state. Even they
denied working classes the right to rule because they did not have speculative mind. They
opined that only the classes which enjoyed leisure and owned lands can actively participate
in the affairs of state, because they are free from economic burden, hence, the concept of
citizenship was limited.
1.9.10. Belief in Inequality:
‘The Greeks considered equality as impracticable unnatural and undesirable they

argued that the majority of individuals who were inferior, lazy, unfit for education could be
sacrificed at the altar of the minority of excellent and wise.’ They measured that disparity is
natural and allowed the dominance of Greeks over barbarous, of the free man over the
slave; of the gentle man artisan etc., they however acceptable equality with in a class. They
opined that equality was not an ideal thing it was something unnatural and hence it is
unrealistic and unwanted.
1.9.11. Individualistic Element:
The Greek political thinkers gave a significant position to the individual, their thought and
claimed it was the right of individual to articulate his own thoughts and direct these thoughts
publicly and act according to the dictator of conscience. Plato highlighted in his laws that
society, a group of individuals and the individual was self-determined. Similarly, Epicurus
said “there is no such thing as human society. Even man is concerned for himself…..
Justice never is anything in itself, but in delays of men with one another in any place
whatever and at any time. It is a time of contract not to harm or to be harmed”.
1.9.12. Primacy of Discussions:
Another important feature of Greeks was that, they committed great importance to
discussion. They approved the method of discussion for present their ideas and philosophy,
and truth can be exposed only through proper reasoning and discussion. The novel method
adopted by them was between two parties one presenting the issue and other replying to
those issues with philosophical ideas. They thought that truth would hide in the absence of
discussion. It comes in light with discussion. In fact some of the concepts and ideas
discussed by the ancient Greeks were focal point of discussion of political thought even in
our times.
1.10 Impact of Greek Political Philosophy over European Political

Philosophy:
Of all the political philosophers’ only Greek philosophy thrived during ancient Greek
times. Greek philosophy was studied extensively and Europeans borrowed it. It is due to
easy availability and clearness. Some of the important ideas and concepts which came into
European political thought were as follows.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10
1.10.1 Concept of Democracy:
Democracy was unknown to Europeans and it was borrowed from Greeks because
most of the European countries have Monarchial system. As a result they developed a
healthy blending of Monarchial system.
1.10.2 Religious Tolerance:
Greeks were religious tolerant when compared to Europeans. Europeans were

religious biased which resulted frequent religious strife. They learned tolerance from
Greeks. The insignificant position in which religion was attached to politics was due to the
impact of Greeks.
1.10.3 Concept of Justice:
The concept of justice founded on the principle of ‘virtue in action’ by the Greeks also
made an influence on the European political philosophers, they made a protruding place to it
in their thought, the Europeans had a different meaning to justice earlier to them justice
means purely submission to the will of monarch, who was treated as head of justice.
1.10.4 State Regulation of Education:
The impact of Greek on the Europeans thinking is also prominent from the greater
regulation of the education by the states. Europeans states did not gave importance to
education of its citizens. It was the result of the impact of Greeks, they understood education
as an instrument for production of good citizen, and gave importance for education.
1.11 Importance of Western Political Thought:

Political thought is a kind of action which is as old as politics itself, which has many
facts of styles and attitudes. Political thinkers have talk about the institutions and practices
and advise rulers, defend values and principles or criticize the world in which they live in.
They have motivated narrowly on institutions of government, lawmaking, and coercive
power but focused broadly on society or people. The assertiveness of people is changed
and politics also linked to other areas. The approaches to imagining about politics differ.
Major political thinkers who are in different ways have offered modern concept of
scope of politics and its place in social life. Western political thought mainly consist of a
single broadminded narrative that explains about “natural law” or some variety liberal
constitutional democracy as the ideal form of government. More theoretically sophisticated
methods for the study of government bureaucracy and group behavior, why do we need
study, almost exclusively made thinkers had to say about politics in the past.
1.11.1 Political Philosophy:
It is about the study of politics, liberty, justice, property rights, law and the
implementation of a legal code by authority which makes a government genuine. The term
political philosophy often refers to a general view, or specific ethic, political belief and
method.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11
The significance of political thought cannot be over highlighted. The task of

thoughtful deeper recommendations of the present situation and further planning can be
assisted by a careful study of political thought of the ages. This study in historical
prospective leads to nature thinking and permit the political thinkers to solve present-day
problems in a much better way. The modern world’s political thought was based on western
political thought. It prefers to begin the study with Western political thinkers, like Greeks,
because not like their Eastern counterpart, their assumptions are mainly contained in
independent treatises and do not form part of literature which was dominantly religious and
ethical.
Man is a social animal he cannot lead life alone. He is not satisfied living with
society because of his rational faculties, which made him to know about himself and
surroundings which influences him. Nature has given him curiosity and desire to know
about social surroundings and environment.
1.11.2 Nature of Political Thought:
The existence of various sciences like Botany, Zoology, Physics and Chemistry etc.,
made him to understand himself and social surroundings in which he lives, which gave rise
to social sciences like, History, Politics, Economics, Sociology and Psychology etc. The
desire to know about the God and universe gave rise to philosophy, religion and astronomy
etc., man made progress in all faculties and acquired knowledge into many sciences. The
progress of man is not by one country but all the countries contributed to it. As the political
thought of modern world is based on the western political thought, which is useful to modern
setup and understand the following.
1.12 Subject Matter of Political Thought:

1.12.1 The State:
Politics can be defined as the study of state and Government. It deals with the
mechanism in which man can govern himself and the society. The state and its institution
comprises very significant part of social setup. Every movement of man in society is
measured by the government. The political power is important than the physical and
biological forces.
1.12.2 The Government:
The people of the world and all ages have assumption about the government by its
nature, function and organization. They tried to understand several institutions of
government to attain its purpose and how should be organized to work better. Such things
gave rise to political thinking which is as old as the recorded history.
1.12.3 Human Nature and its Relation with Universe.
Political thinking does not limit to state and government, it has reached beyond them.
It is connected to nature of man and his relation to universe. The completes cope of political
thought was illustrated by great political thinkers such as Plato, Aristotle, St. Thomas
Aquinas, Marx, Hegel and Green. Chanakya, and Bruhaspati provided number of examples
in ancient India. The chief purpose of political thought is state, they participate in discussion
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12
of its nature, origin, purpose, functions organization etc., then to speculation about the
nature of man and his place in universe.
It is significant to ask that, why should Indian student begin their study of political
thought with Greeks and why not with ancient Indians, Egyptians, Bobylonians, Chinese.
Syrians and Persian etc., though they did grow their own political thought. In ancient times
Indians produced political thinker like Viduv, Chankya, Bruhaspsti, Sukra and law giver like
Manu, who were challengers to their European counter part. Two different reasons are given
why we begin our political study with Greek political thought. Firstly, the ideas established
by other ancient countries did not become the part of European Civilization as those of
ancient Greeks did. Secondly, the results of their assumption of political problems were not
completely limited in separate and independent treaties like Greece. They formed part of
literature which was mainly religious and ethical. It is true about India where political
thought is found in Ramayana, Mahabharata and Buddist Jataks which are mainly religious
books.
Hence, one has to begin his study with Western or European political thought and its
growths from its early period in the assumptions of the early Greeks. Political thought do not
develop from simple to complex. Political problems present themselves in different ways
under different circumstances.
1.12.4 Division of Political Thought:
It can be divided into four periods: 1) Ancient political thought 2) Medieval political
thought 3) Modern political thought 4) Contemporary political thought. Political thinkers
have generally dealt with the following political problems: 1) The origin of state and its
nature 2) Relation of political science with religion and ethics or controversy between the
Church and state 3) Function of State 4) The organization of the state and Government 5)
Sovereignty 6) Law 7) Justice 8) Classification of Government 9) Utility or justification of the
state 10) Relation of political science with other physical and social sciences.
1.13 Sources of Political Thought:

The following sources are the sources of Political Thought.
1) Geographical conditions 2) contemporary conditions and social setup or social

environments 3) Individual circumstances and experiences 4) Great philosophers
and their works 5) Official documents are the main sources of political thought.
1.14 Conclusion:
Political Thought about State, its structure, nature and purpose, it is nothing but the moral
phenomena of human behaviour in society. The philosophers like Plato, Aristotle, and
Socrates have contributed important works of their time which are useful to us. Political
Thought begins with Greek. Man is a rational animal, has shown tendency to understand
himself and institutions around him. The origin of political thought, some scholars consider
the origin to the ancient Greek, this thought is one of the most ancient thoughts which was
preserved and passed on to the next generations in the form of one treatise or other. Greek
were the first to present the political ideas and concepts in systematic form and their ideas
greatly molded the reopen thought and form the basis of modern Political thinking.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13
1.15 Model Questions:

1. What is political thought? Give a brief introduction?
2. What are the salient features of Greek political thoughts?
3. What is the importance of Western Political thought and Impact of Greek political
philosophy on European political philosophy?
1.16 References:
1. D.C. Chaturvedi, Political Thought, Meenakshi Prakasham, New Delhi, 1981.
2. Johns Dryzek and others, Political Theory, Oxford University Press, 2008.
3. C.L. Wayper, Political Thought, B.I. Publications, New Delhi, 1979.
4. R.G. Mulgan, Aristotle’s Political Theory, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1977.
5. William Ebenstein, Modern Political thought, IBH publishing Co, 1970.
6. David Boucher & Paul Kelly, Political Thinkers, Oxford University Press, 2009.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
Lesson-02
JUSTICE, IDEAL STATE-PLATO
2.0 Objectives:
1. Students would be able to understand the life of Plato.

2. Students would be able to learn Plato’s political thought.
3. Students would know about the concept of justice, ideal state of Plato.
Structure:
2.0 Objectives
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Sources of Plato’s Political Thought
2.3 The Method of Plato:
2.4 The Republic or Concerning Justice
2.5 Plato’s Concept of Justice
2.5.0 Grounds on which Plato Rejected Prevailing Theories
2.5.1 Traditional theory
2.5.2 Radicalist Theory
2.5.3 Pragmatic Theory
2.6 Concept of Justice by Plato
2.7 Criticism of Plato’s Concept of Justice
2.8 Theory of Education
2.8.1 Education Methods
2.8.2 Features of Platonic System of Education
2.8.3 Education and Curriculum
2.8.4 Critiques of Plato’s Scheme of Education
2.9 Communism of Wives and Property
2.9.1 Communism on Property
2.9.2 Criticism of Communism of Property
2.9.3 Communism of Wives
2.9.4 Common Reasons on Wives
2.9.5 Criticism
2.10 Comparison of Plato’s Communism with Modern Communism
2.10.1 Resemblances
2.10.2 Dissimilarities
2.11 Origin and Nature of State
2.12 The Ideal or Just State
2.12.1 Philosopher King
2.12.2 Plato’s Rule of Philosophy and Features
2.12.3 Criticism
2.13 Ideal State and Liberty
2.14 Ideal State and Equality
2.15 The Statesman
2.16 The Laws:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
2.16.1 Differences of Republic and Laws

2.16.2 Philosophy Explained in the Laws by Plato
2.16.3 Views on Political Aspects
2.16.4 Views on Social Structure
2.16.5 Views on Education
2.17 Conclusion
2.19 References
2.1 Introduction:
Plato was born in Athens in 427 B.C., one year after the death of Pericles and
he was breathed his last in Athens in 347 B.C., then years before the battle of Chaeronea a
battle which enabled king of Macedonia Philips, to bring the whole Greek world under him.
It was the period when Athens was observing the decline of the democratic institutions.
Plato was born into a family, one of the most eminent family on both sides in Athens. It was
anticipated that Plato would lead an active life in the services of state. In fact what he had
imagined. In the “seventh letter”, he has written ‘when I was young man, I felt as many
young men do, I thought that very moment I attained my majority, I should engage in public
affairs’. Such an opportunity presented itself before Plato, when a revolt over threw
democracy in Athens. Among them were Plato’s Kings Men, asked him to join them.
Thinking in his own words that, ‘politics and I were a fit match’. But Plato could not resolve
himself with their activities which he writes that ‘my blood boiled at it’ for ‘as I looked I saw
those man in a short time make the former democratic government seem like a ‘golden age’.
Another revolt soon brought the democrats to power. Though the new democratic
government in the beginning was able to win his sympathies, it dedicated an act which
isolated him from dynamic political life. It implemented his teacher and friend Socrates on a
charge of corrupting the youth of Athens.
The execution of Socrates filled Plato’s heart with scorn and dislike for democracy –
a feeling which he nursed throughout his life; he left Athens to live in Magava. He visited
Italy, but it was not certain he took journey to Egypt and Cyrene. When he was in Italy he
was drawn towards Pythagoras. He also went to Sicily where he made friendship with Doin,
a member of the court of Dionysius I, who was the ruler of Syracuse. In 386 B.C. he came
back at Athens, where he founded the first University of the Ancient Greece known as the
Academy and where he taught until his death.
Plato had nursed a hope with Dionysius help he would flourish in conveying essential
reforms in the government of the city. But his hope was ruined and his effort gave little
achievement. This was the only effort made by the philosopher to effect politics, after his
failure he devoted himself to teaching and encouraging knowledge. Plato had represented,
an amalgamation between a poet and a philosopher, his dialogues were a medium of
expression both of truth and beauty. He was written a number of dialogues which are listed
under.
Crito, Apology, Ruthyphora, Laches, Lysis, Charmides, Phaedo, Gorgias, Meno,
Protagroras, Symposium, Duthydemus, Republic, Theactetus, Pormenides, Philebus,
Sophist, Statesman, Timaeus, Laws, and half-finishedCritias. For the students of political
philosophy only three book are important – Republic, Statesman and the Laws.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3
2.2 Sources of Plato’s Political Thought:
The political thought of Plato was resulted partly from current intellectual climate and
principal political conditions and partly from the ideas of from Pythagoras, Parmenides,
Heraclitus and Socrates. In fact no political philosophy is intelligible save in the context of
its time, and this is true about Plato’s philosophy as well.
After the death of Pericles in 429 B.C., the Athenian leadership had destroyed to a
low level. The execution of Socrates made Plato to reconsideration he took the task of
rebuilding philosophically the moral fiber and political organization of Athens and to achieve
this end, he agreed certain solutions which were observed as the most inspiring and
excellent ideas in the history of political thought.
If Plato was influenced by the conditions overcome at that time, among the Greek
thinkers, Pythagoras, Heraclitus and Socrates influenced him. From Pythagoras he learned
the theory of Tripartite Man, which says human mind is made of three elements. The
appetite, the spirit and reason. Socrates had the utmost influence on Plato’ life, he was
influenced by Socratic theory of knowledge, he advanced it into a system of Metaphysics. It
says, each theory which we observe in this world in an imperfect imagination of a perfect
original called the ‘Idea’ or ‘Form’. There is seeming ‘Dualism’ i.e., there are two worlds –
the world of being and the world of becoming. The world of being is a static world of
perfection or an ideal world, which is real because it is ideal or perfect. The world of
becoming which is an active world of imperfection, a world of particular things, which is
imaginary because it is imperfect. The former is world of reason later is world of sense –
perception.
Plato was also obligated to Socrates for his identification of virtue with knowledge.
Socrates said that, there could be no ‘virtue’ or ‘excellence’ without knowledge. Storage of
facts is not knowledge. Socrates said knowledge and morality are identical. Knowledge
influenced the total personality, hence, all qualities are inferior to knowledge. In fact, the
proposal ‘virtue is knowledge’ is the important idea of the Republic. The entire theme of
Rule of Philosophy which Plato build up in the ‘Republic’ is based on Socrates proposal that
virtue is knowledge.
2.3 The Method of Plato:
The system adopted by Plato has also an individuality of its own, like his philosophy.
We have definitely agreed procedures to study the social and political phenomenon. These
methods either overlap or supplement each other, or mutually oppose. For science there is
a method, which is based on observation and conclusions through hypothesis and
verification. This method is also known as inductive method, there is another method
deductive method which is just opposite to inductive method. Besides, there is also
historical method, which is established on experience and which be distinguished to the
analytic method that divides the ingredients of a phenomenon and studies at in segregation
from other related phenomenon. Plato has used all these methods even though they looks
to be contradictory. His method can be said to be logical because his ideas proceed from
the ‘ideas archetype’ or universal to the particular, which are imperfect models. It will not be
wrong to label his method as inductive, because his nature of state was based upon an
opinion of the qualities of an individual. His method would have historical proof as well
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4
because in the Republic he had given a possible historical advancement of state through
four main stages. 1) the stage of articulate speech, 2) the state of natural economic
dependence 3) the stage of war and war chiefs and the final stages of government 4) his
method in analytical also, because he divides individual into three components parts to find
his principal nature.
2.4 The Republic or Concerning Justice:
The republic or regarding justice was one of the greatest works of Plato, which
represents his thoughts fully. When he was at the age of 40, he wrote the book, which
indicates the maturity of his ideas and philosophy. This book deals with both political and
moral principles and it consists of 10 books. It also includes the metaphysical, educational,
and sociological and host of other problems. A prominent philosopher Nettleship said, “The
whole Republic is really an attempt to interpret real nature, psychologically; its methods can
be observed in all the institutions of society, class organization law, religion soon are
ultimate products of human soul and inner principle of life which works itself out in these
outward shapes”. Prof. Barker also said “It is an attempt at a complete philosophy of man…
But man is a whole, his actions cannot be understood apart from his thinking and therefore
the Republic is also a philosophy of man in thought and of the laws of his thinking”.
The Republic of Plato starts with the proposition (propose), what is a good man, how
he can become so. Plato said that, a good state should have a king who must be a
philosopher (Philosopher king), and must have information of good and reality. Plato
supports the instrument of education which produces good citizens and solves many or our
social and economic problems. The Republic of Plato starts with ethics and enters in the
domain of politics, sociology, metaphysics, education etc., he could able to deal with so
many subjects in republic, because there was no separation of subjects during his time.
The Greek cities states were so much combined that there was no difference between
politics and religion. The dialectical method and dialogue system helped him to cover
different subjects in his discussions.
The Organic view of the state was taken by Plato, found no battle between ends of
the state and those of the individual. Plato tried to ‘rehabilitate a strong and impartial
authority which should mean, not the rule of rich over poor, or of the poor over rich, but
something either above or at any rate combining both”. He measured an ideal state must
consist of their classes, each performing a special or appointed functions, the three classes
were i) economic class ii) military class iii) ruling class.
The economic class was accountable with creation of wealth when he said, men
having iron in their nature. The warrior class comprised of persons who protected the
community, said to be men having silver in their nature the ruling class was mainly in charge
for the governance of the country, said to be gold in their nature. Even though each class
was significant within its respective place, Plato considered that ruling class was more
important than other classes. Because they have accountability for making and unmaking of
the country which is rested on their shoulders. He tried to raise ruling class. To recognize
the philosophy of Plato fully, it is suggested to examine his views on justice, education, Rule
of Philosopher king and communism of wives and property.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5
2.5 Plato’s Concept of Justice:
Plato had given great prominence to the concept of justice, it was clear fact that he
subtitled his book of ‘Republic’ as ‘Concerning justice’, the nature and occupancy of justice
was the important issues of Republic. Plato while explanation his theory of justice, he
observed different prevailing theories of justice, after rejecting them he proposed his own
views on theory of justice.
2.5.0 Grounds on which Plato Rejected Prevailing Theories:
The following theories of justice were rejected by Plato.
2.5.1 Traditional theory
This theory was produced by Cephalous, and his son Polemarchus, they defined
justice as speaking truth and paying what was due to Gods and men. It was considered
that, good is done to friends and harm to the enemies. Plato disallowed this theory because
justice means doing well to all and harm to none, which depends upon the principles of
morality. He further said, it was not possible to distinct between enemies and friends
because the appearance would be often deceiving. Another flaw of his theory was, it treat
justice as an individualistic rather than social concept. Justice cannot differ from person to
person and it must have universal application. This theory was not tolerable because it’s
handmaid of those in power and gives sufficient scope for misuse.
2.5.2 Radicalist Theory
This theory was linked to Sophists and produced by Thrasymachus, preserved

justice as the interest of the stronger. It trusts in the principle of might is right. When the
government strongest, it makes laws to the suitability of the rulers and justice for the people,
seeking the interest of the ruler rather than follow their own interests. Sophists said that
injustice is better than justice every person would like to promote his own interest would go
against interest of ruler. Therefore, Thrasymachus claims that, injustice is better than justice
and unjust man is wiser than the just.
Plato had disallowed this theory of justice because firstly, Justice can never be the
interest of stronger. The government is an art and it must aim at the perfection of the
material viz., the subjects rather than its own faultlessness. A ruler must be selfless in his
duties as ruler, must work for the progress and governed. Secondly, justice is always better
than injustice because a just man is wiser, durable and better off than an unjust man and
knows his limitation. He tries to work within limits and does his appointed purposes.
Thirdly, Plato condemns the extreme individualism of the Sophists and holds that individual
is not an independent unit but a part of an order. Fourthly, there cannot be dual standards
for Justice one for the ruler and the other for the subjects. Thrasymachus could not give any
rational justification, this concept has no universal application.
2.5.3 Pragmatic Theory
This theory was proposed by Gloucan, he stated that, justice is an artificial thing, a
product of social agreement. Justice is the child of fear and is founded on the need of the
weak. Therefore, justice is not the interest of the stronger but it is the necessity of weak.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6
Plato left out and condemned this theory because it considers that justice is something
external or an importation. He said that, justice is rooted in human mind.
2.6 Concept of Justice by Plato:
After rejecting those prevailed concepts of Justice, he proposed his own concepts of
justice. He opined that, justice must be present both in individual and in society. He thought
that justice in the state existing in bigger and much noticeable form, he tried to put it with the
help of state. According to Plato, there are three constituents inhuman mind namely reason,
sprit and appetite, which are presented by the rulers, soldiers and farmers. He opined that
each of these three makes a valuable contribution for the creation of the state. Justice can
be done if the each group performs their duty without interfering each other. Justice is a
bond which holds a society together, pleasant union of individuals, each of whom has found
his life work in accordance with his natural fitness and training, it is both public and private
virtue. Plato’s concept of justice was explained by Barker as, social justice many be defined
as the principle of society, consisting of different types of men (producing type, military type,
ruling type), who have combined with each other to perform their own duties.
Hence, the concept of justice by Plato, based on three principles. First it works as
functional specialization like giving a definite function to each one according to his capacity
and merit, second, it works, noninterference of different groups. So that they can
concentrate on their own duty. This sort of work required for the unity and welfare of all the
members of sate. Third, it implies harmony in between the three classes (groups)
representing wisdom, courage and temperance respectively.
2.7 Criticism of Plato’s Concept of Justice:
The concept of justice by Plato has been exposed to criticism, the following charges
are leveled.
First, the concept of justice by Plato is mainly grounded on moral principles. Which
lacks legal sanction, hence, is not enforceable. It is based on self- control and self –rejection
in the interest of society. At any stage of history more moral sanction cannot protect the
social good.
Second, Plato’s theory of justice could be practical only in the city-state. It toughly
enforce the principle of division of labour and except everyone to do his allotted duty to
satisfy society. In the present context, it is not possible nor can be fixed. If duties can be
given to the members of each class because the population has increased so much.
Third he said that each individual owns there qualities like, reasons, spirit and
appetite, he wants each individual must contribute to the development of only one faculty.
He wants ruler class to develop faculty of reason. The soldier class to develop faculty of
spirit or courage while appetite for the peasant class.
Fourth, his concept of justice gives absolute power to one class like, the
philosophers, because they have lot of wisdom. Thus, there is a scope for inequalities of
power and privilege in his concept of justice. However, he failed to realize grant of absolute
power in the hands of any person or class of persons though morally and spiritually trained
lead to degeneration on and corruption.
Fifth, to spot the misuse of power by ruling class, he pleaded for communalism of
property and wives in complete violation of human psychology.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7
Sixth, Prof. Popper, said that, Plato’s concept of justice gives rise to totalitarianism
and it ignores the humanization principles like equality, freedom and individualism.
Seventh, Plato subordinates individuals completely to the state and shows him a
meagre means for the promotion of the interest of the state.
Eighth, his justice gives rise to a class-state in which ruling is the privilege of a
particular class.
2.8 Theory of Education:

Plato’s theory of education is connected to his theory of justice, education act as an
important role to bring harmony according to Barker and unity in the society. According to
Barker “An attempt to cure mental malady by mental medicine”. Plato trusts that, most of the
evils in the society can be removed by providing education and he asserted that it is a
spiritual medicine. Plato gave significance to education and connected to his ideal state, and
gave prominence to his second book of Republic. Plato believed that knowledge is virtue
and it is the duty of sate to provide knowledge. Plato asserted that the three classes in the
state must be properly trained and educated so that they can do their duties with efficiency.
That means state should give priority to education.
Plato always believed that education is related to individual and societal characteristics, in
fact it gives individual to understand knowledge which is equivalent to virtue, it can threw a
light on soul to know the truth as well. It is the social method by which society can become
quick to respond about the consciousness and can learn to do their duties effectively in the
society. Plato very effectively mixed these two concepts of education and justice.
2.8.1Education Methods:
During the time of Plato, education system was entirely reverse trend they were Athenian
and Spartan types. The system of Athenian was in primarily with private people and left with
the parents to educate children by the way they think will be the best. In the Spartan system
of education which was in control of the state, and parents separates their children when
they attain four years and they will send them to be taken care by the perfects and state
take care of their education and involvement of parents in this regard was not there. State
provide education in harmony with social conditions. Plato’s education system of education
designed to promote social welfare and help individuals by understanding the reality.
2.8.2 Features of Platonic System of Education:
The important characteristics of platonic or spiritual education are here under:
• Plato stressed that all concerned be communicated for proper education. He

believed that education is a kind of positive measure by which ruler can mould the
characters of the people, he never supported the idea of keeping education with
private hands and stressed the need of keeping education with state only.
• Plato never accepted to keep the education options with parents and stressed the
need to make it obligatory. He stated that education should made obligatory to all the
citizens of the state, so that they can develop their mental faculties and can become
respected units of state.
• Plato did not accepted the barring of women from education on the Athenian system,
both men and women must be given education
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8
• The education of Plato was for artisans and also for the peasants. He stated that,
“Men of copper can be made into men of silver and even of gold, if they possess
their attributes”.
• Plato was in support of firm censorship of all literary and artistic works to make sure
that, youth did not come under bad influences.
• Plato insisted that education must provide moral and physical improvement of the
child, he said that healthy mind can only reside in the healthy soul.
• The important aspect of his education was to prepare the philosopher king. The
philosophers after passing through a rigorous education would be able to run the
government.
2.8.3 Education and Curriculum:
Plato’s educational curriculum consists of two stages, elementary and higher stages. The
first stage starts from birth to the age of six years, during this stage both boys and girls were
to be given education of languages, the children were to be given basic education on
religion. The second stage from 6 to 18 years, and child should be given education on music
and gymnastics. The music would give necessary development of soul and gymnastics
would provide growth of body. The third stage was prolonged from 18 to 20 years, both of
them must be given military education during this stage.
The stage of higher education starts from 20 to 35 years, by the end of 20 years was to be
taught those who have interest in science and philosophy. The higher education again can
be divided in to two sub-stages, the first ranging from 20 to 30 years, second stage from 30
to 35. In the first stage subjects like mathematics, Astronomy, Logics and other Sciences
and said that geometry must be taught. During the second stage stress must be given to
dialectics, and this stage of education is required for the production of philosopher king. King
was to rule from 35 to 50 years after 50 years king had to retire and start study of God.
2.8.4 Critiques of Plato’s Scheme of Education:
His scheme of education had been criticised severely, the following charges have been
levelled:
1 Plato’s scheme of education was for the guardian class other classes like peasant and
artisan were not covered.
2 His scheme of education is a lifelong procedure
3 The Plato’s suggestion for censorship of art and literature is extremely critical
4 The Plato’s education system is not logical there is no relationship from one stage to the
other stage. The philosopher king who administer the state does not have the necessary
training in administration and other problems.
6 His pattern of education is opposing to human psychology and conflicting to rich society
which depends on the variety of growth.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9
2.9 Communism of Wives and Property:

