Aristotle

Born in 384 B.C.E.

• Macedonian region of north eastern Greece in the small city of Stagira, unlike
Plato, Aristotle was not an Athenian by birth Aristotle was sent to Athens at
about the age of seventeen to study in Plato’s Academy

Lyceum
• Aristotle remained associated with the Academy until Plato’s death in 347.
• Later, he established his own institution Lyceum, for about twelve years or so,
between 335 and 323 BC.
• the Lyceum assembled a collection of manuscripts that comprised one of the
world’s first great libraries.

Death
• He died a year later in Chaleis while in exile, following fears of being executed by
the Athenians for his pro-Macedonian sympathies: "I will not allow the Athenian
to commit another sin (first being the execution of Socrates in 399 BC)", he had
said.
 Importance of Aristotle’s Political Philosophy
Everyone is born either a Platoilist or an Aristotelian
• Plato and Aristotle led to initiate two great streams of thought which constitute what is known as
the Western Political Theory, From Plato comes political idealism; and from Aristotle comes political
realism.
Father of Political Science
• Plato was the father of Political Philosophy; Aristotle, the father of Political Science.
• Maxey says: "All who believe in new worlds for old are the disciples of Plato; all those who believe in
old worlds made new by the tedious and toilsome use of science are disciples of Aristotle."
'The Master of Them That Know’
• Whatever subject he treated, he treated it well; whatever work he wrote, he made it a master piece.

“Aristotle's was a flowing river of gold”

• The Roman philosopher Cicero said that "If Plato's prose was silver, Aristotle's was a flowing river of
gold."
Perspective of Aristotle as a thinker
More important to be worldly wise rather than wise in the world of ideas
• Unlike Plato, who believed that ruling class require a specific knowledge. Aristotle believed that ruling class requires
common sense. According to him, it is more important to be worldly wise rather than wise in the world of ideas.

Aristotle does not reject the world of matter.

• According to Aristotle the world of ideas is not independent of matter rather ideas are inherent in matter. We
cannot out rightly reject the knowledge of this world which we gain through the use of sensory organs.

Aristotle believes in middle path

• According to him for good life we require both knowledge as well as property but in moderation. If Aristotle is for
moderation, Plato is for perfection, if Plato idealist, Aristotle is Practical (pragmatic), if Plato thinks about the best,
Aristotle talks about the best Practicable.

Aristotle is functionalist
• Functionalism in the philosophy of mind is the doctrine that what makes something a mental state of a particular
type does not depend on its internal constitution, but rather on the way it functions, or the role it plays, in the
system of which it is a part.

Aristotle belongs to the school of teleology

• Teleology means destiny. According to teleology nature has specific design for every and every person moves
towards its natural destination.
 Comparison between Plato and Aristotle
Plato is utopian, whereas Aristotle is practical.
• Aristotle has a practical approach his, phronēsis, the excellence of the practical intellect, is two-fold, consisting of a true
conception of the end to be achieved by action and correct deliberation about the means to achieve that end.
• Three accounts have been given as to how that true conception of the end is acquired:
• by virtue of character,
• by dialectic, i.e. critical reasoning concerning authoritative beliefs, and
• by induction from data of experience.

Plato is extremist, Aristotle believes in Golden mean.

• Plato was an extremist whether he was talking about justice, state or the idea of philosopher king or any other notion his
approach seems to an extremist whereas Aristotle believe in the idea of Golden mean or the middle path.

Plato believes in perfection, whereas Aristotle believes in moderation.

• Aristotle did not approve of the three classes of Plato's ideal state, especially the guardians having the political power
with them. He disagreed with the idea of one class (guardians consisting of the rulers and the auxiliaries) enjoying all
power of the state.

Plato is radical, Aristotle is conservative.