An important aspect of Plato’s political thought is communism of wives and property. The
concept of communism was not known to Greeks, but both in Athens and Sparta a little of
communism can be seen. He thought that, Guardian class must be free from physical
uncertainties so they can focus on public service. He asserted that, during the acquisition of
property and family would stand in the way of philosopher king to take proper decision about
the community. Plato said that mixture of political and economic power was restricted to lead
to corruption and deprivation in the state and an operative system of administration could
operate only when economic power was absolutely separated from political power. Baker
said that the think of communalism by Plato was an important step in his thinking. According
to Prof. Sabine “So firmly was Plato convinced of pernicious effect of wealth upon
Government that he saw no way to abolish the evil except by abolishing wealth itself, so far
as the soldiers and rulers are concerned”.
2.9.1 Communism on Property:
Plato understood that, private property was a hesitant piece in the way of the unity of state,
he wanted to abolish by Communism of Property. He was afraid that the having private
property would promote selfish thoughts and diverge the devotion of philosopher ruler from
public service. Hence he gave two ruling classes the right to have private property. It was
noted that the communism was only for the guardian class expect them to make rejection of
private property. The guardians reject the property and family for the good of the society.
2.9.2 Criticism of Communism of Property:
Aristotle his student, criticized Plato’s concept of communism of property are here under:
1 With the doing away of the private property there would barely be any encouragement for
hard work and the healthy struggle, which is so important for the growth of society.
2 His communism is only for the ruling class and workers and peasant are exempted, who
were from the majority of the society. Any scheme which excludes majority of people in the
society, failure of freedom would arise.
3 The elimination of institution of private property will end the charity and generosity
thoughts would be abolished.
4 His communism of property was bound to result in loss of production.
5 The distinct interest of individuals would effect on the development and progress of the
society. His communism prevents from happening which would give richness to life.
6 Plato was criticized by Aristotle for providing material remedy to the spiritual disease
through communism.
7 He was completely neglected the slaves, who were the distinct portion of the Greek
population and part of Greek economy.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10
2.9.3 Communism of Wives:
His thought of communism of wives was the extension of his communism of property. He
was of the opinion that man always give importance to his family and children over the
interest of nation, hence he gave greater importance to communism of wives.
Plato’s communism of wives was based on certain principles which were mentioned below:
1 The scheme also for the sake of guardian class only like that of communism of property,
and majority of artisan and present class were excluded from it.
2. Communism of wives sure to control the thoughts of selfishness and free the women
from the labour of home which allow them to work for the cause of state.
3. There was no system of lasting wedding between the guardian class and women were
shared for all men.
4 All the guardian have to live both men and women were to live together and share
barracks
5 It was the obligation of state to organize a brief mating between best men and best women
for one year to yield best children to increase the population of the state.
6 After the birth of children all of them must be separated from their mothers, no child must
know their parents and the duty of rearing lies upon the state nurses. State, to provide the
best education to them to nurse them as best citizens.
7 The entire guardian class was transformed into big family and children born in a specific
season must be treated as brothers and sisters.
8 The weak and disfigured children must be killed as soon as they born so that their birth
should not be burden on the state
9 He showed dissimilarity in communism of wives, he said that, guardian people to reject the
property but in the case of wives he said that, women were given the common ownership to
the guardians.
2.9.4 Common Reasons on Wives:
The reasons to have common wives were, he wanted to create unity in the state, and Plato
thought that family was the main reason for the blockade of any development in the state.
He wanted family at public level and abolish family at private level.
2 Plato was quite worried by the inacceptable plight of women in Athens wanted that, the
talent of the women should be utilized for the benefit of the society. He thought that women
has same talents like men.
3 He was of the opinion that the temporary marriages by the state would produce better
intelligent race among the newborns. He also asserted that, “the improvement of race
demands a more controlled and more selective types of union”.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11
2.9.5 Criticism:
His concept of communism of wives was criticised severely even Aristotle criticised, his
criticism as follows:
1 He treated state as a bloated version of family, he stated the organic concept and did not
find any variance between family and state. In reality there is big difference between these
two and they are not identical.
2 Communism of wives inevitable to lead social disagreement and causes much damage to
the society, distributing one female is not wife for all guardians.
3 Children cannot grow into balanced way because they will not get care and nourishment
which is required in a family. In fact nobody can take the responsibility of the children,
something for all is not the responsibility of none.
4 It is ridiculous to apply similarity of animals to humans and asked the state to measured
reproducing.
5 The suggested reproduction or mating is not practical and it is not possible to bring mating
of best women with best men.
6 one can observe that communism of wives is applicable to guardian class only and most
of the other sections of people are not covered. It stresses too many sacrifices by the
guardian community.
7 He incorrectly treated the marriage process as mechanical one, marriage is a social

process than mechanical, and it needs clear understanding of wife and husband in the act of
marriage which can be lacking in this case.
2.10 Comparison of Plato’s Communism with Modern Communism:
It is required to realize the significance of present communism to that of Plato’s communism.

Modern communism of illustrated by Karl Marx and improved by Stalin and Lenin which is
grounded on the theory of class struggle. It measured state as device of mistreatment and
holds that the class struggle will conclude in the takeover of the present capitalist system
establishment of totalitarianism of grassroots.
2.10.1 Resemblances:
There are several similarities between present and Plato’s communism.

1 in both they wanted to develop society on the basis of social service and dislike
differences based on birth or wealth.
2 In both they wanted to eradicate the resistances present and differences in the society by
brining unanimity and solidarity.
3 In both society made of several classes, whereas Marx trusts inn two classes like haves
and have-nots.
4 Both opposed the holding of private property, but in modern community this applies to all
classes of the society.
5 Both gave great importance to the education controlled by state.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12
2.10.2 Dissimilarities:
In spite of the similarities there are major variances in them. It is because of the different
circumstances under which the two communisms developed. Plato’s communism is mainly
based on the conditions prevailed in 4th century B.C in Athens and the modern communism
is based on the post-industrial revolutions mainly the exploitation of capitalists on working
class.
1 Plato’s communism is applied to the guardian class only and modern communism based
on vast majority of the workers and peasant class.
2 Plato’s communism is mainly based on political nature and targets at unity of the state, but
whereas modern communism aims at economic and political power for the working classes.
3 Plato’s communism do not want to influence any change in the present economic structure
and leaves classes intact, but in the modern communism it influences the change in the
economic structure of the society.
4 Plato’s communism gives priority to the guardian class to own the private property, but in
modern communism it gives the fruits to be enjoyed by the whole society.
5 Plato’s communism is mainly aims at Greek city-states but modern communism focuses at
the national states and throughout the world and for the sake of workers.
2.11 Origin and Nature of State:
In the Republic Plato has written ‘A state arises out of the needs of mankind; no one
is self- sufficient all of us have many wants. As we have many wants, need helper for that
purpose and another helper for another, when these partners or helpers are joined together
in one habitation, this habitation is termed a state. In the beginning the state, was brought
for the satisfaction of human wants, food, shelter and clothing. In every state it is a must to
have a farmer, a builder, a weaver and a cobbler. These men do not have same capacities,
hence, one man could able to do what he capable off is. This means, there is a division of
labour and specialization. In the course of time the population has increased and
consequently the needs of human as well. There is need for additional land to feed surplus
mouths and to protect additional land (territory) need for extra army. The main job of
soldiers is war and they are selected from among men who have spirit in them and they
must be like watch dogs, they must have good physical strength, speed and sharp
sightedness in them. Then the governance would be the prime responsibility of philosopher
kings.
2.12 The Ideal or Just State:
Its clear that the state is the highest means and with the help of state highest good
can be done. There may be some states which are not ruled by reason; but they deny
rather than fulfill the individual. The main condition of the ideal state is that it must be run
properly. In fact the proper leadership can come when a person have knowledge and
wisdom. The person having knowledge may be less but, such person’s rule will be the best.
The Philosophers do not rule the ideal state, it should be defended by those who
have courage. The courage should not remain uninstructed because it will be like a wild
beast or of a slave. The training in gymnastics and music must be given the soldiers. The
hostile wars will never be the part of ideal state, rather, it pursue a policy of soothing in
relation to other states, and it also limit the population.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13
The ideal state cannot maintain itself if it is not properly fed and needs are not
catered. The needs of the state mainly rest on the shoulders of commercial, industrial and
agricultural population to meet the task of feeding and fulfilling the material needs. The
agricultural people will retain private property; they will have private mates and families. But
trade and industry will be controlled by guardians to prevent excessive individual wealth or
property. The communalism of the guardians is not applicable to them. Plato firmly believes
that economic man is unfit to rule a state.
The perfect or an ideal state consist of a state in which each unit would be doing the
work to which its nature and aptitude best adopted it, there would be no interference by any
class or individual but everyone cooperates to produce an efficient and harmonious state.
That is justice-performing one’s own duties and not being abuses body.
2.12.1 Philosopher King:
Plato divided human mind into three elements such as Reason, Spirit and Appetite. He gave
position of pride to elements of reason in mind and organization of the state. He understood
that “virtue is knowledge” and these two must work together like hand in glove. Plato
asserted that state could be correct by wise people if they get proper training to rule the
nation. He said that, “Until philosophers are kings, or kings and princes of the world have the
spirit and the power of philosophy, cites will never rest from their evils”. He was not
impressed with the Athenian exercise in which rulers will be designated by the draw of lot.
Plato’s opinion was that, if anyone want to become a carpenter he need some training in
that area, and to become ruler simple draw of lot could be sufficient. He asserted that only
knowledgeable and capable people must rule the state.
2.12.2 Plato’s Rule of Philosophy and Features:
1 Plato did not in support of democratic structure of government, in which everyone has the
right to join in the activities of the state, he criticized it as a government of ill-informed. He
desired to give full power to the philosopher king in his ideal state and was in support of
government by the elite. He said that all the people do not have the similar powers to
produce virtue so every one cannot participate in government activities, only few people
have the capacity to run the government.
2 Philosopher king must have love for wisdom and love seeker for truth, so that he can
determine what will be best suited for the state and society.
3 His philosopher ruler get strenuous training for 35 years to get better administrative
capacity to rule
4 The philosopher rulers allocated absolute powers by him and they are not responsible to
public opinion
5 He said that, even though they are given absolute powers, he enacts limit on their power
by holding that they must respect fundamental articles of constitution and should not change
them.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14
2.12.3 Criticism:
His concept of philosopher ruler has been criticised and they are here under:
1 By giving absolute powers to the philosopher king which lead to dictatorial government
and runs concepts of democratic government
2 Only few people are capable of running the government who undergone the system of
Plato’s education.
3 According to him knowledge is privilege, he observed that the group of people are not
capable of ruling themselves, only those who have more wisdom than the philosopher is
certainly superior to the philosopher king.
4. He rejected laws his laws on the basis of state has been convicted, he realizes his
mistake and agreements position of pride to laws in his later book The Laws.
5. His concept of philosopher king runs against the principles of democracy
6 The system of education guided for his philosopher rulers is very faulty in nature
7 His assertion of no contradiction between the interest of philosopher ruler and public
interest is also unsafe.
8 He said that, “if philosophers were needed as permanent rulers, there would be no need
for the educational system to produce new one”.
Though it is criticised of his concept but no one can denied and it is the most intensely made
original concept in the political thought.
Depending upon the Ideal state two questions will crop up in the mind of modern
student, 1) Whether the ideal state as consider by Plato will guarantee liberty to the
individuals or not? 2) Second question is whether the society in this state will be based on
the principles of equalitarianism – Let’s try to answer these questions.
2.13 Ideal State and Liberty:
Plato thought that liberty of an individual could be possible, if he subordinated

himself to an organic whole i.e., the state. He thought that, liberty does not lie in the
capability of a person to do as he likes, but in emerging one’s special ability to do such
functions of best fitted. The political philosophy of Plato, liberty does not find appearance in
elaborate list of rights, but it is expressed in an unending series of right actions in
accordance with virtue- the supreme virtue that is justice.
2.14 Ideal State and Equality:
Plato was known for the fact that any two persons could not be equal in respect of
physical or intellectual or moral qualities, hence, he proposed two principles for his ideal
state; 1) ‘The right man in right place’ and 2) ‘The best man in the highest place’. This does
not mean to say that he pleaded for ‘the privileged man in privileged place’, it is only a plea
for legitimizing the tyranny of many over few.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15
The principle of equality starts from demand for justice, but it establishes the most
unjust inequalities as it subjects quality to sheer quality. But this does not meant that Plato
opposed to all forms of equality. He did appealed for equality within the classes not vis-à-vis
them. The philosophers are the governing choice, soldiers are their auxiliaries (helpers).
The governing elite possesses knowledge of what is good and virtuous. It is obvious that
this class is in a better place to rule, because its members know what is just. Non-elite
group have no objection to submit before the rulers, this submission may out to freedom and
equality.
2.15 The Statesman:

Plato considered as idealist than realist, in Republic, it did not exhibit the actual philosophy
of Plato but it expressed the evolution of his philosophy. During his last period he wrote
Politics or Statesman in which we observe maturity in his philosophy, the theory in these
books is contrary to Republic. In Statesman he abandon the ideals and tries to project
realities. The ideal can only be seen in heavens and not possible in reality on earth, hence
he concentrated on the issues which are practicable on earth. A significant change can be
noticed in his philosophies towards democracy and laws. He destined democracy and
favoured the idea of giving responsibility to the philosopher king in his Republic, but where
as in Statesman, he gave preference to democracy based on laws. Another important factor
discernable in Politics or Statesman though he thinks that the rule of philosopher king is
better than rule of law, he recognized the need of law and agreement in political life.
Plato also pronounced the problem of constitution he made the alteration of law abiding
state and law-less state, he divided into three categories, law abiding states are healthy and
can be recognized well and gave them due importance, on the other hand law-less states
have no respect for the laws. Therefore, he says if one man rules according to law it is
Monarchy; but if he contempt law it is Autocracy or Tyranny. If some of people run the
government in accordance with law it is Aristocracy but if they violate the law it is Oligarchy.
If a large number of people rule according to law it is good democracy, but if they violate the
laws it is bad democracy this can be best explained in the form of following chart
Number of persons Law abiding State Lawless State

exercise power
One Monarchy Tyranny
Few Aristocracy Oligarchy
Many Good Democracy Bad Democracy
According to Plato law- abiding state is better than a lawless state, the good democracy
which is law-abiding must be graded superior to Oligarchy which is lawless. Among the
lawless forms bad democracy is ranked superior to Oligarchy. In short, it reads democracy
as the worst of the law abiding but the best of the lawless states.
2.16 The Laws:

The Laws was the pinnacle of the expansion of Plato’s political thoughts, he wrote this book
in the later years of his life and shows his maturity and judgment which was missing in his
republic. It was noticed that, his thoughts were practically implemented and his ideas were
left an impact on later generations to come in his second book Laws. Barkers rates the last
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16
four books of his laws “among the finest writings of Plato”. Prof. Sabine said that it was very
difficult to overstate the importance of laws.
2.16.1 Differences of Republic and Laws:
There are ultimate differences in the approach in Republic and The Laws, it was important
to note that, Plato wrote Republic when he was so young and had high ambitions and when
he wrote The Laws he was matured and had different thoughts which impressed because of
his soberness and maturity of his judgment.
1 In Republic, he rest on for everything on the ideal of the philosopher king and said that, he
only knows about what was required for man and state. During the later stage Plato was
disappointed with his concept of philosopher king and restored to Law the place which it
occupied in the Greek city state.
2 In the Republic he projected himself as a radical doctrinaire who wanted to bring radical
changes in the society. Where as in Laws, he comes to realize the value of aged persons
with experience and restores law to a significant position, which shows the collective
experience of the community.
3 Plato in the Republic opined that, communism of property and wives for the sake of
guardian class only, he thought that, the mixture of economic and political powers could be
great risk to the community. His opinion in the Laws was changed and allowed private
property and family, though he pleads they must be retained to limited extent.
4 In Republic, he subordinates self-control to justice, he said that justice is virtue and self-
control. In the Laws, Plato appealed for the subordination of justice to self -control.
5 In Republic, Plato visualizes a monarchical or despotic rule of the philosopher king. In the
Laws, he clearly stated the prominence of democratic values in the state.
6 Plato adored in Republic, about war and force and said that, state should try to get what
they can by force. In Laws, he asserted that state must try to leave in peace with others and
try to understand its aims and objectives through peaceful approaches.
7 Regarding the education, in Republic, he said that it was an instrument for teaching the
philosophers the virtue of wisdom, in his Laws, he said that education aims at teaching the
citizens the virtue of self -control, education is compulsory for all citizens for both men and
women. Women were imparted education on equal terms with men.
8 In Republic he did not see any battle between the interests of individual and the state,
whereas in Laws, he opined that there can be occasions when the interests of the
individuals and state may clash.
9 Plato gave significant position to the philosopher king and the completely ignores the
value of various classes in the society. Whereas in the Laws, he understood that, better to
develop harmonious relations among various classes rather than subordinate them.
10 Plato did not give any place to the constitution in Republic, but in Laws, he stressed the
need of the constitution which could check the actions of the state and extremists
tendencies.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17
2.16.2 Philosophy Explained in the Laws by Plato:
Plato wrote Laws at a mature age of 80 and his ideas were represented age long
experiences and maturity. He abolished his idealistic philosophy and came very near to the
realities of life, in Republic, he was quite incapable of realizing in actual practice he tried to
depict the second best ideal state in the Laws, it was not like his ideal state of Republic.
2.16.3 Views on Political Aspects:
The state combines the monarchical aspects of wisdom with the democratic aspects of
liberty or freedom. He suggests that, the Laws are important because they make the person
to develop self-sufficient and control for the social life. Plato also envisages the existence of
Popular Assembly consists of all citizens of the city state, he divides them into four types on
the basis of their property. It is essential for the electorate to undergo military training and
hold arms. The important act of the popular assembly is to elect 37 Guardians of Law and
360 members of the council, the council members are elected on the basis of classes,
whereas Guardians of Law are elected on the basis of the triple ballet. In addition to the
election of the Guardians of Law and councilor are expected to do some other functions.
The people between the ages of 50 to 70 are to be taken for the Guardians of Law, they
hold office for the term of 20 years.
Regarding the judicial organisation, proposes the three types of courts such as voluntary
courts or boards of arbitration courts, tribal courts and courts of selective judges. The
voluntary courts consists of neighbours or friends, are supposed to have best information
about the dispute. The tribal courts consists of judges, elected by lots, so that all can have a
role in judicial administration. The courts of selected judges, are elected from, among the
Magistrates or Guardians of law for one year period. In addition to the political structure he
envisages different institution called as nocturnal council, it consist of 10 eldest members of
the 37 guardians of law.
2.16.4 Views on Social Structure:
Citizens are divided into four classes on the basis of the amount of personal property. The
first class consists of persons whose property is equal to the value of their land. The second
class consist of the persons whose personal property is more than their land values but
does not exceed twice the value of their land. The third class consists of whose personal
property is three times the value of their land. The fourth class consists of whose property is
four time more than the land value. Plato authorizes the citizens to hold their land and
confines the amount of personal property. They cannot keep gold and silver nor can lend
money on interest. Plato announced new type of division of labour, not like in Republic
where he classified into three classes based on psychological aspects, the fourth division of
labour is valid to all people. Agricultures only for the slaves, trade and industry to class of
aliens’ political activities to all citizens. Plato’s acknowledges that the communism of wives
though a quite arrogant ideal is difficult to reach and permits the family. He stressed the
need to have family and those with more than 35 years bachelors must be prosecuted. He
gave the equal position to women in the society and to have uniformity in education.
2.16.5 Views on Education:
Education is given a prominent position by Plato in his Laws, though his objective changes.
In republic it is aimed at improvement of virtue of wisdom but in Laws he says about the
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18
citizen self –control. He expressed that education system must be with mature persons only,
they must be elected from the Guardians of Law by an electoral system, it is the duty of
chief magistrate to organize gymnastics in education. He should take the responsibility of
private schools and paid teacher staff for primary and secondary education. He stressed the
need of universal and compulsory education for both men and women and is not favour of
co-education after the age of six. The education scheme consist of two stages such as
primary and secondary education. The primary education starts from cradle to age ten,
children up to the age of three must dance with some music, children from three to six must
play games, the physical education starts from the age six and from then they must be
separated. The secondary education starts from age ten to sixteen, children will be taught
literature, music, astronomy, geometry and arithmetic. He emphasized the military training
which is most important for the Defense system of the state.
It is clear that, above statements the second best state of Plato is more realistic, though the
aspects of idealism dominantly present here also. Infact it is the Laws, rather than Republic
which has an impression on political thought in coming years.
2.17 Conclusion:
The political thought of Plato has the deep impact of Greek ancient times. He was a
philosopher and contributed in many fields. He wrote Republic and mentioned about the
ideal state and how it should work for the cause of society. He wrote this book at the early
stage of life and he himself observed some mistakes in his philosophy of state about the
philosophical King, on property, communism of wives, education, concept of justices and he
was criticised by many philosophers one among them was his student Aristotle. In the
subsequent years he found the mistakes in his book Republic and at the mature age of
eighty and he wrote this book with his past experiences to judge his pervious mistakes. He
rectified all the flaws founded in Republic particularly about his ideal state, the role of king,
role of citizens towards the state, types of education required for the people, types of
classes on the division of labour, three types of courts for the people to settle the issues,
communism on wives and property, how much private property to be owned and how much
they can have, how the children grow etc., how to run, and the structure of political system,
social structure. Though there are some mistake but he rectified them in the Laws, and his
idea of ideal state can be found in Laws, which is more realistic and his political thoughts
definitely will have an impact on the generation to come.

1. Describe about the sources of Plato’s political thought?
2. What is republic or concerning justice? Write Plato’s views on concept of justice and write
a critical note on Plato’s concept of Justice?
3. Write about the ideal or just state proposed by Plato?
2.19 References:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
19

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
Lesson-03
THEORY OF THE STATE, REVOLUTIONS- ARISTOTLE

3.0 Objectives:
1. Student would be able to know about the life of Aristotle.

2. Student would learn Aristotle’s political concepts.
3. Student would understand Aristotle’s Theory of states and Revolutions.
Structure:
3.0 Objectives
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Early Life
3.3 Works of Aristotle
3.4 Influences on Aristotle
3.5 Theory of State
3.6 Aristotle’s Views on State
3.7 Functions of State
3.8 Views of Aristotle on Slavery
3.9 Criticism on Aristotle’s Views- Slavery
3.10 Views on Citizenship
3.11 Criticism on Aristotle’s Views- Citizenship
3.12 Aristotle’s Views on Property
3.13 Types or Kinds of Property
3.14 Views on Justice
3.15 classification of constitution
3.15.1 Principles for Classification of Constitutions
3.15.2 Criticism on Classification of Constitution
3.16 Ideal State of Aristotle
3.16.1 Features of Ideal State
3.17 The Best Attainable/Practicable State or Polity
3.17.1 Justification of Polity by Aristotle
3.18 Revolutions
3.19 What is Revolution?
3.19.0 Causes of Revolution
3.19.1 General Causes of Revolution
3.19.2 Particular Cause of Revolution
3.19.3 Revolution in a Particular Kind of State
3.19.4 Oligarchic and Democratic Elements
3.19.5 Prevention of Revolution
3.15.6 General Means of Prevention
3.15.7 Particular Methods for Prevention of Revolution
3.16 Conclusion
3.18 References
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
3.1 Introduction:
“The Politics of Aristotle is the richest treasure that has come down to us from
antiquity, it is the greatest contribution to the field of political science that we possess”. -
Zeller.
Aristotle was one of the prominent political thinker of Greek ancient time, he was the student
of Plato and considered as the gem of political thought because the political thoughts mainly
based on his prime ideas only. He contributed in several fields of sciences as well. He was
the father of the Political Science.
3.2 Early Life:
Every political philosopher is the ‘epitome of his time’. Aristotle the gifted student of
Plato, was born at Stagira in the Aegean Sea in 384 B.C. thus he was not an Athenian by
birth. His father was a physician who worked for king of Macedon. This gave him an
opportunity to know about procedures of the Royal Court, his understanding of the state.
Since his childhood he developed an analytical and scientific set of mind. The most usually
accepted view is that Aristotle came to Athens at the age of eighteen and joined Plato’s
academy. Where he stayed for twenty years till the death of Plato in 347 B.C.
After the death of Plato, Aristotle left Athens and spent almost thirteen years visiting
different parts of the world and studying in different political institutions. In 342 B.C. he was
called to Macedonia and become tutor of young Alexander. In 335 B.C. Aristotle setup a
school known as Lyceum, to preach his ideas, thought and philosophies. After the death of
Alexander he fled to Chalcis and died the same year.
3.3 Works of Aristotle:
Aristotle wrote on the subjects like metaphysics, psychology, rhetoric, poetry,

biology, moral science and politics etc., some of the early writings had been perished. The
only important work which has with us and provides valuable information about his political
philosophy is ‘politics’, this work also not available in complete form. According to Prof.
Bowels “of all the books on the subject the politics is the most influential and most profound.
It is the book which must be mastered before others”.
3.4 Influences on Aristotle:
It is very much significant to know several factors which influenced his thinking.
1. In the first place Aristotle was significantly influenced by his father, his biological outlook
and scientific method to the problem.
2. The dominant anarchy in Athens also greatly influenced the thought of Aristotle. He
persuaded that anarchy, lawlessness and unsettled state of affairs was due to the fact that
rulers were dreamer rather than realists.
3. Aristotle’s thinking was also influenced by his pre-conceived idea about the dominance of
Greek philosophy.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3
4. His personal experience of a married life, which proved quite pleasant, also influenced his
thinking.
5. His practical knowledge greatly influenced his thinking and philosophy.
6. Finally, Aristotle felt –deep impact of his teacher Plato.
3.5 Theory of State:
Aristotle started the ‘politics’ with two important ideas. 1) That the state is a
community and 2) that is the highest of all communities, which in his own word, “embrace all
the rest, aims at good in a greater degree than any other and at the highest good”. The first
thesis was quite understandable, because his ‘politics’ was a city-state having small area
and population, and in which the individual unable to think of any other presence for himself
except as one being a part of a collectivity.
He was not the first thinker to view such an idea. But he was the first to define it
properly, he laid the foundation of organic concept of a state. He imagined the state as
‘natural’ in two ways; first, he briefly delimits the evolution of social institutions from the
family, through the village to city –state. Accordingly, to him the survival of state was due to
the union of those people who cannot exist alone, but live together such as male and
female. They must unite together to give their species out of this relation family earnings.
Second the state is natural, because social life is natural to man and the state
represents the highest development of social life, though it is natural it is not autonomous of
human desecration. He has observed the state not only from the historical angle, but he
describes it as natural in the logical and philosophical aspects. It is natural because in it the
family and the society can develop themselves to the fullest possible degree. The aim of
human life is, the enjoyment of good life means of freedom and is possible only in a state.
The state does not exist only to protect the life and property of the individual, in the same
way it cannot be said, just for exchange of goods does not if exist for the hindrance of crime
alone. It occurs to meet all these purposes without any doubt, but it does not exist for them
only. It exist to make individual self- sufficient. It is clear that Aristotle’s state is a positive
one. A state not concerned with the good of the individual is not a genuine state.
3.6 Aristotle’s Views on State:
Aristotle also rejected the view of Sophists like Plato.

1. Aristotle opined that state was developed from the family to satisfy the needs and desires
of the people.
2. The individual can attain self-sufficient only in the state.
3. Aristotle assorted that true nature of man could be realized only in the state, since the
man is a rational being, the state is rational institution.
4. Aristotle emphasized the organic nature of state and assert that a man finds his true
meaning and importance of his life only in and through relation to the state. Aristotle held
that the state is a natural community; an organism with all attributes of a living being.
5. Aristotle considers state as a supreme association because it is the highest of all
associations. He considers the state as an association of man for the sake of best moral
life.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4
3.7 Functions of State:
1. The main objective of the state is to promote perfect and self –sufficing life, by which
Aristotle meant a happy and honorable life.
2. For this purpose he wanted the state to create essential conditions for mental moral and
physical development of the people.
3. He did not want to limit the functions of state to more protection of rights of members or
preservation of life and property of the members.
4. He allocated the state with most positive function of promoting the good.
5. Should give proper education to the members for proper performance of their duties.
6. State should train young brains in the way of righteousness and make the life of citizens
supreme and moral.
7. He considered the state like a mother to its citizens and its actions could lawfully extend
to all concerns of the individual. He consider state as a supreme association whose chief
function is to make man moral.
3.8 Views of Aristotle on Slavery:

Aristotle is in favour of slavery, he thought that it is very important for the faultless
functioning of the family, Aristotle asserted that, slave is a living possession and property of
his master. Though they have the power to understand, they have to follow his master,
because, they have very less capabilities and must bow to those who have more abilities. It
is acceptable to Aristotle slavery on three important factors such as, natural, usefulness and
expediency. He does not accepted the views of radical, Sophists and said that, slavery is
dissimilar to nature because, nature has created everyone as equal. He says that, all men
does not skilful by nature with similar capabilities and nature awards different abilities to
different persons and orders that superior must rule over the inferior person. He took slavery
as a general rule and inferior must be ruled by superior person only. He said that, in the
state those, who have more reason has to expertise and direct those who have little ability
and those who commands are by nature masters and later as slaves. He asserts that, to
lead a good life by the household, is not possible without slave.
2 He account for slavery on the grounds of usefulness, he said that, it is necessary to have
slaves by the masters so that they can be free from the physical worries and they can work
for the betterment of public in the society. He believes that, it is useful to be slaves because
they can share the qualities of his master and can be raised, the association with their
masters brings “derivative excellence”.
3 He explains the slavery on the grounds of usefulness, the slavery played an important role
in the maintenance and operation of the Greek economy. Majority of population residing in
the city-state, their liberation would disappointed the balance of power in the city-state, this
would give social complaint.
4 It is observed that, he does not suggests unqualified explanation of slavery and permitted
in certain conditions. First, he preferred the enslavement of those who are mentally not
sound, but he does not preferred the enslavement of war prisoners. Second, stressed that
their masters must treat them properly, if they have not done so, then state has the right to
punish such master who are harsh with slaves. Third, he opined that, those who displays
good behavior and improve ability for reasoning must be liberated from slavery.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5
3.9 Criticism on Aristotle’s Views- Slavery:

His view on slavery has gone through severe criticism and they have shown the following
flaws on his views:
1 His is of the opinion that, some of them are born to rule with the intelligence and
knowledge they possess which is very wrong. The modern view says that, all are born
equally but some possess and improve knowledge to rule on others.
2 Aristotle’s idea, if admit, that the superior ruler rule over inferior by the nature’s order is not
correct because there are many classes in the society which are superior to other. He
believes only in two classes of master and slave.
3 His theory of slavery is mainly based on the fact that, he thinks the Greeks are superior
and non-Greeks are inferior, and he did not accept the enslavement of them.
4 He thinks that slavery is a hereditary process and believes that, some are by nature
slaves.
5 His theory of slavery shows contradictions, he says that, man is good by nature and
attains excellence in the society, on the other hand he did not shown the way for their
development, of the slavery society which is very significant in number, hence, and
theologically his explanation is not right.
6 He thinks the slave as living creature, who is unable to put on reasons, if the same
concept is applied to the modern day context of industrial workers, who works hard did not
show any initiative would be treated as salves.
7 His slavery theory is opposing the concept of social justice, he considers that, slavery is
necessary for the masters to perform their duties in good manner, but he did not mentioned
any support or reward for their services to masters, it is a clear abuse, in the view of social
justice.
Even though he met severe criticism from the modern political philosophers, it cannot be
judged the condition during the times of Greeks and slavery is required by that point of time
to give stability to city-state.
3.10 On Citizenship:
Regarding the views on citizenship he was basically, traditional thinker and wanted to
conserve the present institution of citizenship. In the ancient Athens, the citizens were
honored class people who held the public offices in the state. Citizenship was based on the
heredity such as sons of the citizen can become the citizens. The majority of slaves and
resident aliens were not given this privilege and were treated as inferior to citizens.
He defines a citizen as a person who participates in the administration of justice and in

legislation as a member of the deliberative assembly, these being the two essential
functions of sovereignty. In other words a person holds office as judge enjoying membership
of the popular assembly is a citizen. Along with these two conditions he claims there are
other conditions like, residence, enjoyment and legal rights of suing and being sued, and
ancestry from citizen. Person without any of these two qualities cannot be a citizen. Person
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6
who has to occupy himself in handbook labour to provide his requirements of life, cannot
make a good citizen, and only who dynamically share in the government of the state are
citizens. He omitted the slaves, the resident aliens who engaged in trade and business,
foreigners, mechanics and labourers from the group of citizenship. He did not include the old
people and children in the list of citizenship because the former are physically weak and
later are do not have skills of mature judgment in the dealing of the state.
3.11 Criticism on Aristotle’s Views- Citizenship:

His views on citizenship were severely criticised by the modern thinkers:
1 He gave priority to the people who can hold the citizenship are from aristocrat class and
did not include classes like, children, women, old men and manual workers.
2 He believes that, only those who possessed the property can become citizens and can
acts as legislators or jurors, which gives rise to the class people’s government and majority
people are neglected.
3 He does great discriminations to the non-leisured classes by not giving political rights and
rights for education and pushed them in everlasting degradation.
4 He denied the citizenship to the majority class and promoted the feeling of lack of direct
involvement in any activities which is not effective process in the development of state
affairs. It also leads to affects the unity and harmony of the state and society.
5 His explanation of citizenship is different from that of modern times. Presently all the adults
except some who are disqualified, are treated as citizens whether they work with hand or
brain.
6 His concept of citizenship is not matched with the modern explanation. He stressed the
direct involvement of the citizen in legislative and judicial activities. This may be possible in
his times because the number of citizens are very little. In modern time it is not possible
because the population of the states are very high in numbers and they cannot involve in all
activities of state.
7 His concept of citizenship cannot fit in the modern day democracy, in which citizens are
unable to take part in state’s affairs directly.
8 In his theory he exempted the majority classes such as, commerce, trade, and people
from other economic hunts. It is against the states belief where individual considered as part
of state.
9 His concept of citizen boosts rule by class and disregard the welfare of the majority.
Lastly, he was criticised for his conservative thoughts because his concept of citizen tries to
save the state of affairs prevailing in contemporary Athens.
3.12 Aristotle’s Views on Property:

Aristotle’s Views are quite different from that of Plato’s views. He has drawn his views on
property while he criticizing Plato’s views. Plato stated that it is not good for the unity of state
and restricted it from the guardian class. Whereas Aristotle reflects as property as necessary
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7
for the normal functions of household and social growth. He explains the possession of
property as follows:
1 Aristotle says that, “The institution of property is good for the individual and for the society.
It gives individual encouragement to work and donate to the social growth.
2 Having property is basis of self-respect, pleasure and self-love. It can be used for the
improvement of the society.
3 The qualities like generosity, liberality, hospitality and righteousness can be encouraged
by the property, which plays an important role in the human personality.
4 The usefulness of property has well-known due to its presence for long time and survived
different disturbances in human history.
5 Owning of the private property supports in the improvement of virtues such as skills of
management and vigilance and would be useful in the management of state affairs.
6 The owning of private property creates the sense of civic duty, and he will take interest in
the state affairs, money raised from taxes can be used correctly for the benefit of
community. He would make sure for the protection of his own property, and the people who
do not have property would spent much money of the state.
7 It is the natural character of man to have property, any effort to abolish the property shall
result in disharmony.
Aristotle suggests very good explanation about the owning of property, he also asserted the
holding and using property which determines the healthy or un-healthy results of the
property. There are three methods to hold and use of the private property like, a. some
people may own but its produce must be used by the community b. the use of property and
common ownership c. common ownership but private use of property.
3.13 Types or Kinds of Property:

Aristotle differentiated property into two groups 1. Animate and 2. Inanimate. He referred
slave as animate device, the other property as inanimate device. Whatsoever be the kind of
property, it is healthy if it helps person in leading good and healthy life. He did not favour the
disproportionate amount of property, he asserted that acquire sufficient wealth to lead good
life.
He also asserted about the two different methods of wealth 1. Natural and 2. Unnatural
wealth. The natural methods are cattle rising, agriculture and hunting which helps in
obtaining required maintenance, unnatural method are procurement of property include
trade, tenancy of life but endless growth of wealth.
His views on property are very important, he justified for the holding private property and
also stressed that endless amount of wealth is bad for the society. But his views on
property are not up to date. No one can deny that his views on private property are on the
basis of complete philosophical and logical. The justification given by him in this regard was
2000 years back and still it hold good even today.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8
3.14 Views on Justice:

Aristotle gave very good importance to the concept of justice like other Greek philosophers.
He gave two types of references to justice 1. Complete justice and 2. Particular justice, the
first one concerns with the moral virtue, with guideline of public and social relations. This
suggests complete submission to law and is likely in an ideal state. Particular justice related
with the distribution of offices and observance of rules of proportionate equality, it point
toward distribution of wealth, honour and goods.
He further divided particular justice into two groups such as, 1.Distributive justice and 2.
Corrective justice. The distribution justice gives importance to the proportionate allocation of
office depending upon the value of individual with political honours. It is most powerful
device for the prevention of revolution because it gives assurance of what he needs and
keeps him satisfied.
The corrective justice related with negative in character and concerns about the commercial
transaction, it is expected to restore back every person what he has lost due to social
injustice and stops on each -others rights.
His concept of justice has many defects, he claims that, virtuous must rule because he can
contribute most to the welfare of the state.
Secondly, there is an evident contradiction in the views of Aristotle, he appeals that,

cultivation of virtue is the standards for the distribution of office, at the same time he claims
that, masses must not be ignored.
Thirdly, his concept of justice, related to particular and distributive justice, are not accepted
by modern thinkers. It is difficult to understand how these offices can be distributed among
all citizens.
Finally, we can say that Plato’s views on justice, well enough even today whereas Aristotle’s
views are not favoured by the modern thinkers.
3.15 CLASSIFICATION OF CONSTITUTION:
Aristotle considers the character of the state was determined by the constitution, or
the ‘polity’, and change in the constitution, to the change in the state. He considers
constitution is an important factor which determines the character of the state. He defined
constitution as, arrangement of magistracies of the state, especially of the highest office,
Aristotle emphasized that state changes its identity when the constitution changes.
According to him no constitution in the world is either absolutely good or bad but it is only
comparatively good or bad.
3.15.1 Principles for Classification of Constitutions:
His classification is based on two principles like quantitative and qualitative.

Quantitative means, takes into account the number of people in whom the sovereign power
is conferred whether it be one, few or many. The second one, qualitative means takes into
account the end which a government serves. If the government serves for the common
interest of the people it is pure form of government. On the other hand if the government
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9
serves the private and selfish interests of the ruling class it becomes a corrupt or perverted
government. There are three pure forms of governments like Monarchy (one person)
Aristocracy (few persons) and Polity (many persons) in which power rests. These three
pure forms of government have three perverted forms like Monarchy – Tyranny: Aristocracy
– Oligarchy and Polity- Democracy.
According to Aristotle the polity is the best and the most feasible form of government
because it controls a healthy combination of liberty and wealth. He says that no form of
government or constitution is permanent or eternal and the different forms of government
keep on changing.
3.15.2 Criticism on Classification of Constitution:
Aristotle’s classification of state has been steamrolled by the following criticism.

1. His classification is not valid to the present times as it does not cover a number of
governments which are in present form of presence, like limited monarchies, totalitarian
government, parliamentary government, federalism etc.
2. He considers democracy as a degenerate form of government in which government is run
by many poor people, it is difficult to admit this concept because majority of people in a
given society may be prosperous. In modern times democracy makes no reference to the
qualification of poverty of people and it based on the principle of equality.
3. Aristotle considers democracy as degenerate or perverted form of government, but in
present times we consider it as the best form of government in which the individual gets
maximum opportunity to develop his personality.
4. Aristotle mainly offers classification of governments and not states, in this regard he is
guilty of confusing the two terms like government and state during his times the distinction
between these two was not present.
5. It is said that the classification, not based on any scientific principles. It is quantitative
rather than qualitative. The distinction between Aristocracy and Polity is mainly based on
numbers.
In conclusion it can be said that his classification of states has met with severe
condemnation at the hands of modern scholars and his ideas are not fully acceptable, but it
cannot be denied that his classification has proved most lasting. Most of the political
thinkers followed the basis adopted by him. Present day thinkers attempted merely improve
on Aristotle’s classification rather than a new classifications.
3.16 Ideal State of Aristotle:
His political thought, is a mixture of the elements of political ideals and political
actualities. His books II, III, VIII of politics deal with political ideas whereas books IV, V and
VI deals with political actualities. In the description of his ideal state, Aristotle clearly felt the
impact of Plato’s laws rather than his Republic. Sabine says that what Aristotle calls the
ideal state is always Plato’s second best state. Before dealing the ideal state of Aristotle, it
may be noted that he was not an absolutist like Plato. For example if a community has a
single outstanding person with predominant virtue – Monarchy shall be an ideal government.
If it possesses a few men of virtue –Aristocracy is best suited government. If it possesses
many people have the ability to rule the best government is Polity. If we look at all these
observation of Aristotle, we conclude that he rules out Monarchy as an ideal state because
in it the ‘god among men’ cannot be subjected to law.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10
3.16.1 Features of Ideal State:
His view about ideal state is present in the books III, VII and VIII of his books, and
they are not present in a systematic manner. The features of ideal state are as follows.
1. His ideal state is the small city-state consists of small and intimate group of citizens,
whose social life overlaps the interest of family, or religion and of friendly personal inter –
course.
2. In his ideal state law occupies predominant position. He does not favour the personal
and despotic rule even the most virtuous person, who has wisdom of community.
3. The Ideal state of Aristotle is an ethical institution, which aims to bring about moral
improvement amongst the citizens. He opined that state can provide individual to achieve
the highest type of moral development. Ideal state according to him provides a good and
happy life, which he meant a virtuous and a moral life.
4. In the ideal state of Aristotle education played an important role in making citizens
virtuous. He insisted compulsory state regulated education to inculcate good habits of moral
and intellectual aspects this scheme of education was only meant for citizens only.
5. The ideal state of Aristotle, the right to private property was considered, he thought that it
was a natural institution must be preserved. He appealed for the equal distribution of land to
all the citizens. He permitted ownership of personal property and its value should not be
more than four times of the value of original land.
6. Another important feature of Aristotle was division of labour in Ideal state. He assigned
agriculture to the slaves’ commerce and trade to resident aliens and political functions to
citizen. The leisured class would actively participate in the exercise of sovereignty.
7. His Ideal state was neither too small nor too big. He did not mentioned any maximum or
minimum number of citizens to constitute an ideal state. He insisted that the population
should be manageable.
8. In regard to territorial size in Ideal state he insisted that it must be such that to make
possible for the people to live free and leisure life. It must have enough economic resources
to meet the needs of population. He wanted territory should be small so that it can be
watched carefully.
9. Ideal state must be self –sufficient, it should concentrate on fullest development.
10. The ideal state of Aristotle was dominated by middle class, this class alone can provide
stability to the state because they have two qualities of obedience and command.
11. Ideal state must have good access to sea, so that it can import he also told that the state
should not be so close to sea that its defense poses a problem.
12. Ideal state should have temperate climate which is congenial to both mental and
physical activities.
13. The citizens of Ideal state must have combination of spirit and courage with intellectual
keenness.
14. Ideal state must have six classes like agriculturists, artisans a war- like class, leisured
class, priests and administrators. He did not considered the first two classes’ agriculturist
and artisans as citizens, hence he did not have any share in administration of the state. The
last four classes considered as citizens and enjoy the exclusive prerogative to exercise all
political power.
3.17 The Best Attainable/Practicable State or Polity:
Though Aristotle devised an Ideal state he realized that it was not attainable and
provided details about how should be practicable ideal state. Aristotle used the word ‘polity’
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11
in two different senses 1) General and 2) Particular. In the general sense he used for
constitution whether it may be Monarchy. Aristocracy, Oligarchy or Democracy. He used it
for the fusion of the democratic and oligarchy elements, by avoiding extremes. In
democracy on the other hand poor were dominated the affairs of state. The offices were
distributed on the basis of lot and every one would have a chance to rule and be ruled in
turn. The real problem with democracy was how to base the government on popular
support and give intelligent administration. He said that such a middle class dominated the
state as polity.
3.17.1 Justification of Polity by Aristotle:
“..in all the states there are two are three elements; one class is very rich another
very poor and third very mean it was admitted that moderation and the man are the best,
and therefore, it will clearly be test to possess the gift of fortune in mode ration; for in that
condition of life men wave most ready to listen to reason”.
The following implications of Aristotle’s thought can be highlighted.
1. Excessive richness give arrogance and disobedience of authority because the rich do not
know how to be ruled.
2. Extreme poverty would lead to subsection of the people completely, because poor people
do not know how to rule.
3. The middle class people who were neither rich nor poor knew how to rule and be ruled in
turn.
4. The best practicable/attainable state, with more middle class people. Larger number than
the rich and poor or larger than either class when taken separately.
5. In middle class dominated society, greater chances of stable government and less
chances of revolutionary activities.
6. The policy avoids the oligarchical defect or irresponsibility of the rulers and unintelligent
poor selected on the basis of lot. In polity middle class provides a popular touch to the
government and avoids the evils of mob rule.
3.18 Revolutions:
The theory of revolutions by Aristotle, was a discussion on politically in stabled state.

He not only discussed the causes and occasions of revolution, he gave remedies to all the
internal ills of the society. His theory of revolution was part of his theory on government and
constitution, as it was related to lawlessness and over turning the existing constitution of a
state. His discussion on revolutions essentially scientific, he tried to study the reality, though
he did not like to justify the imperfections of status quo. He had suggested the rulers, the
various methods to be adopted to save the imperfect status quo. It does not meant that
Aristotle was a champion of those imperfections.
3.19 What is Revolution?
Aristotle opined that, a revolution did not purely an inference of armed conflict among
the citizens of a state, unless, it reversed the constitution of a state and replaced with
another principle of particular justice in the place of existing one. Revolution means a
complete change in the spirit of a state’s constitution, and it involves new method of
administration and a new principle of distributary office. A constitution which contains with in
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12
itself a particular economic order, a social order, an administrative order and a judicial order.
Therefore, revolution means either a reversal of these orders or radical change in them. If
such change brought about we call it a complete revolution.
But there are revolutions which are incomplete and portal. Such a revolution takes
place when there is a change in the personnel of the holders of political power, though the
basic principles under lying the socio- political order remain unaltered. If the change has
been brought about without any armed encounter, it is called bloodless revolution, failing
which it is called armed or bloody revolution.
3.19.0 Causes of Revolution:
The causes of revolution mentioned by Aristotle, are as follows:
3.19.1 General Causes of Revolution

According to Aristotle one of the major general cause of revolution was the natural
desire of people to be treated equal. They always against the privileges and superior
position of the few and want to do away with the existing system. The some of the general
causes like, absence of balanced equality, no fair deal, and lack of justice splits the city into
factions. There can be no fellow feeling where one section influenced that their rights
suppressed and felt justice not been done to them, then there is every possibility of
revolution. Aristotle proclaimed that more the equality more the stability. He considered
that state with more middle class people shall be less inequality, hence very little chances of
revolution.
3.19.2 Particular Cause of Revolution
Aristotle had a great vision into the basic causes of revolution, during analyzing the
general causes of revolution. Aristotle had numbered following particular causes.
1. There was demand with those in authority for social, political and economic equality, while
those who were in power want to get more privileges, which would bound to result in
revolution.
2. Grant of unnecessary importance to some people, which result in enlistment of public
opinion would lead to serious threat to the unity and solidarity of the state.
3. Power approved to one or few people, would bound to be signified by those who were
deprived of power. This would lead to tyranny of few against vast majority and ultimately
resulted way for revolution.
4. Misuse of authority by those in power and attitude of defame and disgrace. People
adopted towards the opponents were resented and likely to promote the spirit of evolution.
5. Unbalanced increase of any part like territorial, social, economic or otherwise of the state.
6. An effort on the part of those are guilty of doing wrong deeds to cover their actions, create
displeasure and dislike among the people when these misdeeds are exposed. The
bitterness finds in revolt to over throw these people.
7. Careless admission of corrupt and unfaithful officers to civil and military parts can
generate revolution.
8. The use of dishonest methods in elections for capture of power leaves bitter taste and
people are bound to react at earliest available opportunity for the fraud played on them.
9. The rivalry among the members of several races living in a state leads to irreconcilable
interests and bound to have serious consequences.
10. Excessive and irrational use of forces to dangerous in so far as people may tolerate it for
some time but ultimately they are bound to rise against authority.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13
11. Dynamic clashes also pave the way for revolution.

12. The neglect of minor changes can sometimes leads to revolution.
13. Free flow of immigrants can also lead to revolution because this bring nation in contact
with those persons who has different system of justice and code of law ultimately end up in
revolution.
14. The conquest of one nation by another nation also contains seeds of revolution.
3.19.3 Revolution in a Particular Kind of State:
Aristotle also discusses the causes of revolution in particular of state like

democracies, oligarchies, aristocracies and polities. According to him in Democracies
revolutions are caused because of excessive use of power and unwarranted condemnation
of rich by the demagogues.
In oligarchies revolutions take place either due to rivalry and dissensions among
ruling oligarchies or due to oppressive and dictatorial nature of their use.
In Aristocracy the revolutions are spearheaded by those who are denied honours
which are conferred only on the few.
In polity the revolution is caused because of defective balance of the different
elements in the constitution, revolutions in polity are due to mal-admixture of the oligarchic
and democratic elements.
3.19.4 Oligarchic and Democratic Elements:
Revolts in monarchy and Tyranny are caused by two factors like hatred and dislike
in the minds of people due to oppressive behavior of the rulers; personal insult caused by
rulers on some notable persons; or influence of the foreign state of opposite character.
3.19.5 Prevention of Revolution:
Aristotle not only mentioned the causes for revolution. But also outlines the
measures that can help in preventing revolution. The study of these measures show his
knowledge of the existing constitution and desire for stable government. He suggested two
methods for checking revolution 1) General 2) Particular. The following are his suggested
measures.
3.15.6 General Means of Prevention:
1. A serious effort must be made to gain the confidence of all the sections of society by
eliminating injustice and treating all classes with consideration. All the officers must be open
to all on the basis of merit and not treated as monopoles.
2. Cultivate and maintain spirit of law abidingness among the citizens. Violation of law
should be treated seriously.
3. Citizens must have necessary education in the spirit of constitution to know how the
constitution works, if they knew they would adjust according to the constitution and little
possibility of revolution.
4. Even the unimportant probabilities in the status quo must be seriously observed and
attended to, because their neglect can result in complete revolution.
5. No person or class of persons must be allowed to assume too much of power. This likely
to encourage him to neglect the interest of weaker sections.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14
6. The government offices should not be permitted to become sources of gain. Efforts must
be made to check bribery and other illegal methods.
7. Public officers should not be granted on permanent basis and higher offices should be
awarded for short duration, because retention of power for long time can prove dangerous
and security of the country, less important offices for reasonably longer periods.
8. Regarding the promotions to political posts must be gradual because quick and sudden
promotions are likely to lead to resentment.
9. Important positions (posts) should not be given to outsiders and strangers because they
cannot feel much concerned about the welfare of the state as native.
10. Efforts should be made to keep the spirit of patriotism alive among the citizens.
11. Inequalities of wealth and honours, drive men to rebellion, the rewards and offices
should be distributed as widely as possible. Nobody should feel the honours and political
offices are not meant for them and it can be attained only on merit.
12. The details of administration, particularly those of public finance should be open to
public security. This gives lot of popularity to the government and gives a feeling that
officials are not exploiting their position.
3.15.7 Particular Methods for Prevention of Revolution
Aristotle suggested to prevent particular methods for the prevention of revolution in

different forms of Government. In democracy the rich should be made to feel that their
property and estates shall not be redistributed. They must be allowed to participate in
administration of the country.
In Aristocracy and Oligarchy the people must be treated with fairness and no single
or group of persons should be permitted to become too powerful. Administration must be
done by the poor people.
In Polity revolution can be prevented by the proper mixture (blend) of democratic and
oligarchic elements.
Under the Tyranny the following methods must be followed to check the revolution.
1. By providing good espionage system which includes women spies.
2. By following policy of aggression and expansion
3. By creating a constant threat and danger from the powerful enemy among the masses
4. By developing intellectual life of the citizens.
5. By keeping people busy with non-political activities, hence, they may not find time to
indulge in political activity.
6. By keeping people poor so that they constantly face economic problems.
7. By creating sense of hostility and distrust on various sections of the people. So that they
would busy in mutual wrangles cannot think of revolving against ruler.
8. By participating in public worship and religious ceremonies of people by showing respect
for their religious sentiments.
9. By enlisting as large social support as possibly
10. By earning reputation for military virtues.
11. By creating an awe in the minds of people by leading luxury life and glamour.
12. By showing favours personally but punishing through others.
13. By personally bestow favours on others to gain popularity.
14. By chopping off the heads of inconvenient powerful leaders.
In the above study of Aristotle shows his in-depth knowledge and insight unto the
human mind and offered the most penetrating analysis of the causes and methods for
prevention of revolution
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15
3.16 Conclusion:
Aristotle was the student of Plato and the political thought of Aristotle has the deep
impression, of Greek ancient times. He was a philosopher and contributed in many fields.
He wrote many books on metaphysics, psychology, poetry, biology, moral science etc., He
gave valuable information about his political philosophy is Politics, he was influenced by
Plato, his views on state, and mentioned about the state developed from family to satisfy the
needs and desires of the people. The self-sufficiency can be attained by individual only
through state. He also asserted, how state must work for the cause of society and the
functions of the state. He gave emphasis on the constitution and classified the constitutions
as well. He talked about the slaves and justified his notion on three grounds like, natural,
usefulness and expediency. He asserted that, slaves have less capability and he must obey
the master because he has more knowledge than slave. He was criticised for these notions
on slavery. His views on citizenship has the impact of conservative look, he said that, only
the person who involves in administration of justice and in legislation as the member of the
deliberate assembly can be the citizen. He was criticized by modern political thinkers. He
also explained his views on property and who must hold and the kind of private property.
Aristotle also expressed his views on justice he gave much importance to justice he made
the references of justice in types and he further divided particular justice into two more
groups. Though there are some mistake, still it is more realistic and his political thoughts
definitely will have an impact on the generation to come.

1. Give a brief note on Aristotle’s early life, his works and influences on him?
2. Describe about the following
a) Aristotle’s views on state b) Functions and classification of constitutions c) Criticism on
Aristotle’s constitution classification d) Ideal state of Aristotle e) Best attainable or
practicable state or polity.
3. Define revolution? What are the causes of revolution? What are the methods suggested
by Aristotle to prevent revolution?
3.18 References:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
Lesson-04
CHURCH AND STATE: ST. AUGUSTINE
4.0 Objectives:
1. Student would be able to know about Church fathers political thought.

2. Student would be able to learn about St. Augustine’s life and his ideas.
3. Student would be able to understand Church and State.
Structure:
4.0 Objectives
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Influences and Basis
4.3 Implication of the Christian Doctrines
4.4 Contribution of Church Fathers to Political Thought
4.5 Early Life and Influence of St.Augustine
4.6 Main Ideas of St. Augustine
4.6.1 Political Ideas
4.6.2 Philosophy of History
4.7 Views on the State
4.8 Views on Justice
4.9 Views on Peace
4.10 Views on War and Conquest
4.11 Views on Slavery
4.12 Views on Property
4.13 St. Augustine’s Evaluation
4.14 Conclusion
4.16 References
4.1 Introduction:
“The belief that the empire of Rome was divinely founded and hence eternal was also
careful and with the added Christian idea that the kingdom of Christ was to rule the whole
world led to a spiritual conception of the world empire which was embodied in the organized
Church and Papacy”. –GETTELL.
The advent of Christianity was a significant occurrence, because it left a deep impact
on the Western politics as well as political philosophy. It added a number of new aspects to
the political though. Which were quite different and separate of those contributed by the
ancient Greeks and Romans. The Christianity borrowed thoughts from the stoic philosophy,
especially, the concept of universal brotherhood, it also gave a new concept that every
individual has two –fold nature… body and soul. The interests of body are different from
soul or spirit. For the fulfillment of his body needs pleasure of sense, worldly power and
prosperity, for satisfaction soul he seek redemption from sin and salvation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
Thus, Christianity detached the realization of spiritual values beyond the jurisdiction
of the state and there by liquefied the unity of social structure, which was the feature of the
Greek-Roman culture.
4.2 Influences and Basis:
The Christian fathers of earlier times were, immensely influenced by the stoic as well
as Roman philosophy. The principles of universal brotherhood; equality of man; subjection
of law and government to universal justice etc., were taken from stoics. The idea of state of
nature forward to the formation of civil government; the freedom and equality of all men;
distinction between natural and civil laws etc., were borrowed from the Romans.
The Philosophy of early church fathers were before the Pharisees. A man is
complete if his physical and spiritual improvement takes place. There are two separate
organization to take care of physical and spiritual attention of individual. The state was
chiefly anxious with the physical aspects of man’s life and nothing to do with his spiritual
improvement. The expansion of spiritual faculty was the accountability of church. The
Christian fathers highlighted that, it was the duty of an individual to be submissive to the
state because it is divinely intended and the ruler resulting his authority from God by
execution obedience to ruler they render obedience to God. In case of struggle between
loyalty to the state and the church, the church fathers appealed that the laws of church
should be preferred over the laws of the state, because they were focused on the spiritual
salvation of the individual and the spiritual salvation is more preferred to physical salvation.
4.3 Implication of the Christian Doctrines:
The following points were laid down by the Christian doctrine.