• Aristotle differs from Plato in being, in addition, much more of a “situational” conservative. A situational conservative
will tend to reject the belief in human reason to recast reality in the mould of its ideals or of the laws it discovers.
Evaluate Aristotle's criticism of Plato.
WHY IS ARISTOTLE CALLED FATHER OF POLITICAL SCIENCE ?
• Aristotle is called as the father of political science is because of his empirical method
of understanding politics.
• He studied and analysed 158 constitutions of the world and in this way he
introduced the comparative method as well as historical method to the arena of
political study.
• Unlike his teacher Plato, he applied realistic approach to describe political
concepts. Plato, a great Greek philosopher, is an idealist thinker and the utopion.
• He is considered as the pioneer of Inductive method in the field of Political Science.
• He is entitled as the first Political Scientist because for the first time scientific
approach has been used in Politics by him only.
• Before him, almost all political study was speculative, philosophical, artistic,
imaginative like.
• Prior to him, ethics was considered as the part of Politics whereas Aristotle clearly
made a concrete separation between the two.
Prominent ideas of Aristotle

Theory of Theory of Theory of

Citizenship Slavery Property

Theory of Theory of Theory of

constitution. justice. revolution.
 Theory of State
For Aristotle, as with Plato, the state (Polis) is all-important. Both, Plato and Aristotle, see in the polis more than a
state. The polis is, for both, a community as well as a state, state as well as a government; government as well as a
school; school well as a religion.

What is Plato’s view of the state?

• Plato does not make a difference between personal and political.

• Plato treats state as a big family. Philosopher king as a head of the family in the similar way father is the
head of the family.
• He expects all people to obey the dictates of philosopher king just like a dictates of father in family.
• Plato focuses so much on unity and believes that unity will come through infirmity.

According to Aristotle state is not only a family.

• It is family of families. The authority of a statesman has to be different from the authority of the father.
• State should try to seek unity not through uniformity but through unit and in diversity.
• Aristotle proposes, ‘Polity’ as the best practicable form of government where citizens representing
different interests and families come together to deliberate and formulate laws.
• The laws made by state should take care of multiple interest should try to achieve balance among
competing interest and the principles of family cannot be applied in case of state.
 Aristotle’s theory of State
The best way to understand Aristotle’s theory of State is to go through these major principles which are very well
define his idea of State.
 Aristotle’s theory of State
01. Man is by nature a political animal

• In his Politics, Aristotle believed man was a "Political animal" because he is a social
creature with the power of speech and moral reasoning.
• Man by nature must live in the community because he was a political creature or
zoon politikon.
• A man naturally belongs to the city because that is where he can exercise his
sociability and can debate with others upon his virtue.
• Virtues are habits of the soul by which one acts well. Virtuous actions express
correct, high reasoning, which are acquired through practice and habituation.
• The city is prior to the individual because the individual apart from the city is not
self-sufficient and therefore, he has to be something else rather than a human
being.
• A man has potential to do good, but if he is not capable to use his virtue and is
without any boundaries, he can be worse than any animal.
• The city provides humans with partnership with others, which plays a big role in
the sake of basic survival, but it exists for the wellbeing of human kind.
2. State is the highest of all Associations

• The other associations are not as Large as is the state; they are
specific, and, therefore, limited in their objective and essence.
• The state has general and common purposes, and, therefore, has
larger concerns as compared to any or other associations.

3. “State is a union of families and villages”.

• The state is a self-sufficing institution while the village and the

family is not.
• The self- sufficient state is higher than the families and the
villages—it is their union.
• As a member of the family the individuals become social.
5. The state is prior to the individual.

• “The state “Aristotle says, “is by nature clearly prior to

the family and the individual, since the whole is of
necessity prior to the past.
• “The proof that the state is a creation of nature, and
prior to the individual, when continues is that the
individual, when isolated, is not self-sufficing; and
therefore, he is like a part in relation to the whole. But
he who is unable to live in society, or who has no need
because he is sufficient for himself, must either be a
beast or a god; he is no part of a state.”
07. The stale is like a human organism.

• Aristotle is of the opinion that the state, like the human

organism, has its own parts, i.e., the individuals.
• Apart from the state, he argues the individuals have no
importance, and separated from the body, the parts
have no life of their own.
• The interest of the part of the body is inherent in the
interest of the body—what separate interest a hand has
when away from the body.
• likewise, the interest of the individuals is inherent in the
interest of the state.
8. Aristotle’s state is the best possible state,
the best practicable.
• Which is a small city-state;
• Whose territory corresponds to the population it has,
• That is geographically located near the river and where
good climatic conditions exist;
• Where the rule of law prevails, and
• Where authority/power is vested in the hands of the rich.

Aristotle’s best practical state is according to Sabine what Plato

called second-