1. Christian Doctrine disallowed the argument of Plato and Aristotle, because they said,
individual finds fullest manifestation only in state, they detached spiritual life from political
life. Church is an independent organization and it is not sub-ordinate to the state. Other
hand church fathers recommended the role of the state and overestimated that of the
church.
2. They (Christian fathers) recognized the concept of law of nature and identified with the
divine law which is unalterable.
3. They accepted the concept of equality but did not in favour of abolition of slavery, which is
according to them was only a physical and spiritual condition of man.
4. They gave a dynamic outlook and highlighting the eventual goal of human life is
attainment of God.
5. The Christian fathers denied the contractual basis of the political obligation and
emphasized that kingship was established by God for maintenance of justice.
6. They tried to revive the holiness of family life. Under the Roman life marriage measured
as legal contract which can be dissolved at the will of the parties. On the other hand they
stressed marriage as ceremony which could not be dissolved. They gave the father full
authority and control over the children.
4.4 Contribution of Church Fathers to Political Thought:
1. The Christian thinkers agreed the dissimilarity between the spiritual and the temporal
interests and contributed to the growth of papacy.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3
2. Another important involvement of the Christianity was stress on spiritual element of life.
They were the first to highlight the importance of salvation. The spiritual element was not
existed in the Western political thought of earlier period.
3. The Christian fathers highlighted the importance of man and treated him as an end rather
than means.
4. They stressed the principle of universal love and one world.
5. Finally, the creation of church a distinct organization of look after the spiritual interests,
was one of the most important contribution of the Christianity.
4.5 Early Life and Influence of St.Augustine:
St. Augustine considered as the greatest father of Western Church, he was the son
of a Pagan father and Christian Church. He lived between 354 and 430 A.D. The defeat of
Roman Empire was attributed by the contemporary writers to the rise of Christianity. St.
Augustine asserted that the ruin of Rome was the result of divine will and Christianity alone
could save the world form the destruction. He stated great work of De Civitate Dei, (City of
God) started in 413, and completed in 426, in which he developed great ideas. He devoted
10 books to defend Christianity and 12 books in the construction of God. They were 22
books in total (Treatise).
Augustine was greatly inclined by number of writers, which include Plato, Cicero,
Stoics and Christianity. He borrowed ideas from those writers, and changed them according
to his necessities. He borrowed the concept of justice from Plato, he did not confine it simply
to secular field. He prolonged it to cover the relation between man and God. Similarly, he
borrowed the concept of common wealth of world, Cicero altered it. Similarly, he borrowed
the idea of universal brotherhood from Stoics, as well as that, the man is the citizen of two
states viz. the city of his birth and the world at large. According to this he must obey the
laws of the state as well as the universal laws. However, Augustine gave these concepts a
Christian connotation.
4.6 Main Ideas of St. Augustine:
St. Augustine was not a political thinker and his philosophy revolves around three
main ideas of cosmology, epistemology and ethics. In the first place he held that God is
present in everything in varying degrees, and everything had varying degrees of goodness.
He held that sources of knowledge did not lay outside but within. We will be able to regulate
our life and achieve happiness or well -being was the universal desire of humanity. He
believed in the principle of subordination to the lesser good to the greater good and pleaded
for subordination of the body to the spirit and spirit to God. He associated supreme good
with universal good and proclaimed that the supreme good cannot be achieved if we work
only for our private good. He therefore, appealed that we should “love each other as god
loves us and this we can do if we derive the power of love from him, and not from lesser
goods”.
4.6.1 Political Ideas
We can deduce the political ideas of Augustine from the above principal of his
philosophy.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4
4.6.2 Philosophy of History
Augustine pronounced history, the unfolding of the divine will and accredited the rise
and fall of the empires to a divine plan. He said that a continuous struggle was going on
between the forces of horsy and truth in which the later was bold to triumph ultimately. Thus
he rejected to accept the argument that the Pagan Gods were responsible for the fall of the
Roman Empire. He asserted that the fall of Roman Empire was due to divine will.
Another feature of his philosophy of the history, belief in the doctrine of two cities.
According to him, the individual, member of the earthly city (Kingdom of Satan) as well as
divine city(Kingdom of God). The former look after the appetitive and greedy desires of the
individual and it is temporary and perishable. The later indicates that, it is heavenly peace
and spiritual salvation and is divine, permanent and imperishable. The history denoted the
continuous struggle between these two cities which would lead to the demolition of the
former because it is short-lived in nature and latter is on the account of virtue and
permanent character. The earthly city is dominated by principle of self- love to the point
where God is held in disapproval. For its devotees materials are important than the spirit.
The heavenly city is dominated by principles of the love of God for them spiritual things are
highest important.
Prof. Sabine says that, Augustine’s concept of earthly city, or city of God cannot be
identified with any existing human institutions. He did not associate the church with the
kingdom of God or state with earthly city. But it cannot be denied that Augustine certainly
condemned the authority of the secular state in comparison with the Church and introduced
new feature in the political though by exalting the authority of church over the state.
4.7 Views on the State:
Augustine accepted that Christian Doctrine, that state is a divine institution created
by God to remedy the human sins. He stressed that, authority of state must be respected
because it maintains peace and protects property and other belongings of citizens.
Obedience to the authority of state is also observed because it is based on divine sanctions
and contributed to the remedy of sins of the people. Thus, he subordinated the state to the
higher authority of the God and obedience to the laws and authority of state is justified as
long as it did not conflict with the duty towards God’s. It is because that man obey the civil
laws because they are sanctioned by God. He also said that Emperor must guard the
church, he did not accord any authority over spiritual matters. On the other hand he said that
citizens should not accept civil authority when it is conflict with spiritual authority. He wanted
both the state and church must work together with mutual understanding.
4.8 Views on Justice:
Augustine hold that justice can be possible only in the city of God and it could be
possible in the Christian state. He articulated justice in spiritual sense and described it as
“conformity to order and respect for duties arising from this order”. He allocated justice in a
wider meaning than assigned by Plato. Augustine regarded the state as simply a part of the
higher society (Kingdom of God) considered justice as domination to universal order as told
by the will of God. Therefore, he resolved that Justice can be possible only in Christian
state. In a Pagan State only relative justice could be possible. Augustine stated that, “If
Justice is the characteristic of a society, no pagan people have the right to be called just
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5
society. Justice is that virtue which gives every man his due and thus where is the justice.
St. Augustine asks, when a man desert true God and yields himself to impure demons”. For
this reason the city of ungodly…”
4.9 Views on Peace:
Augustine hold that, peace is a fundamental virtue of a good state and can be
attained in the city of God. To him peace has different notion, it does not mean the absence
of war or social strife. But peace means positive relation of love which comprised all human
beings. He considered that, peace provided by state is a temporary calmness and was
relative peace. He considers that, universal peace was genuine and it could be achieved
only if all acted in accordance with the universal order and common love to God. In which
all men are united with one another by their common love for God. It was different from the
peace produced by a system of legal relations as in state.”
4.10 Views on War and Conquest:
His views on peace, are the same and connected to the views on war and conquest.
Augustine emphasized that war can be fought to protect the Christian social order and
justified the use against pagans. According to them the group which have threat to the
security of Christian society is unorthodox groups, they could encourage people with
discreet reasoning and false interpretation. He justified that Christian state can wage wars
to suppress the heretics and saving its loyal people. Augustine had given the classification
between just and unjust war and he described the wars waged by Christian rulers against
pagans as just wards, because they offer an opportunity to convert or include them into
Christianity.
Augustine did not in favour of war to conquest territories he held that, the territories
acquired by wars did not give happiness to the king or the conquered people. Conquest
lead to fear, hatred and vicious slaughter are the causes for unhappiness, in the states
based on conquests there can be no justice and which can lead to robberies in such states.
4.11 Views on Slavery:
Augustine also defended slavery like Aristotle. He did not considered slavery as a
natural institution, and did not support it a realistic grounds. He treated slavery as
punishment from God for his original sins. Another important fact about him, he never
deprive the slave of the status of a human being and treats master and the slave as
fellowmen who are boded each other by a bond of fraternity in the kingdom of Christ, even
they are not equal in terms of human law. Hence, his advises the slaves to remains near
their masters to seek purification because master is one purer than slaves.
4.12 Views on Property:
Though, he did not consider private property as a natural institution but gesture
justified it. He was against the excessive accrual of property and stressed that, one should
not have more property than what was need to him for his legal and reasonable needs. He
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6
admitted that the some private property was needed for the proper performance of one’s
duties. He emphasized that rich people must distribute some of their property to the poor.
4.13 St. Augustine’s Evaluation:
While evaluating his political ideas one should understand that he was not a political
philosopher but he was a theologian. He presented his ideas which were borrowed from the
early church fathers in the Christian tapestry. His writing suffered from number of
destructions and discontinuations, there is so much vagueness and variability in his writings
and his conclusions are still subject to criticism. For example his theory Dualism is quite
confusing, sometimes he express about two-cities. The city of God and city of Satan are
purely abstract terms. This lead to confusion and inconsistency in his political philosophy.
His justification of war, especially by Christians against pagans is very dangerous and it is
the threat to the world peace. He was criticized more because he described the state as an
adjunct of the church, because this left a clear handle for his successors to justify the
absolution of the papacy.
In spite of the above shortcoming in his philosophy he wielded tremendous influence
on contemporary thinks as well as thinkers of succeeding generations. According to Prof.
Sabine “His philosophy was only in a slight degree systematic, but his mind had
encompassed almost all the learning of ancient times and through him to a very large
extent, it was transmitted to the middle ages. His writings were mines of ideas in which the
later writers, catholic and protestant have dug”.
His contributions to the later thought can be recounted as follows.
1. He was considered as the father of the Christian Commonwealth, which can be known as
Holy Roman Empire, and Holy Roman Empire was built and taken from his Civitate Dei.
2. The basic concept of Augustine’s thought was universalism which was the key note of
medieval thought.
3. The subordination of the state of Church, which was live issue during the middle ages,
which was indirect contribution of him. He did not develop the theory of ecclesiastics’
domination in clear terms but he certainly implied it. If the civil authority over steps it sounds
and interferes in religious matters, then individuals can restrict the state authority. Thus, he
asserted that political authority was not absolute and Church authority is mightier than state.
He also emphasized the importance of the Church.
In view of the above contributions of St. Augustine it can be said that he wielded
greater influence on political thought of medieval Europe than any other Christian Writer
before him St. Paul.
4.14 Conclusion:
The emergence of Christianity played an important role in the western politics as well as on
political thinking and included number of aspects into political thought and they were quite
different and from those contributions during the time of ancient Greek and Roman
Philosophy. Christianity borrowed thoughts from stoic philosophy, specially the concept of
universal brotherhood. St.Augustine was influenced by Plato, Ciciro, Stoics Christian
thinkers contributed for the growth of papacy. He believed there are two cities like city of
God and city of Satan. On state he asserted that, the state is divine institute created by God
to remedy the human sins. On justice he said that, justice would be possible only in the city
of God and could be only possible in Christian state. He regarded peace as a cardinal virtue
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7
of a good state and can be achieved in the city of God. On war and conquest, war can be
fought to protect the Christian social order and justified its use on pagans. On slavery he
said that, slavery is not a natural institution, he treated slavery as punishment from God for
his original sins. On property, he never considered property as natural institution, and
stressed that one should not have more property than what is need for him. He was
criticized for his political thoughts, we must understood that he was not a political
philosopher, but was theologian. His ideas were borrowed from church fathers in the
Christian tapestry. Even though, it can be sad that, he left greater influence on political
thought of medieval Europe than any other Christian writer.
4.15Model Questions:
1. Describe about the church fathers Political Thought.
2. Write about St. Augustine life, Contributions and his Ideas.
1.16 References:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
Lesson-05
CHURCH AND STATE: MARSIGLIO DF PADUA

5.0 Objectives:
1. Students would be able to know about the early life of Marsiglio and his Writings.
2. Students would be able to understand the political Ideas of Marsiglio.
Structure:
5.0 Objectives:
5.1 Introduction:
5.2 Aristotle’s Impact on Marsiglio:
5.3 Important Political Ideas of Marsiglio:
5.3.1 Views on State
5.3.2 Marsiglio on Theory of Law
5.3.3 Marsiglio on Sovereignty of People
5.3.4 Marsiglio on Representative Government
5.3.5 Marsiglio Views on Church
5.3.6 Relation between State and Church
5.4 Estimate of Marsiglio Contributions:
5.5 Conclusion:
5.7 References:
5.1 Introduction:
One of the most important medieval political thinker was Marsiglio and his Defuson
pacis as the most important and original treatise on political theory. He was one of the
strongest champion of secularism. He was born in Padua in the year 1270. He studied
Medicine from Padua. He was associated in the church and became Archbishop of Milan.
Later he turned against the church under the inspiration from John Jandun Wrote Defenser
Pacis in 1324,in which he strongly sentenced the church and held papacy answerable for
the prevailed disunion in Italy. At the same time he strongly supported the imperial authority.
He condemned the papal imperialism to limit the authority of church with regard to the
secular affairs. Marsiglio strive very hard to restore universal peace and suggested that, it
could be done by depriving the Clergy of the coercive power and making the church a
department of state. According to Doyle, “the purpose of Marsiglio was to destroy the whole
system of papal absolutism by providing that the divine appointment of the papacy on which
the entire authority of its claims rested was a myth and that the church is unnecessary
encumbrance to the state. The whole Europe in general and Italy in particular was full of
strife and disorder due to claims of the pope to a supreme power over rulers. It is the
remedy for this cause of disorder that Marsiglio proposes to seek”.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
5.2 Aristotle’s Impact on Marsiglio:
He was greatly influenced by the ideas and views of Aristotle in fact the impact of
Aristotle was so deep that scholars opined that in his Defenser Pacis, completed the work
left undone by Aristotle on Marsiglio. In fact, supplemented the rationalism of Aristotle with
spiritualism and other Christian faiths. The ideas borrowed from Aristotle are here
under……….
1. He borrow the idea of state as a natural and living organism poised of different parts and
its important aspect is work for good life. He also lists six such organs of element like
Aristotle and they are Agriculturalists, Artisans Warriors, Officials, Priests and Traders. He
asserted like him that the health or wealth of the society, would be orderly working of these
organs.
2. He borrowed the idea, origin of state from Aristotle and asserted that, state originates in
the natural social instinct implant human beings. State originates in a general recognition of
common needs.
3. The self-sufficiency of state, this idea is clearly taken from Aristotle. However, he
developed this idea further and asserted that self-sufficiency is not mere achievement of
rational nature but also civil happiness. He upheld from things for self-sufficiency and they
are:
A) The state is composed of classes working for the welfare of the whole community.
B) It should have everything required for its continued existence.
C) The power of directive parts should be conferred in the corporative community itself or its
parts.
D) In secular matters the community is absolutely self-sufficient and nominal government
can be established to interfere in the affairs of the state.
Sabine pointed out that “The Aristotelian Principle which he followed most closely was that
the self-sufficing community was capable of supplying both its physical and its moral needs”.
4. The preferences shown by Marsiglio on the city state in his thoughts also shows the clean
imprint of Aristotle.
5. He borrowed classification of governments from Aristotle, on the basis of their normal or
perverted nature.
6. He followed the idea of Aristotle with regard to end of the state and asserted that the
reason of existence of state was to be found in the welfare of the ruled not the rulers.
7. His opinions on law and its highest position in the community were borrowed from him. He
asserted that people are bases of all law or at least major part of it. He described sources of
law were universal.
8. He borrowed the element of rationalism as well. He asserted that, politics must be
founded on reasons not on theology or faith. Hence, he clearly, gave significance to reason
over faith in politics.
9. His faith common sense and faith in superiority of collective wisdom of the masses in
comparison to brilliance of one or few, are an identical view of Aristotle.
10. The element of positivism is also borrowed from Aristotle. He said that laws must be
made by human agencies, God natural reasons or any other supernatural powers had no
role in making of laws.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3
5.3 Important Political Ideas of Marsiglio:
The following are the main political ideas of Marsiglio
5.3.1 Views on State
He also like Aristotle said that man is a social and political animal and natural
outcome of this instruct in state. Those who do not live in society or state are either beast of
slaves. Men progress state so that they may able to live well. He stressed that it look after
the historical as well as spiritual aspects of life. A state is required to settle the disputes and
provide security against enemies and natural elements and supply of needed things to the
people. He said that it is the responsibility of state to offer teachers to guide men about
supernatural relations from the worship and honour of God and thank him for the benefits
given. He said that to continue civil government reason must even for the peace and order.
His well thought-out state as an organic whole, needed proper assistance between the
various organs. He said “the various things needed by those desiring to live well cannot
produce by men of single rank of offices, among the members of community each rank of
office backing something which man needs for the sufficiency of life. These various orders
or offices of men constitute the multiplicity and diversity of the parts of the state”.
5.3.2 Marsiglio on Theory of Law
The most significant part in his thought was his theory of law. He gave dissimilar
foundations of law, kinds of law and sanctions behind law. It was witnessed that like
Aquinas, he also classified the law into four categories like, eternal, natural divine and
human law. But the views in this regard totally different from Aquinas. He did not admit the
disagreement of Aquinas that four categories of law are manifestation of one and the same
cosmic reason which comprises negative relation among them. They are related by
equivocation as having same but he source is not common. He stated that, if the law was
not applied forcibly was not a law. He considers law as enactment by duly established
authority, in other words his law was more political and less moral. Marsiglio disallowed
Aquinas view that ‘Law’ makes the state, and said that “far from the state being based upon
a subsistent moral law, law will rather be based upon the state, and will derive its important
features from the qualities which in that context had detailed for the state”. He did not
accept the Aquinas’s Human Law, because Human law may disagree with Divine Law.
Marsiglio considered human law superior and prevailed in case of conflict with divine law
and also possessed coercive power.
Though he talks about four types of law but he talked only about divine law and
human law, and he was concerned only about Human Law, he discussed briefly about
Divine law as well. He further subordinates Divine law to human law and arises as the
extreme secularist among medieval thinkers. Marsiglio defends Human Law as “command
of the whole body of citizens or of its prevailed part arising from the deliberation of those
empowered to make law, about voluntary acts of human beings to be done or avoided in this
world for the sake of attaining the best end or some condition desirable for man in this
world”. The central idea of the above definition will highlight the following characteristic of
law.
1. He treats law as a forcible command of the legislator enforceable in the courts.
2. The foundation of the law is the will of the community rather than divine providence or
natural reason.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4
3. Law originates from human will as a kind of command to the subjects.

4. Compulsion is the essence of law.
5. It foresees a duly established authority with power to make propagate and enforce the
law.
6. He admits the concept of popular sovereignty and assets that the source of all legal
authority always people of its prevailing part.
7. It shows preference for rule of law over Rule of Men and assets that the laws rightly laid
down must be dominated.
8. He highlighted the principle of positivism and asserted that all laws must be made by
men. Even the unwritten law of custom must be laid by men.
We novelty that, Marsiglio in his theory of law he pooled the ideas of Aristotle with
medieval tradition and evolved a theory of law around which his whole philosophy revolves.
5.3.3 Marsiglio on Sovereignty of People
He developed a popular concept and sovereignty and said that in a state the people
should be sovereign, because it is the combined concern and representation of the
community as a whole. He proclaimed that combined wisdom is always better than
individual wisdom hence, people are the best judges to enact the right laws, because such
laws are of collective group’s interest and they can be obeyed. He said that legislative
power must be with prince or some other organ of the government, and behind such law,
stand of the people who are superior to it and their combined will contains the essence of
law. This will be much better for the state. In other words he said that princes do not derive
their power from their personal qualities, but mainly from the elected legislators. He said
that monarchy owed its power to the people and he should be accountable for the
community, he claimed that monarch should do only administrative functions and should not
go beyond that, if he surpasses his limits people can remove him. Thus people can make
laws; elect and correct the government; establish other parts of state including priesthood;
control ex-communication define articles of faith by their elected council; binding all the
enactments of the council; elect the bishop pope etc. According to him people are important
and they are the source of all political, legal and ecclesiastical authority.
5.3.4 Marsiglio on Representative Government
This is carefully connected with his popular theory of Sovereignty on representative

government. He said that, an endorsement behind the government is not knowledge of law,
or practical wisdom or moral virtue, but by the election of the whole body of citizens. The
body of citizens has the right to correct the government in all aspects and it can overthrow if
it becomes practical for the interest of common people. He also justified representative
government through theological disagreement. He debated that laws originates by the
citizens and the law makers too, develop from the same matter. From this discussion we
can understand that it seems conceivable to infer steadily that a ruler who is elected by the
people rather than his hereditary is more favored than the rulers who are hereditary.
5.3.5 Marsiglio Views on Church
He strained to switch off the concept of the people sovereignty and he measured
church as the social community. He said, dominant situations in Europe like the disorders,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5
Chaos and anarchy are because of papal brand and he wants to control its powers and
authority to check these tendencies.
He requested that the current life is not inferior to the life there after, present life is
also respected and he considered worldly life is more true and superior. He said that
Christianity and secularism are not well-matched and priest wants to be true Christians, they
must not have temporal thing like property, wealth, land, power authority, governmental
office etc. They should concern only with eternal Kingdom and the logical virtue. He said
that papalist have no rightful share in the authority of the secular government. The clergy
should execute to cure the souls and promote faith in men that can lead to salvation in the
next life. Thus he reduced the church to the position of a department of the state.
Marsiglio tried to restrain the authority of the pope, by in conflict that the position
within the church is not by the pope but the General Council, a body of all faith (both lay and
clerical). The authority rest with the General Council to interpret scriptures, regulate the
Ceremonials of Christian Worship, fill offices of the government and right to pass sentences
of communication, acting through majority vote. He condensed church organization to a
position alike to the organization of the state with one change, while in the state
organization, he suggested Monarchy is the best form of government. In the interest of unity
in the church he rejected the Monarchial type of government. He considered Church as a
purely spiritual congregation of believers connected by common faith and common
participation in the sacraments.
5.3.6 Relation between State and Church
He allocated a subordinate position to the Church, he rejected to accept the divine

origin and divine rights to pope. He said that priestly class ascended in the past by them to
control the people and by frightening about the hell. He replaced police and judges to stop
the crime. He saw nothing untouchable about religion, clergy and church, he considered
religion merely a social phenomenon. He reduced the church to a position of a department
in state and clergy merely as a class set to perform religious services. He said that there
was no such thing as spiritual offence and every offence was an offence against human law.
He desired the church to be inferior to secular government in regard to unity and
peace of civil society. He said that if church was given independent position and jurisdiction
then state would suffer hence unity is spirit of state. He said that the two identical and co-
ordinateauthorities would lead to supremacy over each other. The priest had to preserve
the peace, which established the life blood of the state.
He asserted the supremacy of state, over the church by disagreeing its intimidating
power, Divine law did be present but could not be enforced. Since divine law did not own
any power of coercion in the world. It could only be designated as Divine Doctrine, instead
coercion was the necessary feature of Human Law and this power originated from human
enactment. Hence, if the Divine law was to be enforced it was only the human legislator who
can do so and not the Priest or church. He described the clergymen as physicians of soul
and they heal the soul.
5.4 Estimate of Marsiglio Contributions:
Marsiglio has been pronounced as the most innovative thinker of fourteenth century
who “pierced the fundamental secrets of statesmanship more deeply than any of his
contemporaries”. Sabine describes his theory as “one of the most remarkable creations of
the medieval political thought”. Other scholars also approved the original nature of his
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6
thoughts and abysmal political penetration and described his work Defenser Pacis as
master piece of political though. The importance of Marsiglio among the medieval political
thinkers lies on account of his contribution of the following principles.
1. He communicated to the concept of law as an order of people, he completely freed the
medieval law, of the limitations of natural law, reason, and common good and divine law and
provided at with a social human footing by asserting that is derived from human will.
2. He encouraged popular Sovereignty concept and said that, the people or the whole body
of citizens or the bigger part thereof was the source of law. This idea was prominently
influenced the democrats like Rousseau. The most modern democratic components are
based on the principle of popular sovereignty. He also said that people could delegate their
powers to their elected representatives who made laws. Thus final political Sovereignty
rested with the people.
3. He stressed the principle of accountability of the rulers to the people. He predicted the
ruler to witness the law and admire the will of Legislator. The ruler can be removed by
Legislator if is not executed his duties well. He restricted authority of the ruler, also tried to
long standing methods by keeping rulers answerable to the entire community.
4. He became the fore-runner of the Regeneration Movement when he said that, worldly
values like peace, order health etc. are as significant as eternal salvation. On these lines
Renaissance Movement was built up later.
5. He asserted the dominance of the state over church, depressed the clergy of the coercive
authority. He, for the first time preserved church as the department of the state in all the
matters of earthly concern and destroyed the Papal Sovereignty.
6. He became the fore-runner of the councilor movement of 15th century. He not only
provided for the dependence of the Pope upon the General Council, but also of the council
upon the congregation and the whole church. He gave the General Council the right to elect
the pope and other officials of the church to settle down questions of the whole body of
believers.
7. He conferred a predominant position to rationalism in his thought. He not only separated
reason form faith but also gave prime position to the former in his philosophy.
5.5 Conclusion:
On account of the above contributions Marsiglio is considered one of the most outstanding
philosophies of the middle ages and it contained number of modern elements.
1. Describe Marsiglio’s early age and his political thinking and his ideas?
2. Write an essay to estimate Marsiglio’s contributions?
5.7 References:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
Lesson-06
STATE AND STATECRAFT: NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI
6.0 Objectives:
1. The students would know transition of political thought from Medieval to Modern thought.
2. Student would learn about Machiavelli and his modern political thoughts.
Structure:
6.0 Objectives
6.1 Introduction
6.2 His Early Life
6.3 Influences on Machiavelli
6.3.1 Conditions in Italy
6.3.2 Impact of Republic
6.3.3 Emergence of Strong Monarchies
6.4 Method of Machiavelli
6.5 Machiavelli as a Modern Thinker
6.6 Political Ideas of Machiavelli
6.6.1 Machiavelli on Human Nature
6.6.2 His Views on Morality and Religion
6.6.3 His Theory of State and Its Preservation
6.3.4 Suggestions to the Prince for Retention of Power
6.4 Machiavelli’s Political Thought
6.5 Shortcomings in Machiavelli
6.6 Conclusion
6.7 Model Questions
6.8 References
6.1 Introduction:
Like the human life, political thought is also a constant procedure and it is tough to
draw a line difference between the medieval and modern political thought. Most of the
scholars pronounced that the political thought of middle ages is fairly not the same from
modern thought. The middle age thought was theological, dogmatic, allegorical, universal
and uncritical as equated to the modern that which consist of objective, rational, scientific,
secular and national. The Medieval thought was not new but it was a constant procedure of
the Hellenic and Roman ideas, to which new ideas of Germanic and Christian traditions
were contributed.
Modern thought was the result of the Regeneration Movement of 14th and 15th
century, in which humanistic principles and scientific viewpoint came to dominate the
western political thought. There was an upsurge of literature in which more importance was
given to study of relations between man and man, rather than man and God. This sort of
studies rested the foundation for a new chapter in political thinking in 17thcentury. The world
now witnesses the main components of modern political thought such as secularism,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
tolerance, emphasis on rights, individual happiness and liberty, popular sovereignty,

representative government, contract, private property, international and peace etc., were not
known to the ancient and medieval thoughts.
Most of these concepts initiated with ancient political thinkers, and were established
by medieval thinkers and these were further advanced by the modern political thinkers. The
Regeneration and Reformation thinkers like Machiavelli, Luther, Clavin etc., gave protruding
place to these concepts through their writings and contributed to change from medieval to
the modern period. Niccolo Machiavelli was one of the best thinkers of this change.
Machiavelli sets a new chapter in the improvement of political philosophy. He was more of a
politician rather than political thinker /philosopher. His thoughts were principally determined
by the historical background of his life.
6.2 His Early Life:
Niccolo Machiavelli was born in Florence, Italy, in 1469, in a modest means of

family. His father was a jurist. He could not get proper education during his childhood,
under the direction of his father he studied the Latin Classics, especially on Roman history.
Then he joined the government of Florence as the Secretary of Chancery as he grew up. In
this capacity he got an opportunity to deal the departments of war and interior. Diplomatic
correspondence used to pass through him. He was put in jail on the charge of conspiracy,
his failure to side with new rules with the change of power. He wrote master piece the
prince in 1513, eight years later he wrote Discourses.
6.3 Influences on Machiavelli:
The factors which influenced the thinking and philosophy are hereunder:
6.3.1 Conditions in Italy:
During his time the Italian Peninsula was separated into a number of small
independent states which fought wars continuously. They had dissimilar forms of
governments; while some were republics, others were rules by despotic rules. Some sort of
consolidation of these states has been achieved by the beginning of 16th century still they
were divided into five groups like 1) Kingdom of Naples, 2) Territory of Roman Catholic
Church 3) The Duchy of Milan, The Republic of Venice and 5) Republic of Florence. Distant
from interior fights amongst these states there was a severe threat from France and Spain
on the borders. Machiavelli wanted to unite these combatant states and make them self-
sufficient and strong so that they could handle with them efficiently. He wrote a books like
Art of War, The Discourses on Livy and the Prince, in this book he wrote the principles,
which he wanted these states to follow so that they could flourish and thrive. He appealed to
the strong ruler who could unite the country and oust foreign invaders. He practically
observed papacy as a greatest difficulty in way of secular integration.
6.3.2 Impact of Republic:
The Renaissance Movement which was for the stimulation of ancient values and
culture, had the effect on him, because it was sturdiest movement in Florence. The
movement recharged the ancient and had been elapsed the medieval period but also
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3
created perception of life, a new prospect of life and freedom. Man become centre of all
studies and God was related to background. This was the revolt against the authority of
church, this made the gradual transfer of power from church to state.
6.3.3 Emergence of Strong Monarchies:
The arrival of strong monarchs who took the complete political power in their hands,
which was with feudatories and corporations, was left an impression on him. He was
significantly influenced by the writings of Aristotle and Marsiglio. He learnt the idea of
separation of ethics from politics from Aristotle and also the idea of state as the highest
organization of human, and also influenced by the division of Monarchy, Aristocracy and
Democracy. He was influenced by Marsiglio, of secularism and political unity of religion are
concerned. It was correctly said that he was the epitome of his times.
6.4 Method of Machiavelli:
The approaches assumed by him are positive and negative aspects in his thinking’s,
the positive side of thinking, he carry out the Aristotelian process from the particular to
general. His technique was realistic method of observation followed by historical method.
On contemporary politics he made an analytical study. On conclusion he took the help of
history of authenticate them. The historical method practically suited him, because he was
mainly student of practical not speculative politics. He was a experimenter, he had not used
political philosophy. His writings were treatise on the art of government rather than the
theory of state. The historical approaches he used a sort of peculiarity in theory. Historical
method to politics comprises criticism of instances in history. Prof. Dunning pointed out that
his historical method was more in appearance than reality. Thus it may be conclude that his
method was inductive Sabine puts it, “His empiricism was based on commonsense
practicality’. From this Sabine had concluded, ‘His method in so far as he had one, was
observation guided by shrewdness and common sense”.
On the negative side, he totally rejected the theory of Divine law. In other words we
can say that he had no faith in the cardinal doctrine that man was able to predetermine to a
supernatural end. Since there was supernatural end, there was no need for divine law. He
also rejected the natural law as well.
6.5 Machiavelli as a Modern Thinker:
He was a modern thinker only in the sense that, he used certain new ideas which
were symbolic of modern age. Some of them here under:
1. He rejected the Idea of natural law and created his entire thinking basically on the bad
nature of human beings.
2. He completely rejected the fundamentals placed by medieval thinkers, he considered
state, to provide security and peace to the people.
3. He underlined the secular character of the state and overlooked the principle of ‘divine
law’ which was popular in medieval times.
4. He, for the first time he supported the idea of national territorial and state which was
independent of pope.
5. Unlike medieval thinkers, he made use of inductive method along with historical method.
6. He did not give importance to ethical factors, instead he gave for material motives
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4
7. The important factor which separates him from medieval thinkers that he separated ethics
from politics.
8. His thinking of separating politics and morality also give a separate look when compared
with medieval thinkers.
9. He essentially mentions to all those features of the state which were progressed during
the next two or three centuries like state, is a secular institution and church should be
subordinate to it.
6.6 Political Ideas of Machiavelli:
He was not a methodical political thinker, he uttered separate views in his works.
We can associate his ideas in a systematic manner and study them.
6.6.1 Machiavelli on Human Nature:
He conveyed his opinions on human nature in his ‘Prince’. According to him human
beings are very selfish, wicked, degenerate, Unscrupulous and opportunists. He says that
man is not social but anti-social and tries to encourage his own interest every time. To
endorse he can do whatever he wants. He says that men love their property than their kiths
and kins, a person can readily pardon the murder of his father than the seizure of his
patrimony. His description of human nature is wrong. Human beings all are not wicked.
They are neither completely good nor completely bad. He said that, human beings cannot
be reformed at all. Anti-social elements criminals can be mitigated.
6.6.2 His Views on Morality and Religion:
He varied from the earlier thinkers, he tried a formal and conscious separation
between politics and morality. He observed politics and ethics as instituting one whole
science. He made a thoughtful and complete separation between ethics and politics. He
rejected the cultivation of virtues like humanity, submissiveness and disapproval for worldly
things on which medieval thinkers laid so much stress and consider quest of well beings in
the life as the sole objective. For attainment of these objectives he even allowed the use of
immoral means like fraud, forgery, trickery, breach of faith, violence etc. by the prince. To
achieve the unity of the country he was willing to through the principles of morality to the
wind.
It is obvious that he suggested two dissimilar values of morality one for the ruler and
other for the private citizens. The first is arbitrated by the success in keeping and increasing
power. The second by the strength which his conduct imports to the social group. He
openly condemned for open support of immorality in public life. However, it cannot be
denied that his views on ethics and politics suffer from numerous short comings. His views
have been acknowledged by most of the clear minded political thinkers in the successive
centuries and they have understood that the individual and the state cannot be exposed to
the same rules of morality. Lord Action has said that, “the authentic interpretation of
Machiavelli is the whole of later history. We find everybody using Machiavelli and still
denouncing him”.
6.6.3 His Theory of State and Its Preservation:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5
Machiavelli well thought-out state as the highest connotation and all the subjects
must submit to state. State was be present to check the selfish interests of human beings
and it was artificial creation. State was estimated to create and promote materials of
prosperity to the people. The prosperity of people specifies the success or failure of the
state. According to him a successful state was originated by single man and laws which
were made by him replicates national character of state, he favored Monarchy and
completely disliked Aristocracy.
He classified states into two types 1) Normal and 2) Perverted. According to him
Normal State was the one in which citizens were faithful and law abiding. They were ready
to safeguard their motherland because they have spirit of patriotism. In the perverted state
above qualities would not be present. He said that normal state had tendency to grow when
compared to perverted state. Machiavelli laid down detailed rules and preservation to
strengthening of state. They are as follows.
1. State must have a dependable army poised of native troops and should not depend on
foreign acquisitive soldiers.
2. He considers Republican state as the best, but under the, then prevailing conditions he
favored Monarchial State. He says “The only way to establish any kind of order there is to
found a monarchial government; for these the body of people is so thoroughly corrupt that
the laws are ineffective for curb, it becomes essential to establish some superior power
which, with a royal hand and with full and absolute power, may put a curb upon the undue
desire and corruption of the powerful”.
3. His state is completely secular in so far as he does not attribute any unearthly reason to
its presence.
4. The state has a natural predisposition to expand or grow in power.
5. Law occupies a dominant position in the state. Though he observed force and fear as
important aspects in administration, yet he also reflects the good laws as the foundation
steps of the state.
6.3.4 Suggestions to the Prince for Retention of Power:
Machiavelli was not a political philosopher, but he was chiefly concerned with art of
government. Thus, he made contributory references to the theory of state and at length with
the principles which the price should observe to maintain himself in power. They are as
follows:
1. The prince should crush all opposition to his authority with an iron hand and should make
use of aggressive force.
2. He holds that a thoughtful use of these devices can avoid the need of force. He wants
the rulers to be both fox and lion.
3. The prince should try to take speedy and firm decisions because hesitation can prove
harmful.
4. A good prince try to uphold peace in the country so that the people can lead a
comfortable contended life.
5. He should maintain a well-trained regular national army of his own citizens and should
not depend on mercenary soldiers.
6. Prince must be a good soldier commander, he must have thorough knowledge of war
strategy.
7. Prince must try to uphold his popularity with the people and earn their love and affection.
8. Prince should try to nurture public spirit and patriotism among his citizens through
education, religion and propaganda
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6
9. Prince should be better feared than loved because people love a ruler as long as they
receive or expect certain benefits.
10. The prince must maintain utmost secrecy in the conduct of State’s affairs.
11. It was not important for prince to be honest always. The prince should not mind in
violating his promises for the good of the state.
12. The prince should not touch the property and women of his subjects, because people
are very touchy about these things.
13. Prince should be a good showman and project himself with qualities like generosity, kind
heartedness, chivalry, mercy, sincerity, bravery and religiousness.
14. He should avoid the company of praises, because it effects his sense of judgment.
15. He should not have permanent friends or enemies.
16. The prince must collect information about strength of his enemy.
In addition to above, he made number of other suggestions for state craft.
Machiavelli is the most universally reprobated figure in the history of political literature which
are regularly followed in practice.
6.4 Machiavelli’s Political Thought:
His main contributions to the history of political thought has left a deep influence on
the political thinkers of following centuries.
1. He completely disallowed the feudal conception of a hierarchy autonomous entities and
predicted a territorial, natural and sovereign state.
2. He deserves the credit for acquittal politics from the churches of ethics, before to him
politics were under the churches. He said that there are two distinct standards of morality
for the state and individual.
3. He was first thinker to definitely condemn the authority of the church and tried to reduce it
a subordinate position to the Government.
4. He, for the first time offered materialist clarification of the origin of state, and collectively
overlooked the metaphysical or supernatural elements. Though his views in this regard were
not identical with Karl Marx but these views profound influence on Karl Marx.
5. He was the first exponent of the principle of ‘power politics’ and propounded the theory of
aggrandizement which insisted that the statement either expand or perish.
6. His historical method was another important contribution to the history of political thought.
7. He was a great pragmatic thinker.
8. He attached great importance to study of human psychology and advised his rules to
formulate his policies, keeping in view of people’s wishes and sentiments.
In view, of his contributions to the political though much praise has been bestowed
on Machiavelli.
6.5 Shortcomings in Machiavelli:

He is one of the misjudged political thinker, according to Sabine, “He has been represented
as an utter cynic, an impassionate patriot, an ardent nationalist, a political Jesuit, convinced
democrat and an unscrupulous seeker after the favour of deposits. In each of these views,
incompatible as they are, there is probably an element of truth. What is emphatically not true
is that no one of them gives a complete picture either of Machiavelli or his thoughts”. He has
contributed many thoughts which are new, and consist of number of faults and is been
under severe attack. Some of his contradictions and defects are here under:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7
1 There is contradiction about his hypothesis about the nature of human and reasons which
monitor him as sketched in Prince and Discourses. He said in the Prince, man is selfish
fundamentally and not able to do good unless appreciative to do so. Whereas in Discourses,
he said that, men are neither absolutely bad nor faultlessly good, human character is more
complex. If we think that man is selfish it is very difficult to clarify how he works with others
to form a state. He also prefers the republic form of government because it can work
successfully if the people ready to sacrifice their selfish ends for the upliftment of the
society.
2 It is criticised because some of his ideas are shallow and unsuccessful to accumulate
proper political concepts. He missed logical and philosophical aspects to his theory, Sabine
said that, “he was perhaps too practical to be philosophically profound”. He is not
considered as political thinker instead he considers as person with practical question of
politics. His writings are mere diplomatic literatures.
3 The philosophy explained by him only just local narrowly dated, he is seen people
behaving very crooked and thought that all human are bad. It is not good to analyze the
whole human society on the basis of Italian grounds. Allen said about him that, “His
judgment of human nature was surely, profoundly at fault. May it not be said that he lacked
understanding of just what he most of all needed to know”.
4 The principle of “ends justify the means” has been criticised severely, one of the writer
said that, “what is morally wrong can never be politically wright’. The crimes based on
politics can lead to counter offences and more crimes are expected from it. His policy
corrupted public opinion and encouraging dishonest political practices all over the world.
5 Machiavelli gave unnecessary status to the role of force in keeping people united. He did
not estimate the importance of willing cooperation of the people forcing unity to work
effectively in the state.
6 He has given more importance to the rulers or the law givers in molding the moral,
religious and economic life of the people, the statement seems to be incorrect and he seems
to be guilty reserving the “sane order of values” and useful order with casual efficiency. He
says that law giver is the architect of the state and society, in fact the society comes first and
other latter.
7 He is unable to recognize that prince as a human being may try to encourage his self-
interest at the cost of public interest.
8 There has been contradiction between appreciation of monarchical government and his
republican government. Sabine said that, “his judgment was swayed by two admirations for
the resourceful despot and for the self-governing people which were not consistent. He
patched the two together rather precariously”. If we accept Machiavelli’s statement, the only
possibility is despotic monarchy and the republican government is ruled out, republican
government encourages public spirit among the citizens. It is not possible to do everything
by the prince.
6.6 Conclusion:
Machiavelli, belongs to the new phase in the development of political philosophy, he was
more a practical politician rather than political thinker and philosopher. He studied Roman
history under the guidance of his father who was a jury. He wrote Prince and later
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8
Discourses two important books of his life. He was very much influenced by the prevailing
situations in Italy where state were fought wars consistently. In his methodology he was
greatly influenced by Aristotle, he was considered as the modern political thinker and
brought some new ideas which are considered in the modern period. His political ideas are
not systematic, he explained his views on human nature in his Prince, he said that, human
being is selfish, wicked and degenerate and opportunist, he said that, man is not social but
anti-social. He deferred on religion and morality with earlier thinkers, attempted a formal and
conscious separation between politics and morality.
His views on state and its preservation he said the success and failure of the state depends
on the prosperity of the people. He classified states into normal and perverted. He
suggested Price how to preserve the power.
He was criticised by many political thinkers of the modern times. Some says that he was
totally misunderstood political thinker. His assumption about the nature of man where he
said that, man is selfish,wicked and degenerate and opportunist, he said that, man is not
social but anti-social. His ideas are superficial and hallow and failed to build proper political
theory. His principle “ends justify the means” has been criticised severely political crimes
can never lead to anything except counter offence. Machiavelli recommended Princedom for
forming new state. It is not possible to do everything by the prince, his approach in this
regard is highly illogical.

1. Explain briefly about a) modern political thought 2) Early life of Machiavelli c) Machiavelli
as Modern thinkers
2. Describe the views of Machiavelli about the state and its preservation?
3. Explain the contributions of Machiavelli to political thought?
6.8 References:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
Lesson-07
HUMAN NATURE SOVEREIGNTY: THOMAS

HOBBES
7.0 Objective:
1. Students would know about Thomas Hobbes and his Political Ideas.
2. Students would learn about human nature, methodology, state and Sovereignty.
Structure:
7.0 Objective
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Works of Hobbes
7.3 Hobbes Methodology
7.4 Views on Human Nature
7.5 Views on Social Contract
7.5.1 The features of social contract here under
7.6 Views on State on Nature
7.7 Views on Sovereignty
7.8 Criticism of Sovereignty
7.9 Hobbes Individualism and Absolutism
7.10 Estimate of Hobbes
7.11 Shortcoming of Hobbes
7.12 Conclusion
7.14 References
7.1 Introduction:
Thomas Hobbes was born in 1581, in the family of Anglican Clergyman, and he lived
till he gets 99 years. He witnessed the most blustery period of English history. He received
his early education at Malmesbury, then he went to Oxford for his higher studies at the age
of 15. After finishing his University education he was appointed as Tutor to William
Cavendish, had a lifelong connection with his family and it provided him a chance to travel
extensively and establish personal contacts with great personalities like Ben Johnson,
Bacon and Galileo, and they left an impact on his political thought.
He witnessed civil war in England between supporters of Monarchy and
Republicanism and he took kingside in that war, Charles-I was beheaded and monarchy
was abolished. Despite the fact he witnessed the whole bloody drama of civil war which left
a profound effect on his thinking. He was persuaded that man is an animal inspired by
thought like fear and self- interest. He was also influenced that a strong and stable civilized
life was the basic need and this could be delivered only by an absolute monarch and
strongly appealed for monarchy.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
He also felt impression of other political thinkers, scientists and mathematicians thus
he took the idea of socialist contract form Plato and Hooker, the impact of Machiavelli can
be noticeable in Hobbes representation of human nature. He borrowed the concept of the
law of nature form Grotius, Sovereignty form Bodin and he enhanced it. His philosophy was
borrowed from Galileo, for his acquisitive theory and scientific methods form Descartes.
Thus the philosophy of Hobbes was a mixture of different influences of his time which left on
his mind.
7.2 Works of Hobbes:
The main works of him are ‘Deceive’ wrote in 1642. The ‘Leviathan’ which he wrote
in France while he was in exile and was published in London after his return 1651; the De
Corpore in 1655 and De Homine in 1658.
7.3 Hobbes Methodology:
He familiarized scientific methods to the political theory, and tried to draw inferences
from axioms, assumptions and established truths. Though Plato applied scientific method to
political theory but Hobbes was the first thinker who asserted that political theory was based
on the presence of matter and motion. Hobbes based his concept of human nature,
formation of civil society and possible human relationship on this principle.
There are three different parts of Hobbes philosophy, the first dealing with physical
phenomenon called ‘physics’ the second dealing with mental phenomenon called
‘psychology’ and the third civil philosophy, the third part is most complex of all. According to
him all the three parts of philosophy are the outcomes of moving particles. He tried to
integrate psychology and politics extract Physical Science. By applying Geometric method
to the science of politics, is built upon psychology and psychology is based on physics,
which is derived from the motion of particles. Thus, this method is clearly logical. It is
pointed out that he completely failed to deduce his psychology from physics and could not
live up to his idea because it was impossible. In spite of these deficiencies, the recognition
of Hobbes is that he prepared politics more scientific and modern. His methodology has
three fold significance.
1. He completely disallowed the medieval conception of the existence of soul or spirit and
tried to interpret everything in materialist terms.
2. His method tangled the denial of medieval theory that, the state is the result of orthodox
tumble.
3. His method provided to the distinctive method of thinking, he initiates with individual ends
with individuals. In fact no better individualistic theory could be promoted.
7.4 Views on Human Nature:
Contrasting the earlier philosophers he marks the individual the mechanism to his
thoughts. He give the individual not as a rational being but attachment of desires, feelings,
and wishes. According to Hobbes, what a man wishes, he sounds well and what he hates,
he appeals evil. At hand no absolute end or good of life, thus, all men attempts to achieve
those things which he needs and man is self-interested. According to Prof. Sabine that, “the
rule behind all behavior is that the living body is set instinctively to preserve or heighten its
vitality. In a word, the psychological principle behind all behavior is self-preservation and
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3
self-preservation means just the continuance of individual’s biological existence. Good is

what conduces to this end and evil what has the opposite effect”.
He trusts that, by birth men are alike, certain may have improved mental faculties,
while others may be physically greater. On the whole they are significantly identical. Yet,
the aspiration to have something carries them in clash with each other. He says that
opposition, brilliance and variances make people brute and argumentative. He puts this
point thus: “nature has made men so equal with faculties of body and mind, as that though
there be found one man sometimes manifestly stronger in body, or of the quicker mind than
the other, Yet when all is reckoned together, the difference between man and man is not so
considerable, as that one can thereupon can claim to himself any benefit to which another
may not pretend”.
He further says that, every single individual has a perpetual and restless desire of
power, after power only death. Hobbes says that, man is basically selfish, contentious,
quarrelsome, mean, wicked, non-altruistic, non-rational, impulsive and self-centered. In this
high opinion his visions are quite thoroughly connected to that of Machiavelli. The only
difference between them is that, Machiavelli did not allocate any reason for the bad nature
of man. Hobbes tries to give it in scientific terms.
Though, his understandings on human nature have been extremely criticized. In the
first occurrence, it is said that, man is neither so reasonable nor as unreasonable as he
displays him while paintings the picture of state of nature and the assumption of the deal for
the creation of the state. He said that man is extremely unreasonable in the state of nature,
but abruptly allots him the faculty of reason which urges him to heap the state: secondly, he
portrays human being as anti-social, self-centered and egoistic. By what means such
persons could develop social and take advantage in the evolution of the civil society.
Thirdly, he assume atmospheres and insights from the motion of particles. Finally, his
assertion that, all men are the same in esteem of their physical and mental powers, is
contrary to our actual experience.
7.5 Views on Social Contract:

Hobbes trusts that, the state has its start in the expectation of men in their own defense, the
well-adjusted wish to spurt from the natural conditions of war. The constant struggle and
distress were expected, as long as men were absorbed by the orders of hunger, they could
escape from it only by setting up a common power which could at the same time restrain
and protect each person. Hobbes said that, each person says to others “I authorize and give
up my right of governing myself to this man or to this assembly of men, on this condition that
thou give the right to him and authorize all his actions in the like manner”.
7.5.1 The features of social contract here under:
1 The sovereign is not a party to the contract but rather contract is the product of it. He tries
to justify complete or tyrannical rule and rejects all rights of resisting the state to the
individual. One writer asserted on Hobbes “instead of becoming a character of human
freedom the contract becomes in the hands of Hobbes a bond of human slavery”.
2 The State or commonwealth is mainly founded on reasons, not on distress, people

concentrate on obedience to the authority of the state because of the rational apprehension
that the end of self-protection is better attended within the state. Hobbes himself says
“Covenant without sword are but words”.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4
3 It cannot guilty of contract because sovereignty is not a contract. Justice lies with
obedience to the contract and sovereign cannot be just.
4 The contract cannot be cancelled once the contract is decided, because the individual
surrender to his wills to the will of the sovereign and do not have any right to pull out or
cancel it without the approval of the sovereign.
5 In the sovereign the majority has rights and minority has no right to object to the choice of
majority. By which minority will become a part of the Commonwealth, silently they have to
accept the will of majority.
6 To guard the individual’s life contract has been established, it indicates that, the individual
has surrounded all his rights to sovereign, except the right to live in the state.
7 The people are supposed to submit all their rights to the state or the ruler and they do not
possess any right against sovereign. He did not acknowledge to the people to conquer the
obedience to the sovereign under certain circumstances.
7.6 Views on State on Nature:
Hobbes opinions on state on nature concluded a period of human history prior to the
creation of the civil state, are an addition to his view of human nature. He holds that entire
men are by nature identical in powers, no one of them are so sturdy as to be safe contrary
to the other. They have some thirst, like aspiration for wellbeing desire to gain desire of
glory. The desire to gain hints to violence when the object of desire can neither be divided
nor enjoyed in common. Obviously, the human beings develop disbelief towards each
other.
Certainly, under the situations that state of nature is a state of war. There is no place
for industry in such circumstances, because the fruits there of are ambiguous and
subsequently no culture of the earth, no direction finding, no arts, no letters, no society. In
short, the life of man was solitary poor, nasty, brutish, and short. As there is no mutual
greater which could hold all the people in crisscross endless war of all against all.
According to him there could be no dissimilarity between right and wrong in the state of
nature, because such a difference take as fact the presence of common standards of
conduct, a common law to judge the conduct and common law giver. There is no division
between just and unjust in the state of nature because there is no common superior
(sovereign) or Law. When there is no law there can be no justice. There is no right to
private property in the state of nature, because the control of a thing depended upon the
power of a person to keep it.
7.7 Views on Sovereignty:
Sovereign was bent as a result of the bond and enjoys all the powers which were
enclosed by the people at the time of ending the contract. Sovereign enjoys the power to
govern on behalf of the entire community as to what should be done to maintain peace and
order and promote their welfare. In short, Hobbes confers the sovereign with absolute and
supreme powers. The Sovereign power cannot be dared by the people, because they
willingly give up their rights to him, once they have surrendered their rights to him, without
condition, they cannot claim back.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5
According to Hobbes the individuals cannot legally enter into a new contract to
create a new Leviathan, because the agreement determined by them with the first sovereign
is unchangeable. As the sovereign was not a party to the contract it cannot be quoted
against him without his own endorsement. The Sovereign enjoys complete powers to make
laws and this power of the sovereign is not incomplete by any human authority, superior or
inferior. The sovereign is not assured by the opinion and wishes of the people because they
have made a complete surrender of their power to the sovereign. It is not only the principal
foundation of all laws but also one and only explainer. Even the laws of nature do not
establish any curb on the power of sovereign. Even the laws of God does not limit the
authority of the sovereign because he is the only explainer of these laws. Thus, he provided
sovereign complete powers and rules out all the restrictions in the nature of laws of nature,
or laws of God.
The Sovereign is the cause to single out between good and bad, moral and immoral,
just and unjust. These differences does not happen in the state of nature and occurred only
after the formation of the civil society. Sovereign to elect what is moral and what is immoral.
Even right to property was shaped by the Sovereign. The Sovereign is the foremost
foundation of justice and have special powers to declare war and make peace. Hobbes
gives to the Sovereign all sorts of authority like Executive, Legislative and Judicial and thus,
totally disagreements the theory of separation of powers. Another significant feature of
Hobbes Sovereign is that he confers it with undividable, attached and inexpressible powers.
He does not allow the sovereign to share its powers with others. Hobbes also does not
acknowledge to his subjects only rights against the Sovereign. People cannot call him to
account, threaten to punish or overthrow him and choose another ruler in his place or put
him to death. Hobbes created an absolute, indivisible in alienable sovereign.
7.8 Criticism of Sovereignty:
His theory of Sovereignty has been criticized on the following grounds:

1. His theory is dreamlike and incorrect evidences. No definite sovereign has exercised
such complete and limitless powers as he attributed to his sovereign. Absorption of such
power is certain to give rise to hindrance at one stage or the other.
2. Vaughan discards the theory as ‘Pernicious’ and ‘impossible’. It is malicious because it
leads to despotism pure and simple, it gives the subject no right to protect themselves
against unfair and tyrannical rule and lessens the whole heard slavery. It is difficult because
the single bond of combination between the members of Leviathan is common terror.
3. Hobbes grants rights or confrontation to the individual in extreme cases. According to
Prof. James the grant of these rights to the individual is unpredictable with the guideline of
absolute sovereignty.
4. The right of confrontation approved by Hobbes to the individual is nothing but capacity to
resist. Hobbes leaves the individual totally free to decide whether to submit sovereign or
resist. This can be possible only in a democratic government which Hobbes never
estimates.
5. Rousseau described Hobbes theory of sovereignty as both self-contradictory and
revolting.
In spite of these short comings in his theory of sovereignty we have to accept with
Sabine that his theory of sovereignty was the most revolutionary theory, at the time of its
beginning and was one of the most significant contribution to the political thought.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6
7.9 Hobbes Individualism and Absolutism:

Hobbes was considered as the individualist, the theory of absolute sovereignty was named
after him and this itself was and achievement by any individual in the political history.
Commenting on this Prof. Sabine said that, “Individualism is thoroughly modern element in
Hobbes and respect in which he caught most clearly the note of coming ages, Hobbes was
at once the complete utilitarian and a complete individualist. It is his clear cut individualism
which makes his philosophy the most revolutionary theory of his age”.
Hobbes in fact made a theory about absolutism, but the foundation of absolutism was based
on the peace and security of the person and property of the individual, which gives the
theory of Hobbes the touch of individualism. Hobbes gave prominent position to individual,
he gave the individual the right to fight the sovereign if it attacks his life, for whose protection
the contract was made. The centre of thought was individual, he thought that, if any
individual was not in proper check it would cause demolition and problems to the civil
society which leads to anarchy. Hobbes felt the necessity to check such happenings, need
of a supreme power and will have all powers to take act and stop from destruction of
individual. He believed that, Agreements without swords were but words, to make sure the
covenants were witnessed by the people, he gave absolute authority to sovereign.
He not only gave absolute powers to sovereign and ensured to prevent his use of selfish
ends. He gave power to make laws and rules by that he can understand what is just (fair)
and unjust (unfair) and what is good and bad. The laws were made for the benefit of
individual and subject to the judgment of individualism, by this way he prevented the right of
absolutism.
7.10 Estimate of Hobbes:

Since his publication of the book Leviathan, he became the debatable person and it would
be difficult to estimate Hobbes contributions on political thought. No giant has been abused
more by pigmies”. Though he was criticized but there were many who admired him.
Depending upon his works on political thought it becomes difficult to give fair estimation and
rate him.
Prof. Sabine described him as “probably the greatest writer on political philosophy that the
English speaking people have produced”. Prof. Dunning said that, “Hobbes’s works placed
him at once in the front rank of political thinker and his theory became, form the moment of
its appearance, the centre of animated controversy and enormous influence throughout the
west Europe”.
7.11 Shortcoming of Hobbes:

The shortcomings on political thought of Hobbes, were severely criticized by Vaughn. And
following defects were observed by him:
1 The gross materialism, atheism and despotism are under severe criticism and they failed
to address his contemporary and succeeding generations.
2 It was noticed that, the unexpected conversion of the individual from violent to the civilized
looks very illogical.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7
3 His principle found incorrect, he stressed that the sole bond of union among the
individuals was common terror.
4 His theory produces the despotism and individual is reduced to the position of salve with
no right to offer resistance to the sovereign.
5 He said that, used scientific method to his thoughts but the modern thinkers were unable
to apply them properly. They were unable to apply geometry with politics.
6 His philosophy was based on personal guesses and partialities. He was motivated to
defend the royal absolutism.
7.12 Conclusion:
He was born to an Anglican family, he had connections with great minds like Ben Jonson,
Bacon and Galileo, left a deep impression on his political thoughts. He was of the opinion
that man is an animal motivated by two considerations such as fear and self-interest, he is
convinced that, the basic need of the civilized society is the stable government and this
could be possible with an absolute monarch. He wrote books like De Cive, Leviathan, De
Corpore and De Homine. Hobbes used scientific methods to his political thought, he applied
it for the first time in Social sciences. On human nature he said that, he treated individual not
as a rational creature but a picture of passion, emotions and desires. On state of nature he
said that, all men are equal by nature in powers no one is strong as to be safe against each
other. Regarding social justice he said and tries to justify complete or tyrannical rule and
rejects all rights of resisting the state to the individual.
On sovereign the proposed theory produces the despotism and individual is reduced to the
position of salve with no right to offer resistance to the sovereign. He was criticised by many
writers one of the critique was, the gross materialism, atheism and despotism are under
severe criticism and they failed to address his contemporary and succeeding generations.
Another was, his philosophy was based on personal guesses and partialities. He was
motivated to defend the royal absolutism

1. Write about Hobbes early years and influences, works and methodology
2. Discuss about Hobbes on Human nature? And state nature?
3. Write the views of Hobbes on Sovereignty and Criticism?
7.14 References:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
Lesson- 08
THEORY OF PROPERTY, CONSENT AND GOVERNMENT: JOHN LOCKE
8.0 OBJECTIVES:
1. Students would be able to know about the John Locke’s early life and his political
thought.
2. People would be able to understand his theories on property consent and
Government.
Structure:
8.0 Objectives
8.1 Introduction
8.2 His Writings
8.3 Influences on Locke
8.4 Locke on Human Nature
8.5 Views on State of Nature
8.6 Views on Law of Nature
8.8 Views on State
8.9 Locke’s Theory of Property
8.9.1 Boarder Sense
8.9.2 Narrow Sense
8.10 Locke’s Consent and Government
8.11 Locke on Revolution
8.12 Locke as an Individualist
8.13 Conclusion
8.15 References
8.1 Introduction:
John Locke was born in 1632, in the family of a puritan Somerset Lawyer. He
got his initial education at West Minister and Oxford. After his accomplishment of
M.A. Degree he worked as tutor at Oxford. He did not like teaching and he gave up
to study Medicine. After two years of apprenticeship he was recognized as an
eminent medical practitioner. He came in contact with Lord Ashley and became his
personal physician and later considered as secretary. Locke’s close relation with
Lord Ashley, delivered him to meet with all great men of the times in politics, science
and letters. He also led a refuge life in Holland. During that time he met William of
Orange. In the wake of Bloodless Revolution of 1681, when William of Orange was
asked to occupy the throne of England, he also returned to England when King
James II was dethroned. He was appointed as Commissioner of Appeals, he died in
1704, and he was the contemporary of Hobbes and was witness to, restoration of
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
Charles II in 1660 and Bloodless Revolution of 1688 of which he became the

theorist.
8.2 His Writings:
He wrote 35 books which deals with different walks of life. The important
book which provides insight into his philosophy and political thought, are Essays
Concerning Human Understanding in 1690, his letters on toleration in 1689, 1690
and 1692, the treatises of government in 1690, fundamental constitution concerning
California, it was observed that his fourth letter on toleration and fundamental
constitution concerning California was published in 1706.
8.3 Influences on Locke:
He was influenced by number of contemporary thinkers like Earl of Shaftbury

(Lord Ashley) had boundless inspiration on him. This relationship gave him direct
experience of practical political thinking. He was also influenced by Glorious
Revolution which caused in the replacement of absolute monarchy by responsible
Government. He was educated from the revolution that men are “basically decent
orderly”. Social minded and quite capable of ruling themselves. He was influenced
by Filmen and Hobbes by their writings and philosophy. He was also inspired by
Sydney’s ‘Discourses Concerning Government’ published in 1683. In this book he
said that Government was formed by men for their own security and interest and it
breaks on the accord of the people. Locke offered these ideas more methodically
and offered a positive theory of state and government. He was also prominently
influenced by Hooker and borrowed the theory of consent and theory of contract.
8.4 Locke on Human Nature:

Locke did not express his views on human nature systematically, and his views
assembled from the Essay Concerning Human Understanding and the Second
Treatise, where he dispersed his views. He says that human beings are decent and
have been capable with natural social makeup, they love peace and do not quarrel
and are not selfish always. Locke considered all the human beings as equal in the
moral sense and enjoy definite natural rights like right to life, liberty, property. The
views of Locke are just opposite to the views of Hobbes, like Hobbes unable to give
any scientific reason for his views on human nature.
8.5 Views on State of Nature:

His views on state of nature are extension of his logical thought of human nature, he
did not considered the state of nature as the state of war of each against all, thinks
that it is a period of peace, good-will, mutual assistance, and preservation. He thinks
that state of nature is not pre-social but a pre-political condition. The state of nature
was not for the war but for peace.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3
8.6 Views on Law of Nature:

His concept on law of nature inhabits an important place in his thoughts, he asserted
that, it governs the life of men and civil society and refrain men from conquering
each other’s rights and the law of nature is observed, the execution of law depends
upon the community members. Every member has the right to punish those who is
an offender of natural law and maintain it properly.

He did not give any logical answer and said that, the deficits in the law of nature
make the man to leave the nature of state and get into the an agreement for the
formation of the state, the deficiencies are, lack of an established, settled and known
law, which can be understood by each individual by his way and lead to
misunderstanding. And the third, is lack of an executive organ which enforce a just
decision. This is a contract of each with all: it is a social contract by which every
individual decide to surrender to the community as a whole. The individual yields the
right to understand the law of nature for themselves. Unlike Hobbes who gave
absolute powers to sovereign ruler, Locke give only certain powers to community.
Locke asserted that, sovereign as a party to the contract and much confined by the
understanding of natural law as members. He was so persuaded that monarch hurt
from the touch of love and did not give absolute powers to monarch.
The other important feature of his contract is that it is undisputed, men have freedom
and independent in the state of nature, nobody can forced to join the politics against
his will. His contract is mainly based on approval of the people. The contract is
irrevocable, once the people enter the contract means they cannot reverse it except
by the government.
8.8 Views on State:

The views of Locke on state are quite different from that of Hobbes, Hobbes stated
that it, as a requirement to guard the life of individual and gave absolute powers to it.
Locke stated that, law of nature, to remove some suspicions and he gave different
way of thought to it.
1 He stated that state to have three types of powers such as, legislative, executive
and federative powers. He declares that the legislative powers are most vital and
elected it as “Supreme power of the Commonwealth”. Though he gave supreme
powers to legislature he did not give absolute powers. He stated that the relation
between community and government is lies with trust between each other. The
executive power which consist of judicial power, and very important for the
government to run and he gave subordinate position to it, he limited its power it
depends on the legislative power. He separated the powers of legislative and
executive powers. His apples for constitutional or limited government as against the
despotic or absolute rule.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4
2 He did not spare on the classification of government, divided it into three groups
like, monarchy, aristocracy and democracy. He suggested the democracy the best
government it gives good rule, and secures everything for the society.
3 He stated that state occurs for the people who constitute it.
4 He rest the state on the consensus of the people, the consent may be voiced or
implicit.
5 His state is made by the constitution and government take care of law, in case of
urgency he permits to use prerogative.
6 Locke did not gave absolute power to the state like Hobbes, he limited its authority
by number of factors, is controlled to the purpose for which it is formed. It is limited
by law of nature, the natural law of individual confine to government, government
cannot increase taxes without the permission of people.
7 His state acts on the principles of religious tolerance and divergent to all types of
religious harassment.
8 His state is mainly allotted negative functions, it merely concerned to stop the
violation of rights by the different members of the community.
9 As Wayper says about the Locke’s state is a transformer’s state, it transforms the
individual’ self -interest to public interest.
8.9 Locke’s Theory of Property:

It is imperative to note that he used the term ‘property’ in two intellects. In the broad
sense he suggests by it the right to life, liberty and estate. In the narrow sense he
uses it for the right to possess and retain one’s estate.
8.9.1 Boarder Sense:
In the broader sense Locke uses the term property to contain three natural
rights of life, liberty and property. At a number of places Locke states that, the
persons enter into contract and institute the state to reserve property. Here he is
evidently using the term in the broader sense of the three rights mentioned to above.
Thus, Locke foresees that property occurred in pre-civil society and the institution of
state was formed to preserve the right. It is not the state which makes the right to
property (Life, Liberty and Property) but is itself created to protect this right. The
state can guard the property of individual through explanation of law of nature
through application of this interpretation between the members of the society and
compulsory of this interpretation between the members of the society and
implementation of this right thorough use of its authority for resisting the violence.
8.9.2 Narrow Sense:
In the narrow sense he says that in the state of nature people obsessed
property in common and insignificant person originally had private property. As he
places it “property is without only express compact of all the commoners. The earth,
and all that is there in, is given to men for the support and comfort of their being.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5
And…. All the fruit it naturally produces and beasts it feeds, belong to mankind in
common, they are produced by the spontaneous and of nature and nobody has
originally a private dominion”. Locke says that, in addition to this external property
which is possessed in common by all the persons, every person has his private
property which cannot be taken away by anybody. The private property is a property
which a person crops by his labour or sweat. Locke clarifies this point thus, “every
man has property in his own person. Thus, nobody has any right to but himself.
The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say a property his. What
so ever, then he removes act of the state that hath provided and left it in, he hath
mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and these by makes
it his property. For this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourers,
no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to”. In short, Locke says
that, the individual’s property contains of only thing with which he has mixed his
labour. This labour theory of Locke finally became the foundation of modern
socialism. It may be distinguished that Locke does not recommend any limit for the
private property a person can own, except that he contends that he should not spoil
or destroy it. This concept of property however, imperfect in so far it can apply only
to a simple and agrarian society and does not appropriate in well with modern
difficult economic system.
Locke declares that, the right to property has established the support and
consent of the society in so far as it has occurred for such a long time. According to
Locke “property is legitimate because men who must live in its midst have consented
to its existence… Rousseau insists that accord must be a dynamic course, one
transformed each day in men’s lives, while Burke will asserted that, genuine consent
is found in the well-known customs, which men involuntarily improve over
generations and centuries. Further, Locke protects property through consent only
part of the way; he has also said that, property is authorized by God and earned by
men”.
Locke measured the institution of private property as an assurance for
individual liberties. He proclaimed that only those people have agonized under
tyrannies who did not own private property. According to Maxey “Guarantee every
man freedom of property and according to the Lockeian theory, there would be little
cause to worry about his other liberties. He would be amply able to take out for
himself”.
8.10 Locke’s Consent and Government:
Locke’s opinions on state are dissimilar from the views of Hobbes on state.
Hobbes preserved it as the need for the safety of life of the individuals, and allotted it
absolute powers, but Locke says that, it is created only to eradicate definite
inconveniences of the law of nature, he allotted it a different role. His assessments
on Government are as follows.
1. He accepts that State/Government is poised of three powers like Legislative,
Executive and Federative. He considers the Legislative power as the most
important one and entitles it as “the supreme power of the Common Wealth”. He
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6
gives highest power to the legislature but does not implant it absolute powers. Its
power is limited by the acts of the community and the people can restrain its power if
it acts opposing to the trust rested on it. Though normally, the community does not
proclaim itself but if the legislative power break the rules, the community asserts its
authority. Locke pronounces the association between the community and
Government as a belief with a view to stress the subordinate position of the
government to the community. In this way, says Prof. Vaughan “Locke makes very
fair provision not only for popular control of government -but also–what is at more
important for progressive extension of that control as experience may dictate”.
The executive power, which also comprises the judicial authority, though
pretty vital to the operation of the government is rendered a subordinate position to
the legislature by Locke. He allots it the duty of imposing the law of nature and the
statutes made by the legislative wing and permits it to execute necessary penalties
in accordance with the laws. Locke confines the power of executive wing by making
it reliant on the legislator. The third power of state is selected by Locke as federative
power, which comprises of the duty to guard the interest of the community and
single citizens in relation to other communities and citizens. It also comprises state’s
external affairs. It may be noted that while, Locke asserts on the need of separation
between the executive and legislative purpose, he does not contend on the
separation of the executive and the federative powers. Another point which
deserves attention is that Locke considers the Legislative branch as highest
because it is representation of the majority and can act as eventual guardian of
those natural rights, for whose security the original contract was made. In this way
Locke becomes the philosopher of Parliament Government. However, he is not
willing to give it absolute or arbitrary and places abundant limitations on its authority.
By which, power can be workout for the purpose for which it was established and it
can also exercise power over jurisdiction committed to the government by the
community. It cannot makes laws opposing to the laws of nature, and it cannot
withdraw the people of their property without their consent, and cannot accept power
to rule through astonishing decrees. Hence, he made a strong plea for constitutional
or government as against despotic or absolute rule.
Secondly, Locke does not dedicate much consideration to the classification of
government and simply dedicates a short chapter to this problem. This was perhaps
due to the fact that he was more interested in the principles of government rather
than institution. Like, Aristotelian custom Locke divided the governments into three
categories like, monarchy, aristocracy and democracy depending upon the number
of persons exercising Legislative powers. Thus, it the legislative authority is
exercised by one man, it is monarchy. On the other hand if the Legislative power is
vested in few selected persons and their heirs the government is aristocracy. But if
the community retains the Legislative power in its own hands and merely appoints a
few officers to execute these land, the government is democracy. Locke well
thought-out democracy as the best government because it delivers suitable
protections of a good rule and best sources the observance of the principle consent.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7
Thirdly, Locke holds that the state survives for the people who constitute it
takes a purely mechanical view of the state and asserts it is “an artifice which is
created and it continues to exist, for the better living of the individuals”.
Fourthly, the state according to Locke rests on the consent of the people. As
already pointed out this consent may be expressed or implied. He said that people
follow the state because they have given their accord to be ruled by it at the time of
original conduct. This implies principles of majority rule.
Fifthly, Locke’s state is a constitutional state in which government moves on
according to law.
Sixthly, Locke’s state is not like Hobbes absolute one, on the other hand its
authority is limited by a number of factors. In the first instance it is limited by the
purpose for which it was formed. If it fails to achieve objective, the people shade
over through it. Secondly, it is limited by the law of nature. If it performs centrally to
the laws of nature it shall lose its legitimacy. Thirdly, the natural rights of the
individual also confine the authority of the state. Fourthly the government cannot
raise taxes without the consent of the people either direct or indirect.
Seventhly, Locke’s state functions on the principle of religious tolerance and
is disparate to all type of religious persecution. He wants the state to neutral in the
religious matters.
Eighthly, Locke’s state is allotted purely negative functions. It simply worried
with the hindrance of violation of right by the several members of the community and
protection against external aggression.
Finally, as Wayper says, Locke’s state is a transformer’s state. It transforms
the individual’s self- interest into public good.
8.11 Locke on Revolution:
Locke as one of the great defender of the Magnificent Revolutions, he justified the
right of the people to revolt against the sovereign. He opined that, the trust of the
people is government and is set up to fulfill the objectives, if it fails to reach those
objectives, the people has the right to revolt against to change it, likely if the
government transgresses (misbehaves) and violates basic rights which the people
have the right to revolt. The supreme power remains in the people, can remove or
alter legislative., he also said that, “Government is dissolved when the legislature so
transformed as to bring the law making power into the hands of other than those to
which it was entrusted by the community and its organisation or when either
legislature or executive acts contrary to its truths”.
How to judge that, government has betrayed the confidence of the people or not, he
gives explanation by saying it has to be decided by the society and decision as a
whole is final and unquestionable. The views of Locke on the rights of people to
revolt against the government, he did not frame theory of government but a theory of
rebellion. Locke further said that, the right of revolt against government, is lies only
with majority and minority has no right to revolt against the government. The
revolution is acceptable only when a change is required and operative in the
legislative power or the trust, which the people reposed in the sovereign is
dishonored. The revolution is justified only when the change is very operative in the
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8
legislative power. Prof. Sabine says, “Any invasion of the life, liberty or property of
subjects is ipso facto void, and a legislature which attempts these rights forfeits its
power”. Hence, Locke put it: when the legislature, or the prince, either of them act
contrary to their trust, by breach of trust they forfeit the power of the people had put
into their hands for quit contrary ends, and it devolves to the people, who have a
right to resume their original liberty, and by the establishment of a new legislature,
provided for their own safety and security, which is the end for which they are in the
society’.
8.12 Locke as an Individualist:

Locke with his writing he expressed that he was systematic individualist.
1 He accords an essential place to innate and natural rights in his scheme and
stated that the natural right of life, liberty and poverty belonging to individual due to
his personality, he said that natural rights are vital to the state.
2 For the protection, natural rights and for happiness of individual the state is
formed, he wanted the powers to be given to all men without any distinction.
3 The Locke’s government is mainly depended upon the consent of people in the
state, he asserts that the government based on consent of people is legitimate.
4 He gave state only the negative functions, it obstructs only when the rights of
individual are in danger. Or else, individual is free to follow his moral, material and
intellectual quests.
5 His views on Property makes him as a total individualist. He says that property
owned in common becomes private property of an individual after he blends with
labour, which gives individuality to common object.
6 He gave important position to the law of nature and stressed that the state law
must confirm it.
7 He expressed his strong individualist unfair views on revolution, he gave
permission to individual to revolt against the state, if it crosses limit or fails to carry
out its obligation.
8 His theory of philosophy starts with his faith in the pleasure and faith theory and is
an important point in his individualism.
9 He advocates division of power because he believes that it is necessary to have
this power to preserve the rights of individual freedom.
8.13 Conclusion:
John Locke born in 1632, after his degree in M.A, he worked as tutor and later gave
up and joined in Medicine, and become medical practitioner, he was associated with
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9
Lord Ashley he was the physician of Ashley. He wrote number of book around 35,
some of them provide his insight into philosophy and political thought. He was
influenced by contemporary thinkers of his time. He did not express his views on
human nature systematically, had to assemble his ideas from different works of him.
His views on human nature, humans are basically decent have social instinct. His
views on state of nature, thinks that it is pre-political rather than pre-social. His views
on social contracts, , the deficits in the law of nature make the man to leave the
nature of state and get into the an agreement for the formation of the state, the
deficiencies are, lack of an established, settled and known law, which can be
understood by each individual by his way and lead to misunderstanding.
His views on State, the views of Locke on state are quite different from that of
Hobbes, Hobbes stated that it as a requirement to guard the life of individual and
gave absolute powers to it. Locke stated that, law of nature, to remove some
suspicions and he gave different way of thought to it.
His views on Revolution are, Locke as one of the great defender of the Magnificent
Revolutions, he justified the right of the people to revolt against the sovereign. He
opined that, the trust of the people is government and is set up to fulfill the
objectives, if it fails to reach those objectives, the people has the right to revolt
against to change it, likely if the government transgresses (misbehaves) and violates
basic rights which the people have the right to revolt. Locke’s Individualist views are,
Locke with his writing he expressed that he was systematic individualist. He accords
an essential place to innate and natural rights in his scheme and stated that the
natural right of life.

1. Write about Locke’s early life and his influences?
2. Describe about Locke’s theory of property?
3. Describe about Locke’s consent and government?
8.15 References:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
Lesson-09
POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY: ROUSSEAU
9.0 Objectives:
1. Students would be able to know about the early life of Rousseau

2. Students would be able to describe about Rousseau’s popular Sovereignty.
Structure:
9.0 Objectives
9.1 Introduction
9.2 Influences on Rousseau
9.3 Views on Human Nature
9.4 Views on State of Nature
9.5 Views on Social Contract
9.6 Views on General Will
9.6.1 Characteristics of General Will
9.6.2 Critiques on the Theory of General Will
9.7 Views on Popular Sovereignty
9.8 Conclusion
9.9 Model Questions
9.10 References
9.1 Introduction:
Rousseau was born in Geneva, in the year 1712, in a middle class French family.
His mother died while giving him birth and the burden of rearing the child fell on his father.
His father being unbalanced man he could not give appropriate devotion to the education of
Rousseau. His father flown from Geneva and the 10 year old Rousseau delegated under
the care of his uncle. At the age of sixteen he left his home and took to life of wanderer.
Thus, unlike Hobbes and Locke he could neither receive proper education nor find a
supporter. He led a life of poverty and deprivation.
Rousseau made his mark in political though in 1749, when he wrote an essay “Has
the Progress of Sciences and the Arts helped to Purify corrupt morals” for the Dijon
Academy which not only won him the first prize, but also made him well known in the literary
circles of Paris. After five years he wrote “Discourse on the Origin and Foundation of
Inequality”, in which he relentlessly criticized the institution of private property and held it
accountable for the inequality in the society. The other imperative works of Rousseau
include an article on political economy which he contributed to the French Encyclopedia in
1755; The social contract or the principles of political rights published in 1762, La Nouvelle
Heloise published in 1761; the Emile (a treatise on education) published in 1762; The
confession, Dialogues and Reveries. The last three books were produced during the period
1762 and 1778. It may be witnessed that he was a widely held writer in his own times as
well as in the later years. His writings has great mass appeal because he stood for the
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
abolition of rights for the privileged classes and favoured their extension to the middle and
lower middle classes.
9.2 Influences on Rousseau:
The political thought of Rousseau reflects the influence of prevalent surroundings as

well as the innumerable political philosophers who had headed him because of the hard life
he had led he could well raise the value of the problems and difficulties of ordinary men and
developed a philosophy to suit them. Maxey told, that “Lowly origin and his humble,
mendicant of way of life” was a source of his power. “He was not merely the people’s
advocate, he was bone of their bone and flesh of their flesh”. His long relationship with
Geneva was responsible for his love for democracy and democratic institutions. Among the
political philosophies, he was intensely influenced by Plato, Locke, Montesquieu, Hobbes
etc.
He was appreciative to Plato for basic ideas, like political subjection, basically ethical
and that the community is itself the chief moralizing intervention and hence embodies the
uppermost moral order and value. The main moulding influences on him through Locke.
He was very much influenced by Locke’s concept of natural rights, the Sovereignty of
community theory of consent etc. Rousseau started with the some principles as Locke did,
but he reached at dissimilar conclusions. He tried some of the irregularities and
abnormalities, present in the thought of Locke. Rousseau’s teachings only an expansion of
the network excavated by Locke.
9.3 Views on Human Nature:

According to Rousseau man is basically good and his wrong actions makes him wicked, he
stated that man is governed by two instincts, self-love and mutual aid or sympathy, man
prefers to attend his own presentations; his first cares are those which he be obligated
himself. His second instinct is less important but is important and encourages us to do more
good than harm. He says that, when self -interest goes off track it gives rise to pride; and his
pride is the cause for the evils. If get rid of this pride and ends all evaluations with other men
we reach our goal. Wright says that, “we can renounce a lot of imaginary desires and hold
fast to the true things, needful cast away a world of illusion and discord our own self. We
can be meek, and inherit our soul. In a word, we can return to nature. This is all the famous
phrases means”.
9.4 Views on State of Nature:

His views on state of nature are quite different from Hobbes and Locke, in his state he said
that all men are equal and lived peaceful life and the property had the joint ownership,
people led simple life. They were not in organized structure even though they lived in peace
atmosphere, they led solitary, happy, free and independent life, no law and morality were
existed. These institutions understood the reality of reason and could not exist due to its
noticeable absence.
The instinct of the social activities forced man to give up their solitary life and to start to live
in groups. According to Rousseau, “The first man, having enclosed a piece of ground, he
thought himself of saying ‘This is mine’ and found other people simple enough to believe
him, was the first real founder of the society”. He stressed the need not to have private
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3
property because “the scrambled for the land and other private property resulted in war,
murder, wretchedness and horror. The capacity of individuals to own and produce being
different there came into existence inequality in every sphere of life”. Rousseau visualized
two stages of the status of state such as, pre-property state and post property state. The
pre-property state of nature considered as an ideal state and the post property state as
wretched.

Rousseau’s thoughts were same like that of Hobbes and Locke, he thought that, entering
into social contract was to get out of shameful and intolerable conditions of the post property
stage. The finalized contract of him, “Each of us puts his person and all his power in
common under the supreme direction of the general will, we receive each individual as part
of whole. At once in place of the individual personality of each contracting party, this many
members as Assembly contains votes and receiving from his act and unity, its common
identity, its life and its will. Yet each person in the state, possessing equal and inalienable
position of the sovereignty of the whole, gains back under state protection the rights he has
given up”. Consequently he combines individual in the state and made a political society
which is based on the agreement of all the members. The contract was dual sided, his
individual as a part of sovereign, was guaranteed to other individuals and as part of the state
he was assured to sovereign.
9.6 Views on General Will:

Rousseau encouraged the theory of General Will, he pronounced that it is the most
revolutionary, unique striking and influential doctrine. The main problem with his theory was
“to find a form of association which will defend and protect with that whole common force the
person and goods of each associate, and in which each, while uniting with all, may still obey
himself alone, and remains as free as before”. To make this association possible every
individual puts himself and his power together under the supreme direction of General Will.
The result of this act to form association a moral, combined unit having its own identity, life
and will is created, he defines it as General.
Before understanding his concept of General Will, one has to understand the difference
between actual will and real will. He asserted that, actual will is based on selfish, irrational
and thought of the good of individual alone, without caring for the society and the real will is,
higher, nobler, and supreme, which encourages the person to think of welfare of all not his
own interest. It is more social than anti-social, collective and personal, it is for the individual
as well as the society. It is mainly based on reasons and it is not temporary but it is
permanent. Hence, his General Will consists of sum of ‘real wills’ of the individuals which are
based on the reasons and forethought of every person.
Rousseau differentiated General Will from the Will of all, he says that it is a majority will and
considers only for few people, where as General Will is for the communities good. The main
difference of these two wills are explained by him “There is often a considerable difference
General Will and Will of all, the former aims at the common interest, the latter aims at private
interest and is these wills is only a sum of particular wills. But if we take away from the
various particular interests which conflict each other, what remains as the sum of difference
is General Will”.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4
9.6.1 Characteristics of General Will:
Rousseau’s General Will have some of the interesting attributes they are as follow:
1 Like personality of a person cannot be divided, it also cannot be divided. If it is divided it

ceases General Will and becomes sectional will
2 It cannot be represented by anyone, like the human will
3 No one can break the rules of General Will, whosoever refused to obey shall be compelled
to do so by whole body…he will be forced to free.
4 It is a single unit and cannot withdrawn, to alienated it equivalent to its death
5 He believed through General Will as direct democracy and it cannot be representable.
6 General will is at all times correct it always talks about the good of community, though we
are unable to see it. It is based on reason, wisdom and experience and could not be
influenced by present times.
9.6.2 Critiques on the Theory of General Will:
His theory has been criticised for the following defects
1 The concept of Will is quite unclear and puzzling, he uses the term general will at different
senses at different places, he recognizes it, as good for all and at the same time he talks
that it is the will of majority, at the same time he equates it with wise legislature.
2 He says that his Will is different from others, it is not possible to draw a line between the
two.
3 He tries to divide individual into two parts like essential and non- essential. The essential
is rational and the other is selfish, but the individual’s will is corporate and it is not possible
to divide it into two parts.
4 He asserts that General Will coincides with justice, by this he makes the thing more
difficult, it not possible to reunite two concepts of General Will and Justice.
5 He flagged the way for the rise of dictatorship by giving all powers to his General Will. It
gives enough time for individuals or groups to promote his own interests.
6 His General Will gave the position of super entity to the state different form its organic
elements, the individuals
7 Rousseau says that through General will only liberty of an individual possible, if any one
against to the will he will be forced to imprisonment or death, it is very difficult to understand
how both liberty and force can be together.
8 He says that General will is representable, and it implies direct existence of direct
democracy. It cannot be applied in modern days
9 It expects too much from human nature, it is well known that men are selfish.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5
10 He did not mentioned how to put it in real practice though he made several suggestions
to his will.
11 His theory can be considered as contrary to the theory of social contract.
It is fact that, his theory of General Will suffers from many paradoxes and short comings, but
it has been observed as the most philosophical contribution to the political thought.
9.7 Views on Popular Sovereignty:

While formulating the contract he vested the sovereignty not in any single person or
group of individuals but in the community as a whole, through the medium of the general
will. Thus, he gives the impression that, he believes in the Sovereignty of the people. But a
deeper study of his writings shows that, he merely gave the appearance of popular
government, but in reality he gives absolute powers to the ruler. He says “whoever refuses
to obey the general will, shall be compelled to do so by the whole body”. Thus, he vested
the General will with absolute powers. He with a view to import popular character to the
sovereign he asset that the general will is always right and tends always to the public
advantage”. As the general will is operates to the general welfare, people are morally
committed to carry out its verdict. Legally also people are expected to render free
obedience to the general will at the time of contract they surrendered all their rights to the
general will without any condition. He argues that, “as nature gives to everyman an
absolute power over all its members, the social pact gives to everyman an absolute power
over all its members”. In short, in his scheme there are no limitation on the authority of the
sovereign general will.
Thus, the sovereign of Rousseau is as absolute and the sovereign of Hobbes with
the only difference that while Hobbes confers all the powers in a single person, Rousseau
vests the sovereign power in the community or the General Will. However, the sovereigns in
both the cases are vested with absolute powers and their authority cannot be defined under
any circumstances. It is in this sense that it has said that “Rousseau’s sovereign is Hobbes
Leviathan with its head chopped off”.
Sovereignty could be assumed the entire power of the state, the total force belonging to the
political association as such, might and power of the political community. This is the field by
which the early protectors of popular sovereignty had fought many battles, and by which the
organic theory again conducted war. The political power of the state, they held, must be
generated by the people as a whole, and not individual and the state is for the people’s
welfare only. The sovereignty means neither international independence, nor the whole
power to the state, but have the relation between the ruling structure in the state and the
other members, the relation of the king.
Sovereignty is a definite mark of the State, which is an essential and vital quality. There
could be any State which is not a sovereign State. This idea is highlighted from the earlier
years of the century to the starting of the trouble. Ancillon said that the “essence of every
political association consisted in the sovereignty.” Waitz held that “every true State must be
a sovereign State;” Held maintained that sovereignty denotes the specific, free, independent
essence of a State. The important feature of the State is that, it differentiated from all other
associations. Sovereignty, then, in this sense, of the whole force of the political association,
can be treated as a unit.
Rousseau says, “Whoever refuses to obey the General Will, shall be compelled to do so by
the whole body”. By this he gave absolute powers to General Will. Nevertheless, with a view
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6
to impart popular character to sovereign, he says that General Will every time right and
every time likely to be the advantage of the public. About the legal aspects he says that all
the people are supposed to render their obedience to the General Will because at the time
of contract they surrendered their rights to the General Will without any condition.
9.8 Conclusion:
Jean Rousseau, was born at Geneva in 1712 in French middle class family, he wrote many
books on political thought, but he became prominent personality in 1749, when he wrote
“Has the progress of the sciences and the Arts helped to purify corrupt morals”. He was
influenced by political philosophers like, Plato, Locke and Hobbes.
On human nature he said that, man is basically good and his wrong actions makes him
wicked, he stated that man is governed by two instincts, self-love and mutual aid or
sympathy, man prefers to attend his own presentations; his first cares are those which he be
obligated himself.
On state of nature he said that, all men are equal and lived peaceful life and the property
had the joint ownership, people led simple life. They were not in organized structure even
though they lived in peace atmosphere, they led solitary, happy, free and independent life,
and no law and morality were existed. These institutions understood the reality of reason
and could not exist due to its noticeable absence. About the social contract he said that,
“Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the
general will, we receive each individual as part of whole.
On General Will he said that, it is the most revolutionary, unique striking and influential
doctrine. The main problem with his theory was “to find a form of association which will
defend and protect with that whole common force the person and goods of each associate,
and in which each, while uniting with all, may still obey himself alone, and remains as free
as before”. To make this association possible every individual puts himself and his power
together under the supreme direction of General Will. The result of this act to form
association a moral, combined unit having its own identity, life and will is created, he defines
it as General.

1. Write about the early life of J.J. Rousseau and his influence?
2. Describe about Rousseau’s popular sovereignty?
3. Describe about Rousseau’s Social Contract?
9.10 References:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
Lesson-10
ETHICS AND POLITICS: IMMANUEL KANT
10.0 Objectives:
1. Students would be able to know about idealistic theory of Immanuel Kant

2. Students would be able to learn about Immanuel Kant’s views.
Structure:
10.0 Objectives
10.1 Introduction
10.2 Thinkers of Idealism
10.3 Immanuel Kant
10.4 Ethics and Politics
10.5 Importance of Individual
10.6 Kant Views on Social Contract
10.7 Kant Views on Rights and Duties
10.8 Kant Views on Sphere of State Activity
10.9 Kant on Right to Revolution
10.10 Kant Views on Forms of Government
10.11 Kant Views on World Peace
10.12 Kant Views on Property
10.13 Critiques on Immanuel Kant
10.14 Conclusion
10.16 References
10.1Introduction:
The idealist theory also recognized as philosophical, metaphysical and absolute

theory, which design as a reaction against the useful philosophy which had condensed the
state simply to accumulative of individuals who were after in search of pleasure and
avoiding pains both in their individual as well as collective capacity. As Barker said that,
“the man began to feel the need of a more scientific explanation of the facts, and a more
scientific attempt to cure the defects of social life”. They figured up ethical theory which
starts with moral nature of man and anticipates state as an ethical institution for the welfare
of its citizens. They looked upon law as manifestation of pure cause and declared that good
life for a man comprises in his performance of his proper duties in the life of the community.
The basis of idealist theory was outlined by the scholars in the philosophy of Plato
and Aristotle, who labeled states as an ethical institution and a partnership in the life of
virtue. Aristotle says “The state comes into being for the sake of mere life; it continues to
exist for the sake of good life”. In the modern times the theory can be noted in the writings of
Rousseau as collectivist theory of the state and conceived state as a moral organism. The
General thinkers like Kant, Fichte, Von Humboldt and Hegel elaborated the theory idealist.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
They were greatly influenced by the idea of Rousseau. Bosanquet and Green English
idealists developed this philosophy later.
10.2 Thinkers of Idealism:
These thinkers chiefly from German and England and they are professors from
Universities. During the second half of 18th century, the idealist thinkers from Germany arose
as a reaction against the materialistic rationalism of the enlightment. Immanuel Kant
contributed the lead in this regard. Who often labelled him as “father of idealist school of
thought” but some consider this claim rightfully belongs to Withelm Friedrich Hegel.
In England idealist philosophy arose because of response against the self-satisfied
and a materialistic individualism of the utilitarians. Some of the eminent English idealist
thinkers were Carlyle, Green, Bosanquet, Bradly etc. The idealist thinkers fall into two
categories. The first category led by Hegel comprised of extremists. They challenged the
state and treated it as an end rather than means. They accredited to the state qualities of
omnipotence, dependability and an independent will and personality. The second category
was led by T.H. Green Consisted of moderates who wanted the state to execute only
negative functions like, to remove obstacles in the way of development of individual’s
personality.
10.3 Immanuel Kant:
He is considered as the father of the idealist thought, was born in a middle class
family at Konigsberg in Germany in 1724. His mother left a profound effect on him and she
was very religious lady. After completing his studies he joined as instructor first, later he
became the professor at the University of Konigsberg. He was greatly influenced by
Rousseau and Montesquieu. He was very much fascinated by Rousseau and studied Emile
with excessive devotion. He kept a bust of this great philosopher in his study room with
great respect. He accepts Rousseau’s impact on him and said that, “Rousseau set me
right…. I learnt to respect human nature, and I should consider myself for mere useless than
the ordinary working man if I did not believe that this view could give worth to all others to
establish the right man”.
About the influence of Montesquieu and Rousseau on Kant, Dunning says “His
(Kant’s) Doctrine as to the basis and the nature of the state is purely Rousseau’s put into the
grab of Kantian terminology, his analysis of the government follows Montesquieu in the like
manner”.
The most important works in which he articulated his ideas which includes, the
Critique of Pure Reason in 1781; The Critique of Practical Reason in 1788; Perpetual
Peace in 1795; The Principles of Political Rights in 1796, and First Metaphysical Principles
of the Theory of Law in 1796. It may be well-known that, Kant exhibited more interest in
analysis of the fundamental concepts than questions of practical politics.
10.4 Ethics and Politics:
The Kant’s understanding a tendency to conflate virtue and right to read Kant’s
ethics as moral theory in which we co-legislate virtue, and to read Kant’s political philosophy
as one, in which we co-legislate principles of justice. Contrary to this, scholars have claimed
that Kant’s ethics is an ethics of self–legislation, and that his theory of right is a theory of
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3
external legislation. More precisely, are subject to the demands of justice, others lawfully
mark upon us whether or not we approve with these demands. Accord and co-legislation
are immaterial in Kant’s political morality. Political obligation is unconditional, we cannot
form political obligation by mutual agreement. We are under obligations of justice
concerning one another.
Kant’s political morality is of external legislation. This is specified by the removal of
reference to ‘maxims’ from the universal principle of right. A morally good saying
reproduces an agent’s internal resolve to act in agreement with the necessities of duty. A
person so acts, independently and self-ruling person is a person who possesses inner
freedom. Kant’s political philosophy by contrast, is worried with morality of outer freedom;
more specially, with mutual salutation of one another’s valid prerogatives of freedom of
choice and action. According to universal principle of right, any action is right if it can co-
exist with everyone’s freedom in agreement with universal law, or if on its maxim the
freedom of choice of each can coincide with everyone’s freedom in harmony with a universal
law.
The relation between the communities can be said or termed as politics, and the pact
among the political bodies can be defined as peace and it is utmost needed among the
political activities and bodies. Peace presents a severe problem of representation, we have
to depend other approaches to deal to get the political good like aesthetics, ethics and
religion. These modes can gives itself the creation of political objects.
Ethics helps to exemplify our need for political way and relation in individual human beings.
Political leaders grip out to citizens the hope of a strong nation, or of obvious political
destiny, but we see them in ethical terms as courageous, honorable, and loving (or in
aesthetic terms as charismatic, graceful, and handsome). Factually, communities have been
unite to link political organizations, whereas our leaders shake hands, embrace, kiss, and
exchange smiles to much fanfare. Ethics comes to liberate and repair the slit in our thoughts
of politics. For friendship an ethical image, even though strongly combined into the custom
of political science.
The performance of assigning the best conceivable purpose to others is respected because
it withstands admiration and self-respect and makes conceivable moral perfection. In the
act of approving caring, respecting others, even their faults and mistakes, it turn out to be
possible for them to endeavor for their better characters. No one can trusts that these
activities of respect are morally required, and admits that care ethics like deontological
ethics speaks of obligation. This obligation to assess others’ actions in the best conceivable
way of concerning and gentle for them and promotion of such action would lead the moral
enhancement of others. This compulsion is not exceptional to care ethics; Kant shares the
view that there is a need for ethical necessity to esteem others and overseeing their errors
and mistakes. These actions would create potential moral development. Kant’s ethics, just
like Noddings’ care ethics, reflects our obligation to assign the best thinkable motivations to
others. For both, this action follows from our respect for others and it functions to make
possible the moral improvement of others, Kant’s ethics is rational.
Kant makes a vital improvement in accepting of the parameters of political representation

when he notices the incapability of individuals to realize freedom. It is factual that he defines
this limitation as a problem of thought rather than imagination: that is, since reasoning
cannot relate to metaphysical objects such as freedom in its own terms, it requires a leap of
faith via the imagination to conceptualize a mode of relation beyond itself. But if alike
restriction stand up in the case of political imagination, if individual held flops to deliver an
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4
objective representation of community, this would mean that Kant's remarks about liberty—
which is after all the concept stimulating in his philosophy with bearing the weight of
individualism comparative to the necessities of social presence are in fact a admission that
human beings cannot imagine the political relation at all.
The thoughts of ethical goodness would seem to be further difficult, the ethical good objects
at the representation of a person in whom we imagine character. He explains that ethics
needs aesthetics of morals to make it reachable to human understanding. The artistic part of
ethics lies specifically in the enormous gap between our accepting of what character is and
our capability to complete the approved actions that will build or isometrics it.
Kant secondary feeling to object, he asserted that only acts done out of duty to carefully
logical principle are morally well-intentioned. Love, feeling, and character are all imaginary
by Kant to be unreliable. An ethic of care upsets this importance. The favored state is
natural caring; ethical caring is raised to bring back it. This reversal of priority is one great
difference between Kant’s ethics and an ethic of care. Another difference is attached in
feminist viewpoints, an ethic of care is methodically interactive…A relational understanding
of caring drives us to look not only at moral agents but also at the receivers of their acts and
the conditions under which the parties interact.
10.5 Importance of Individual:

Kant devoted great significance to the prominence to the individual in his political
thought and declared that an individual was an end in himself and should not be treated as a
means to an end. The individual should not aim at specific compensations or satisfactions
but at those ends which are of universal application. He should have thirst for individual
freedom and equality and should not ready to sacrifice them at the altar of the state. He
was in favour of subordination of the individual liberty infavour of the greater requirements of
the society.
10.6 Kant Views on Social Contract:
Kant at no time used it to elucidate the basis of the state but acknowledged the
concept of social contract. He used social contact to show the requisite nature of
relationship between the government and the people. He pronounces by the contract
“surrender their eternal freedom in order to receive it immediately back again as members of
a common wealth”.
10.7 Kant Views on Rights and Duties:
Kant provided great importance on the rights and duties of individuals. He defined
right as “the limitation of the freedom of any individual to the extent of its agreement with the
freedom of all other individuals in so far as this is possible by a universal law”. Rights are
formed by the state and the only original right have its place to every man in virtue of his
humanity is freedom. To him duties of the state are more important than rights.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5
10.8 Kant Views on Sphere of State Activity:
As an individualist, Kant did not favour allowance of widespread powers to the state.
He did not deliberate it, duty of the state to indorse moral freedom and wanted the state
purely to hinder the hindrances of freedom and to launch social condition of “outward order
in which truly moral acts may gradually evolve a kingdom of Humanity”.
10.9 Kant on Right to Revolution:
Kant does not admit to the individual the right to rebellion against the state because
the being of the state was essential for the normal growth of the individual takeover and
implementation of the sovereign was sin for which men could not be excused in this or the
next world.
10.10 Kant Views on Forms of Government:
Kant foresaw three forms of states like autocracy, aristocracy and democracy and
two forms of governments like Republican and Despotic. He thought that only representative
form government was rational. According to him the king, the dignity of the elected deputies
could act as representatives. He separated tasks of the state on the customary pattern as
Legislative, Executive and Judicial and he considered that for satisfaction of freedom are
need to have legislative and executive functions.
10.11 Kant Views on World Peace:
Kant was an inordinate promoter of universal peace. He said that states like men,
are quarrelsome and jealous by nature. They fight for the expansion of boundaries. Even
during times of peace, they make arrangements for defense which was as troublesome and
damaging of internal welfare as war itself. According to Kant the republican states are more
favorable to world peace because the governments rest on, the will of the people and can
wage war only with their consent. He said that existence of popular sovereignty in the midst
of the family of states is dynamic for world peace because in its absenteeism the nations
could make their own pronouncements on peace or war and can jeopardize the world
peace. Kant’s idea of world peace was not grounded upon Christian love but upon law.
10.12 Kant Views on Property:
Kant measured the institution of private property is important for the development of
individual. However, he was not willing to admit the right to property as a natural right.
According to him the individual derivative this right from the society, this right was not
complete in the sense that individual could obtain anything and everything. The individual
has to exercise this right keeping into his mind the interests of his neighbours.
10.13 Critiques on Immanuel Kant:

The philosophers of political science have found many contradictions in the political thought
of Kant and have been criticized for those reasons.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6
1 They have found contradiction in the ideal put forward by him is immaterial and lacking of
any content of reference.
2 His concepts of rights and duties are just abstracts and they looks impractical to apply in
politics
3 When he debates about freedom it is not clear whether he is considering freedom in the
ordinary sense of ‘being left alone’ or in higher sense by only if occasion for the
development of man’s higher faculties.
4 On authority to legislate the laws he is unable to give a clear picture, one side he says
people are decisive legislatures and on the other he gives this power to the ruler and
declares that ruler is above the actual control of laws.
5 On social theory he is unable to give a clear thought whether to accept or to reject this
idea.
10.14 Conclusion:
Immanuel Kant was born in 1724, in a middle class family. After completing his studies he
joined as instructor later became Professor. He was greatly influenced by Montesquieu and
Rousseau. Kant also acknowledges Rousseau’s impact on him. He wrote many books on
idealist thinking, perpetual Peace, The critiques of pure reason, The principles of Political
Rights etc., He gave real importance to the individual in his thought, he said that, an
individual is an end in himself, and must not treat him as mean to an end. On social contract
he tried to shoe the binding nature of relationship between government and people. On
property he said that, institution of private property is essential for the development of an
individual, he is not willing to accept the right to property as natural right.
The philosophers of political science have found many contradictions in the political thought
of Kant and have been criticised for those reasons.
They have found contradiction in the ideal put forward by him is immaterial and lacking of
any content of reference. His concepts of rights and duties are just abstracts and they looks
impractical to apply in politics.
Inspite of these shortcomings found in Kant’s political thought, no one can disagree that he
made invaluable contributions to the idealist thought and has been treated as the fore-
runner of the school of philosophy.
1. Write a detail notes about the early life of Immanuel Kant and his works?
2. Write about idealist theory and its origin?
3. Write about Immanuel Kant’s Ethics and Politics?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7
10.16 References:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
Lesson-11
STATE AND CIVIL SOCIETY- HEGEL

11.0 Objectives:
1. Students would be able to learn about the early life of Hegel.
2. Students would be able to understand his political thinking.
3. Students would be able to know about state and civil society.
Structure
11.0 Objectives
11.1 Introduction
11.2 Influences on Hegel
11.3 Hegel Views on Human Nature
11.4 The Nature and Ethics of Civil Society
11.5 Civil Society
11.6 Need of a System
11.7 Administration of Justice
11.8 Hegel Views on State
11.9 Government Agencies and Private Corporations
11.10 Freedom Views of Hegel
11.11 Hegel Views on Constitution
11.12 Hegel Views on War
11.13 Conclusion
11.15 References
.
11.1 Introduction:
George Withelm Friedrich Hegel was born in 1770, at Wurttemberg in Germany. His
father was a civil servant, the ruler of Wurttemberg. He joined the University of Tubingen
after his initial education, but had to leave the same because he was stated ‘deficient in
philosophy’. He worked as private tutor then as lecturer at Jena University, Head Master in
Nuremberg. After that he became the professor of philosophy in Heidelberg. It was here he
produced Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences which controlled the fullest behavior
of his general Philosophical System. From Heidelberg he was shifted to Berlin University,
where he stayed till his last breath. He was grown to the position of president and also
performed as the official philosopher of Prussia in Berlin. He wrote philosophy of right and
delivered lectures which were brought out in the shape of a book after his death under the
title philosophy of History. Prof. Wayper says about him as “the most outstanding advocate
of the organic state” and one of the most powerful thinkers in history of modern political
thought.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
11.2 Influences on Hegel:

During the days of French Revolution, he was influenced by the happenings and he
described it a magnificent mental beginning, and it was greatly responsible for making him
conventional and he began to escalate the rationality of the existing institutions. He was
very much influenced by Plato and Aristotle. Hegel was also influenced by Home’s concept
of natural law, Rousseau’s romantic individual and Kant’s science and morals and tried to
bring about synthesis of these three ideas in his political philosophy.
11.3 Hegel Views on Human Nature:

Hegel also said similar to Aristotle, man is social by nature as well as necessity, he
attains his best only with the support of others. To serve his sensory need he established
family and presented protection with the passing of time he understood that family is not
enough of his best self and created civil society, which is regarded as by struggle for
development. Certain laws which were developed by civil society are unnecessary. This
point is underlined by Hegel “The whole process of trade and industry in the bourgeois
society becomes a new organization for the supply of human needs. So that man in the
society is producing for his family, satisfying his own wants and at the same time serving his
fellows, which makes bourgeois society evolves laws even though not necessarily just laws;
it creates police force and becomes more and more like in form”.
11.4 The Nature and Ethics of Civil Society:

In Hegel's political thought, it was important to note the role played by nature, Hegel
assumed the unity of nature and freedom also attempted to diagnose the natural
substantiality which apprised individual’s free will. Hegel proclaimed in, The Philosophy of
Right that, the justification of the free will assumed his explanation of partiality in the
Encyclopedia. In this Encyclopedia we found that Hegel opposes "mind has for its
presumption Nature of which it is the truth".
Hegel evidently distinguishes that the concept of nature compete with the concept of free
will when nature is considered as mechanism. It is vital, to understand that when Hegel
expresses of nature in his political philosophy, he aims nature as thoroughly spiritualized in
the human will. The whole viewpoint of objective spirit is away from the dualism of mind and
nature; in the concept of the free will, which Hegel's political philosophy everywhere
supposes, this dualism is understood as indirectly overwhelmed. In the Philosophy of
Right, Hegel reviews the row of his 'Psychology' that the free will knows itself implicitly as
the understanding of nature. According to Hegel the will is a thoughtful will and thus thought
and will are not two separate faculties.
The basic or immediate institutional expression of the unity of nature and will is the family.
The family is both a natural institution and an applicable ethical commencement in that it
shares the instant starting point of abstract right. On the other hand providing an objective
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3
ethical institution which can be recognized as basis of the subject's moral freedom and as
assumed by such freedom. It is presupposed by freedom first, may be immediate or natural
way. The identity of family members is facilitated by relation to others like parent to child,
husband to wife, and sibling to sibling, husband and wife together throughout their life
become a unit, distributing their understanding and also the self-image of child is determined
by the one’s relation to one’s parent. Integrity is determined by the moral attacks of parents
and one feels guilty when one opposes parent directions. This properties finds severe
criticism of the guess that the free individuality upon which civil society rests is something
given and interceded. Individual freedom which is the basis and reasoning of civil society
and state is not simply given but rather has been arbitrated through the ethos and discipline
of family life.
The family is, though a restricted form of ethical life because individuals cannot progress to
their full potential if they are dependent on parents; and the drive of the family is to advance
the individuality of children to the extent that they can leave their natural family members
behind. To make their life better children has to leave their family members for their growth
and ethical life in its instant union of universal and particular ends, consequently divided into
a circumstances where the individual outlines himself in contradistinction to the universal.
According to Hegel, the more progress of individuality takes place in civil society which he
calls "ethical life in its stage of division" because in it the individual assists the universal
good to his own private interests. Hence the family element liquefies through the working of
the principle of individual personality and in civil society individuals are not treated as loved
family members but as independent persons connected to each other through self-interest
and law.
It is the demand of the subject that his. The actual freedom of individual, the harmony of his
social and particular ends, be represented in an unchanging and uninterrupted method. This
unity is prolonged all through the dominion of civil society by two institutions 1. Government
agencies such as, municipal, provincial and 2. federal and private corporations.
According to Hegel, the drive of government agencies and other official bodies is a middle
term between the individual and the common goods and occasions which society pay for.
One of the important functions of the government agencies is to uphold the mutual capital
and general values. Government organizations are apprehensive with quality control and
price fixing of essential services and goods. Hegel claims that "goods in absolutely daily
demand are `offered not so much to an individual as such but rather to a universal
purchaser, the public". Government procedures protect that the public is not deceived or
taken benefit of by particular interests. Nevertheless, even lawful activities may obstruct with
the freedom of others and Hegel opposes that government agencies also try to eradicate
unintended burdens to the rights of the individual and the public.
In addition, government is also accountable to safeguard that the inequalities in the system
of needs do not encroach on the universal right to contribute in the common good. Hegel
meant, the luxury of the free market causes failure of those who do not have skills of ability
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4
cannot contribute fully in the market. As members of civil society they are encouraged to
symbolize themselves through work, and are prevented from this by the very system which
encourages the desire. Because the deprived cannot fully contribute in the benefits and
openings of civil society, they feel this limitation as anger of those who have
disproportionate wealth is one of the cause of their poverty. Hegel argues that government
has to stop the growth of this class and prefer the welfare to those who are deprived.
11.5 Civil Society:

Hegel stated that, an individual's specific acts are personifications of his freedom, not simply
of his particular economic freedom (freedom of choice or freedom from obstruction) but of a
more universal freedom, facilitated by awareness of law and established life. Hegel
opposes, in emerging its potentialities, "particularity passes over into universality and attains
its right". Hence, the procedure of civil society is an education of specific individual from his
own self-interest and more universal ethical life, the progress of the contained universality of
the moral will. With the help of education, the individual is socialized and develops the social
elements like, talents, personality, and habits take on. There is doubt that social institutions
arise from these interrelations, relatively, the disagreement of 'Civil Society' can be seen to
expressive, in its most general sense institutions are legitimate so far as economic and
moral freedom accept them.
The argument of Hegel, develops in two ways, one, through the actions and interactions of
self-interested individuals and the interchange of individual and social interests an impulsive
structuring of this interrelation occurs, and the structures of civil society develop as
personifications of the subject's free will. The structures which develops serve to discipline
the subject's interests so that, become universalized and enact rather than oppose the
interests of the community. The principle of modern political life, is legitimated only when
willed by an ethical community, institutions discipline the individual will and represent the
universal relations of this will. The division present in civil society is not due to the fact that
the individual has no universal interests, but people work to provide for their families and as
members of corporations. However for Hegel these universals are melt down comparatively
particular in relation to the state because it fits to their principle to be in struggle with each
other in the civil dominion.
11.6 Need of a System:

According to Hegel the individual is a self-conscious subject associated to his own desires
as a free member of a society. Human in the civil society gives a clearly rational institutional
form to their needs and desires. For Hegel, the subject's relation to desire and appetite is
hence not conflicting to reason but in fact, is resolute by reason and the needs are not
gratified through simply natural things but through the artificial products of human action. In
the place of natural desires we produce our own second nature; our desires and
consumption are not incomplete to the yields of nature and, in fact, for the most part we
munch the products of human work. In fact our particular desires are often means to more
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5
social desires such as the desire for status. Hence it is wholly abstract to describe our
appetites as given by nature. Human desires are produced through social interaction, like
the objects of desire are produced by society and the value of these objects is determined
by human labour.
The social organization is collection of two elements: I. a universal or common possession of

general resources and skilled labour and II. A division of classes. The principle of common
capital, general resources etc., is relatively clear. Hegel's concept of class division requires
further clarification. The aggregation of particular skill and the universal will (the social will of
particular individuals) is resolute as the type of work they do, he divided the class depending
upon their works such as, 1 primary labour such as, farmers and fishers, 2 industrial and
market labour, and 3 professional labour such as, doctors, lawyers, teachers, civil servants.
According to Hegel, the development of such objective classes is a necessity, but he argues
that "the ways and means of sharing capital are left to each man's particular choice" and
that the classes are the root which "connects self-seeking to the universal". The significant
feature of division of class is that, in it, there is a unity of the interests of society with the
interests of individuals. Individuals from these classes come into associate each other, as
the need of the system is to system of needs prompts interdependence in the different
classes, and becomes essential to know the developments of many different classes if it has
to work in civil society.
11.7 Administration of Justice:

Hegel stated that, the administration of justice is mainly based on universality that means,
everyone seems to be equal and rights of individual are recognized not by the class they
belong to, but by the virtue of universal personhood. Hegel states: "In the administration of
justice ... civil society returns to its concept, to the unity of the implicit universal with the
subjective particular". Hegel understands the law of the actual life of a people and realizes
the role of government to express these developments. The system of law, tells about the
reason and is real and determine by the society. The relations of social aspects remain to
understand clear and independent reality. There are two noteworthy limits to the
administration of justice. 1. it remains in a convinced sense only a comparative union of
universal and particular interests because, though it brings all individuals under the law, it be
likely to somewhat to defend the individual's universal interests as against his merely
personal interests. There are two noteworthy limits to the administration of justice. 1. it
remains in a convinced sense only a comparative union of universal and particular interests
because, though it brings all individuals under the law, it be likely to somewhat to defend the
individual's universal interests as against his merely personal interests. 2 because the
actuality of the union of universal and particular conclusions occurs only in single cases of
violation of the law, justice is not a systematic unity of universal and particular rights. Hegel
openly validates the limits of civil law and demonstrates that, civil society develops in
tangible universality, which educate the individual that he distinguishes in a more clear form
that the will of the courts.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6
11.8 Hegel Views on State:

Hegel designated state as the March of God on this Earth, because he thinks state as divine
organization and by God. He never accepted the social contract theory because it says that,
state is the result of contract and it came into existence due to spirit involved in it. To quote
him, ‘the state is divine will as a present spirit which unfolds itself in the actual shade of an
organized world. In simple words he considers the state as a handiwork of God and an
embodiment of reason. It possessed a will and personalities of the individual ls which
composed it. It was an end itself and was the sole agency which worked for the moral
upliftment of mankind. It contributed to the enrichment of the individual’s personality by
purging him of petty and self-elements”. In the words of Prof Dunnings, Hegel regarded “the
state as perfect rationality- in the sense that man has ethical status only as a member of
state and that highest duty of man is not to develop his individual faculties, but to be a
member of the state and faithfully fulfill his allotted functions therein”.
Hegel understood state as being with usual development, it is superior to the parts which
are essentially associated to it and have significance only in so far as the whole gives them
meaning. The state is real person and “its will is the manifestation of perfect nationality – the
synthesis of universal and individual freedom”. According to Prof. Wayper ‘In all essential his
is the most complete organic view of the state. It is a natural growth. It is a whole greater
than the parts which are intrinsically related to it and which have meaning only in so far as
the whole gives them meaning. It is an end itself’.
Hegel thought that the individual had no right contrary to the state, and the autonomy for the
individual consisted in blind submission to the commands of the state. On the organic nature
of Hegel, Prof. Gooch commented, “The state is not formed by a grant of certain arbitrarily
selected from the individuals but taking up unto itself the whole circle of his life. The
individual on the other hand cannot be conceived apart from the community. He is what he
is, as a member of it, his whole life physical, moral and intellectual is drawn from it”.
He reflected, the state is the architect for all rights and individual does not have any right on
state. He gives individual as a representative of the union of the universal and the individual
will and entirely dependent to the state. Hegel understands the state as an end and the
individual as a means for the fulfillment of that end. He considered state as an epitome of
the highest social morality which laid the standard morality for the members in the state.
Hegel thinks that society is less important than state in the same manner like society is more
important than family.
C.E.M Joad stated that, “Just as the personalities of all individuals in the state are
transcended by and merged in the personality of the state; so the moral relations which
each citizen has to each other citizen are merged or transcended by the social morality
which is vested in the state. But this does not mean that the state is itself moral, or that it is
bound by moral relations in its action”. The three elementary ideologies of Hegel are
summed up by Joad are here under.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7
1 State can never act dishonestly as it replicates actual will of the individuals. There is whole
credentials between freedom and law, actual liberty being achieved through submission to
law which is expressed of will.
2 Man is fundamentally social he cannot will with himself, he can will himself with other
individuals which is essential part of his personality.
3 The social morality of all its citizens comprises and represents within the state itself. But
itself above it. That means its relations to its subject and to other states cannot be made
object of moral judgment.
4 Hegel’s views on state suffers from number of defects, it shows the tendency towards
Autocracy. He recognizes freedom with law and replaces discipline for equality. He
combines the individual in the state and evaluate the virtue of the state according to power.
He elevates war and denies ambitions towards human brotherhood.
11.9 Government Agencies and Private Corporations:

The actual freedom of individual, the harmony of his social and particular ends, be
represented in an unchanging and uninterrupted method. This unity is prolonged all through
the dominion of civil society by two institutions 1. Government agencies such as, municipal,
provincial and federal and private corporations.
According to Hegel, the drive of government agencies and other official bodies is a middle
term between the individual and the common goods and occasions which society pay for.
One of the important functions of the government agencies is to uphold the mutual capital
and general values. Government organizations are apprehensive with quality control and
price fixing of essential services and goods. Hegel claims that "goods in absolutely daily
demand are offered not so much to an individual as such but rather to a universal
purchaser, the public". Government procedures protect that the public is not deceived or
taken benefit of by particular interests. Nevertheless, even lawful activities may obstruct with
the freedom of others and Hegel opposes that government agencies also try to eradicate
unintended burdens to the rights of the individual and the public.
11.10 Freedom Views of Hegel:

Hegel thinks that, freedom is an indispensable and it is the spirit of man, and its
denial to a man equivalent to denial of his personality and humanity, he said that freedom is
positive marvel rather than negative concept of freedom. His phenomenon was a social one
than individualistic in the moral life of the community. He declared that freedom could be
conceivable only within the state because it inevitable willing is rational. He says that, giving
total submission to the state and the performance of one’s duties is freedom.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8
According to Prof. Barker the freedom of Hegel “Expresses itself in a series of

outward manifestations first the law them the rules of inward morality; and finally the whole
system of institutions and influence that make for righteousness in the national state”.
11.11 Hegel Views on Constitution:

Hegel specified that, states formulate itself in a constitution or internal law. Which
makes the government to work. He separated the powers of government into three
categories 1. Legislative 2. Administrative 3. Monarchic. He favored monarchic power as
noteworthy because it unites the state. While the other two legislative and administrative
categories according to him represents thesis and antithesis. The monarchic powers
represented synthesis. Hegel favored constitutional monarchy because perfect rationality
could be obtained, it supervises other two groups of government and brings harmony in the
state.
He asserted that sovereignty belonged to the state as whole, but in actual rehearsal
it was determined by most active element in every state, the assignment of sovereignty to
the monarch not to the people. Legislature meant by him which included prince, the
administration and people. He said that the responsibility of the legislature was to make
principles and execution of principles by the prince. According to him constitutional
monarchy only gives true freedom.
11.12 Hegel Views on War:

The essential feature made by Hegel was fight amongst the states, which was for the
divine purpose. To achieve the perfection and individuality, one had to be in good relation
with other state. The war was considered as the best illustration of the flight of the individual
spirit in its outward movement. The political strength of the nation could be shown by the
war. He said that, war would help in discover of the world spirit.
11.12.1 Hegel on Dialectic:

The one of the significant political philosophy of Hegel is Dialectic method. This idea
was inspired by Greek thinkers who held that each force give birth to an opposite force. He
was also influenced by Fitche in this respect. Hegel considered that dialectic is not purely a
process by theological ideas established, but It is a process by which all ideas in the world
are developed. The progress of human civilization is not in a positive and straight line
instead it is in zig-zag manners. The procedure of evolution must have followed certain
principle. Hegel used the philosophy of dialectics to explain improvement of society and its
institutions. Prof. Wayper told about Hegel’s dialectic as “a new system of synthetic logic
replacing the old system of analytic logic a principle of self -movement through contradiction
towards the final goal of perfect realization spirit”.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9
11.13 Conclusion:
Hegel was born in 1770 in Germany, his father was civil servant, he was influenced by
Aristotle, and Plato, Rousseau and Kant. On human nature he said that man is social by
nature as well as necessity, man can grow with the help of other members. He considered
state as essentially a divine institution and described it as March of God on this earth, he
rejected the social contract theory. On freedom he said that, freedom is the essence of man,
denial of it is denial of humanity. He considered war as struggle amongst states is an
essential feature. On nature and ethics of civil society he said that, it was important to note
the role played by nature, Hegel assumed the unity of nature and freedom also attempted to
diagnose the natural substantiality which apprised individual’s free will. About Civil society
he said that, an individual's specific acts are personifications of his freedom, not simply of
his particular economic freedom (freedom of choice or freedom from obstruction) but of a
more universal freedom, facilitated by awareness of law and established life. Hegel
opposes, in emerging its potentialities, "particularity passes over into universality and attains
its right". Hence, the procedure of civil society is an education of specific individual from his
own self-interest and more universal ethical life, the progress of the contained universality of
the moral will. On needs of system he said that, the individual is a self-conscious subject
associated to his own desires as a free member of a society. Human in the civil society
gives a clearly rational institutional form to their needs and desires. On administration of
justice he said that, the administration of justice is mainly based on universality that means,
everyone seems to be equal and rights of individual are recognized not by the class they
belong to, but by the virtue of universal personhood on government agencies and private
corporations he said that, The actual freedom of individual, the harmony of his social and
particular ends, be represented in a unchanging and uninterrupted method.

1. Wrote about the early life of Hegel, his writings in influences?
2. Describe about his political throughout on human nature, ideas on state, constitution, war
and dialectic?
11.15 References:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
Lesson-12
THEORY OF RIGHTS: THOMAS HILL GREEN

12.0 OBJECTIVES:
1. Student would be able to know about the early life of T.H. Green and his influences.
2. Students would be able to understand T.H. Green’s political thought.
3. Students would be able to learn about his theory of rights.
Structure:
12.0 Objectives
12.1 Introduction
12.2 Views of Green on State
12.3 Views of Green on Sovereignty
12.4 Views of Green on Political Obligations
12.5 Views of Green on General Will
12.6 Views of Green on Freedom
12.7 Views of Green on Rights
12.8 Views of Green on Property
12.9 Views of Green on Natural Law
12.10 Views of Green on State and Societies
12.11 Views of Green on Universal Brotherhood
12.12 Views of Green on War
12.13 Views of Green on Punishment
12.14 Views of Green on Individualism
12.15 Estimate of Green
12.16 Conclusion
12.18 References
12.1 Introduction:
T.H. Green took great attention in the politics of England, he was an eminent
philosopher and also a practical political thinker. He was born on 11th April, 1836, at
Yorkshire in a clergyman’s family. He educated from Rugby and Balliol College Oxford.
He was prominently influenced by Jowett while he was in Oxford. He was appointed as
Fellow at Balliol in 1860. Later in 1866 he was become the tutor and promoted as
professor of philosophy 1878. He was not only taught at University but also took dynamic
involvement in the affairs of the city, was elected to the Oxford Town council. During the
relationship with council, he actively operated for other bodies like City of Oxford School
for Boys as founder member and Oxford Band of hope Temperance Union as President.
He was encouraged by the four different political thinkers, the Greek tradition,
philosophy of Rousseau, German idealism and non-conformism. He specified that for the
welfare of individuals in a state is very much essential and it was quite natural to have it,
his thoughts were similar like Greek philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle. He also
understood from Greek philosophy that life of an individual is fundamental part of life of
the community, he was also influenced by Greek about ethics and politics which were
similar but their methods were different. He borrowed different ideas from Rousseau on
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2
moral freedom of man, Sovereign characterized the general will which was obeyed by all
citizens, and the act of every act of general will was characterized by fair-mindedness.
Green borrowed supreme encouragement from German idealists like Fichte,
Hegel and Kant. He sketched the idea of metaphysical from Fichte and Hegel. He
accepted ideas from Kant as well in the regard of ethics and politics. He adopted
Hegel’s object of the state freedom, but to definite restrictions only. According to Green,
statement that, inclination to become the living essence of freedom. He opined that,
morality would play an important role in the political improvement of man, and final
development in the state could be reached only when man sought perfection for its own
sake. Green was very much influenced by non-conformists, he recognized their view
that freedom was the most significant thing unspiritual as well as in political life. Green’s
idea on property were clearly shown the impact of non-conformists.
The political and philosophical writing of T.H.Green has number of works, some
are published after his death. The most important works of him are Lectures on the
Principle of Political Obligation in 1882. Lecturers on liberal legislation and Freedom of
Contract, Lecturers on the English Revolution, and Prolegomena to Ethics, it was
published after his death.
12.2 Views of Green on State:
Green’s opinions are primarily grounded on human nature and stated that the
state, as the merchandise of human perception. Barker described it as “the human
consciousness postulates liberty’, Liberty involves rights; rights demand the state”. He
never considered as state as an end but mean of individuals moral development. He
says that, the aim of man is self-realization and freedom is the primary means to this
end. The social life is nothing but one’s self, it not only provides to the system of rights.
Green thought that rights of the individual are not a product of any contract. These rights
are present in them through society they are related to law only. Hence, people will
follow the laws of state because, it appear to them that it promotes their common good.
Green said that state or sovereign as distinguishing institute of state, does not make
rights but rights are already exists in it. It gives exercise of powers to man which
influenced in delay with each other for common good. It cannot be called state if it does
not do so. The main ideas of state by Green as follows;
1. Green said that state is a natural institution and essential for moral realization of each
individual. It must try to protect the individual of his rights and on circumstances related
to good life. He said that state must not take any positive steps for the promotion or
morality instead it must help for the development of morality.
2. Green declared that it is worthless if the rights are not implemented. So, state must
implement or enforce rights even by compulsion, if needed. He justified the use of force
by state, because it implements the general will of the people, state absolute and
omnipotent.
3. Green said that, the power of state was restricted both within and without. The power
of state within is accountable for limited actions and understanding of external actions of
man and has nothing to do with his motives. So, the state is answerable to the moral
improvement of individual only in an indirect modus, like by elimination of interferences in
the growth of individual’s personality. He said that under convinced circumstances
individual can resist the authority of state. The existence of number of groups within the
society also act as a check on the external authority of state.
12.3 Views of Green on Sovereignty:
Sovereignty views of Green can be seen as compromise views of Rousseau and

Austin. According to Green “sovereign signifies a determinate person or persons
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3
charged with the supreme coercive function of the state, and the general will does not
admit of being vested in a person or persons; yet it is true that the institutions of political
society-those by which equal rights are guaranteed to members of such a society-or an
expression of, and are maintained by a general will. The sovereign should be regarded,
not in abstraction, as the wielder of coercive power, but in connection with the whole
complex of institutions or of political society”. He uses the term ‘sovereign’ for the
permissible sovereign which enforces laws, but at the same time he is an agent of the
general will.
12.4 Views of Green on Political Obligations:
Green deliberates on the problem of why the people submit the state in state or
political obligations. He says that man is very much obedient to the state because it is
not only natural of man but also because his best self or moral development can be
possible by being submissive to the state. The individual has a duty to comply with the
laws of state and other civil institutions because the deduction of hindrances and make
the way for self-protection. This self-protection should be consonance with social
welfare because every one is the internal part of the society and the social system. He
must promise that his hunt of good is in his traditional values with the identical good of
others and grant others the same opportunities which he permits for himself. He says
that an individual has the duty to submit to the law of the state and other civil
organizations because through these organizations alone he gets problem detached
which stands in the way of self-perfection. He asserts that, the individual’s self-protection
should be in consonance with the social welfare because each one is the fundamental
part of the social system. To estimate Green, “the value of the institutions of civil life lies
in their operation as giving reality to the capacities of will and reason and enabling them
to be freely exercised. In their general effect, apart from particular aberrations, they
render it possible for a man to be freely determined by the idea of the possible
satisfaction of himself of being driven this way and that by external forces, and thus give
reality to the capacity called will; and they enable him to realize his reason, i.e., his idea
of self-perfection, by acting as a member of a social organization in which each
contributes to the better being of all the rest”.
12.5 Views of Green on General Will:
He defers with Rousseau’s concept of general will and his concept is different.
He says that general will is the mutual mindfulness for a common good and asserts that
all rights, duties and institutions of society, relatively the society itself in the creation of
general will, general will is not by the state but for the state to maintain it. According to
Barker, “Green’s general will is an assertion that the ultimate moving force which inspires
and controls political action is a spiritual force… a common conviction that makes for
righteousness a common conscience that alone can arm the ministers and agents of the
community with power. That conviction or conscience at once creates rights creates the
law, or system of rules by which those rights one maintained and creates the Sovereign
whose mission it is to enunciate and enforce that law and to sustain the fall vigor and
incomplete harmony with one other, all the living institutions which are the concrete
embodiment of rights and law”.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4
12.6 Views of Green on Freedom:
Green’s views on freedom has an inspiration and reflect of Greek political

thinkers like Plato, Aristotle and the idealistic thinkers like Kant and Hegel. He favoured
liberty and said that, it was the greatest blessing and important condition for the moral
development of individual. He says that goal of human’s life is not by external ends like
pleasure and happiness of the moral development of life. He preferred to eradicate any
difficulties which obstruct with the moral development of individual.
Green avoided two extreme opinions of Kant and Hegel navigated through the
middle path and observed that, man is free when he is in that “state in which he shall
have realized the ideal of himself, shall be at one with the law, which he recognizes as
that which he ought to obey, shall have become all that he has it in him to be, and so
fulfil the law of his being”. We can say that Green’s freedom is positive, if the power of
doing or enjoying to some degree worth performing or enjoying in common with others.
It determines and does not include freedom to do anything and everything.
12.7 Views of Green on Rights:
Green stressed the social side of the rights, to quote him “The capacity, then, on the part
of the individual of conceiving a good is the same for himself and others, and of being
determined to action by the conception, is the foundation of rights; and rights are the
conditions of that capacity being realized. No right is justifiable or should be right except
on the ground that directly or indirectly it serves this purpose. Conversely every power
should be a right, i.e., society should secure to individual every power that is necessary
for realizing this capacity”. Hence no one has right only the person who is the member of
the society can have the right. Green rejected the concept of natural rights, in so far as it
contained the presence of assured rights in pre-social state. He declared that, there may
possibly be no right without recognition. Therefore he measured the rights as natural for
the understanding of the moral abilities of man. In this background of his natural rights
are, both extensive and abysmal than the actual rights decided to the citizen of the state,
if the conflict arises between the natural or ideal rights and actual rights, he preferred
natural or ideal rights over actual rights. He permitted individual the right to resists the
authority only under certain situations of the state.
Green permitted individual the right to fight back against the state, Prof. Barker said that,
“his treatment of this question is sober and cautious”. Green declares that there cannot
be any right to break the rules of the state because, only state is the designer of those
rights. To estimate Green, “There can be any right to disobey or evade any particular law
on the ground that it interferes with any freedom of action, any right of managing his
children or doing what he will with his own”. He advises people if any law breaches their
concept of common good, asked them to cancel it by the legal or constitutional way. As
long as the law stays in the statue book it is the duty of individual to follow it. If the
people disobey the state the belief is that possibly they are wrong and state in all
probably is right, because the state will be talking with the wisdom of age, and it is
undoubtedly superior to the wisdom of individual men. The smooth working of
democracy may be hampered because of resistance and it may unleash the anarchy.
He permitted individuals to resist the state under certain exceptional situations only, as a
result he says that the individual has the right to disobey the command of the sovereign if
the legality of the command is doubtful and when the government system is dictatorial
and it conflicting the public interest. Agitating for prevent or amendment of any bad law,
resistance becomes not only a right but also a duty of individual. Green holds two
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5
condition to fulfillment before an individual can legitimately resort to resistance like, 1

through the successful opposition he should ensure that definite social good is
obtainable and 2 it should be backed and have the support of sizeable quantity of fellow
members of the society. Green emphasized this point consequently “That if one must
resist, one must, and the choice can be no one else. One may not have the right to
resists but one may right to resisting. Resistance is justified only on the social grounds”.
Green believed that, freedom of self-realization could be possible only by impartial rights
which enforced through the state. Thus, he says rights “the claim on the individual to will
his own ideal objects and developing his capacities of reason and will”. He further says
that, rights were not legal recognition but common moral consciousness. He also
highlighted that rights were more relative to morality than law and were the essential
condition for the fulfillment of man’s moral end. He also stressed the need of the social
side of the rights society should secure the individual every power, that was necessary
for realizing this capacity. He gives the right to individual to resist the state under certain
circumstances.
12.8 Views of Green on Property:
Green’s views on property were a mixture of idealism, individualism and

liberalism. He never supported the rights of private property and at the same time he did
not criticized it out. The growth of man’s property was requisite. Hence, he defined
property as the sum of the instruments required for the free play of the self-realizing
principles in man and contribution to the common good. He further said that, as every
individual has capacity to take part in common social good, everyone must have the
opportunity to acquire property. He did not believe in right to ‘equal property’. He said
that, more capital can be acquired without depriving others, but more land could not
acquire without reducing the share of others.
12.9 Views of Green on Natural Law:
Green’s views on natural laws are quite different with the views of social
contractualists, who considered natural law as, prevailing self-sufficiently by the social
consciousness. According to him natural law is natural because it is obligatory for the
realization of the end. A moral being is an individual who, must obey this natural law
however it belong to state or not, because it is based on reason. He said that any law
which is unreliable with natural law or law of God should be disallowed. He considers
natural law is mounting and emerging thing which keeps on growing with the growth of
moral consciousness of the society.
12.10 Views of Green on State and Societies:
Green believes that a state is nothing but “a society of societies”. The number of
societies which were not fashioned by state and retain their own inner system of rights,
which came out of them nature as societies. These societies are very much important to
individual to accomplish himself. He said that, state is answerable to preserve and
withstand the societies which occurred in it. If it fails to do this duty it shall not have the
right to exist. Hence, authority of state is advanced upon the nature of state and nature
of associations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6
12.11 Views of Green on Universal Brotherhood:
This concept of universal brotherhood is most distinct feature of Green’s

philosophy. He thinks that right to life is an integral right for all human beings which is
universally recognized, and the presence of universal society. The good of individual will
reflect the good of the humanity.
12.12 Views of Green on War:
His views on war are greatly linked to his views on universal brotherhood and the
characteristic right to life conferred on every individual. He said that, war cannot be the
absolute right, but a relative right. It is not the characteristic of the state as well, but it is
attribute of state in imperfect form. The slighter chances of war will have only to those
states who have less imperfect. Green never encouraged war he opposed it because it
disturbs rights of the individual and his life. He says that, war could be justified as wrong
to correct another wrong, and it always remains a wrong because it really derives the
basic right to life of a man.
Green constantly considered war as a moral wrong. He argues that “there is of
course no violation of right when a man is killed by a wild beast or stroke of lighting,
because there is no right as between a man and a beast, or between man and natural
force. But the deaths in a battle are caused distinctly by human agency and international
agency”. Green argues that no man has the right to surrender his right to free life.
Green agrees that war would grow virtue like patriotism self-sacrifice and heroism
and an important means for upholding the social conditions for the development of man,
at the same time he declares that the destruction of life caused by war is wrong act. To
quote him ‘no state of war can make the destruction of man’s life by man other than a
wrong, though the wrong is not always chargeable upon all the parties to a war’.
12.13 Views of Green on Punishment:
Though Green gives the right to free life to every individual, he also gives state
authority to restrict this right through punishments. According to Green the most
significant object of punishment is to maintain of rights and duties in the state and to
secure freedom of action for the moral development of all the members of the
community. Punishment can be said as a force directed against the force of criminals.
The main object of punishment is to create a type of terror in the mind of criminals of the
state.
12.14 Views of Green on Individualism:
Green’s political though has a great importance to the individualism and is pre-
dominant. To quote Green “The life of the nation has no real existence except as the life
of the individuals composing it… To speak of any progress or improvement or
development of a nature or society or mankind except as relative to some greater worth
of persons is to use words without meaning”.
Green’s individualism is also obvious from his concept of freedom. To make the
best of life of an individual one must have freedom. Every individual would voluntarily
identify himself with laws of the state only if the state was good and not otherwise. In a
bad state the individual may not force to challenge the authority of the state.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7
12.15 Estimate of Green:
Green also faced admiration and criticism by other political thinkers. His was
criticized for his faults with his theory of sovereignty. The views of property are also
inadequate and unsatisfactory. On the other hand scholars like Barker, Sabine, Wayper
and Maxey have greatly admires and highlighted his contributions to political thought.
Like other political thinkers Green too has been criticized for this political thinking, though
he is criticised at the same time he has number thinkers who admires him as well. They
find faults in his theory of sovereignty. He describes it as supreme power when sustained
by general will. Hobhouse says, “in so far as it is will it is not general and so far as it is
general, it is not will”. Green did not take into consideration of the factors which
influences the actions of men in the states. His description about man is pure
consciousness and also not real. His views on property are insufficient and unacceptable
in so far he only possess the absorption of the landed property in some hands and does
not find any danger in the absorption of the capitol. Hence, it is noticed that his views are
not logical and not satisfactory.
On the other side scholars like Baker, Sabine, Wayper and Maxey have underlined his
contributions to the political thought.
The important contributions of Green to the political thought are as follows:
1. Green tried to mix morality and politics by saying that it is the moral duty of the state to
develop social instinct of man and moral improvement leads to development of state.
2. Green mixed the negative and positive functions of the state, theoretically, he gives
the state only negative functions but elaborating his scheme he gave positive functions
to the state.
3. His thought contains vital components of individualism, he did not treat state as an
end but as means for moral development of the individual. Under rare situations he gave
permission to individual to resists against the state.
4. He made valuable contributions to the development of liberalism in England.
12.16 Conclusion:
He was born in 1836, in England to the family of clergyman. After the completion of his
education he finally became the Professor of Philosophy in 1878. He drew inspiration
from four sources like, Greek tradition, Philosophy of Rousseau, German idealism and
non-conformism, he was influenced by Plato and Aristotle as well. He contributed
political thought by his many writings, Lectures on the principles of Political Obligations,
Lectures on Liberal Legislation and Freedom of Contract, Lectures on the English
Revolution etc., His views on state are based on human nature and he described the
state as the product of human consciousness. On political obligations he said that, man
concentrates submission to the state not because it is the natural disposition of man but
because he realizes that his best self or moral improvement can be thinkable only by
rendering obedience to the state. On General Will he says that, by general will, the
common perception of common good and declares all rights, duties and institutions of
society, rather product of the will is society. On rights he said that, no one has right only
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8
the person who is the member of the society can have the right. Green rejected the
concept of natural rights, in so far as it contained the presence of assured rights in pre-
social state. He declared that, there may possibly be no right without recognition.
Like other political thinkers Green too has been criticized for this political thinking, though
he is criticized at the same time he has number of thinkers who admires him as well.
They find faults in his theory of sovereignty. On the other side scholars like Baker,
Sabine, Wayper and Maxey have underlined his contributions to the political thought.
1. Write about the early life of Green and his influences and contribution?
2. Write about the Green’s views on a) state b) Sovereignty c) Political obligation d)
General will e) freedom f) rights g) Property h)natural law i) brotherhood j) war K)
punishment l)Individualist.
12.18 References:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Western Political Thought-I

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Western Political Thought-I

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Western Political Thought-I

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What are the main features of Greek political thought according to the passage?

What are the main features of Greek political thought according to the passage?

What are Green's views on the state and sovereignty?

What are Green's views on the state and sovereignty?

1

INTRODUCTION TO POLITICAL THOUGHT

1.2 Political Thought before Plato:

1.3 Popular Political Discussion:

1.4 Orders in Nature and Society:

1.5 Nature and Convention:

1.7 The Central Concern of Political Thought:

1.8 Origin of Political Thought:

The opinion conveyed by Maxey is acknowledged, because non-availability of non-

1.9 Salient Features of Greek Thought:

1.9.1. Exclusively Political Character of Treatise:

1.9.2. Main Concentration on Nature of State:

1.9.3. Social Nature of Man:

1.9.4. The City State:

1.9.5. Importance of Education:

1.9.7. Concept of law:

1.9.8. Views on Justice:

1.9.9. Views on Citizenship:

1.9.10. Belief in Inequality:

‘The Greeks considered equality as impracticable unnatural and undesirable they

1.9.11. Individualistic Element:

1.9.12. Primacy of Discussions:

1.10 Impact of Greek Political Philosophy over European Political

1.10.1 Concept of Democracy:

1.10.2 Religious Tolerance:

Greeks were religious tolerant when compared to Europeans. Europeans were

1.10.3 Concept of Justice:

1.10.4 State Regulation of Education:

1.11 Importance of Western Political Thought:

1.11.1 Political Philosophy:

The significance of political thought cannot be over highlighted. The task of

1.11.2 Nature of Political Thought:

1.12 Subject Matter of Political Thought:

1.12.2 The Government:

1.12.3 Human Nature and its Relation with Universe.

1.12.4 Division of Political Thought:

1.13 Sources of Political Thought:

1) Geographical conditions 2) contemporary conditions and social setup or social

1.15 Model Questions:

1. Students would be able to understand the life of Plato.

2.16.1 Differences of Republic and Laws

2.2 Sources of Plato’s Political Thought:

2.3 The Method of Plato:

2.4 The Republic or Concerning Justice:

2.5 Plato’s Concept of Justice:

2.5.0 Grounds on which Plato Rejected Prevailing Theories:

The following theories of justice were rejected by Plato.

2.5.1 Traditional theory

2.5.2 Radicalist Theory

This theory was linked to Sophists and produced by Thrasymachus, preserved

2.5.3 Pragmatic Theory

2.6 Concept of Justice by Plato:

2.7 Criticism of Plato’s Concept of Justice:

2.8 Theory of Education:

2.8.2 Features of Platonic System of Education: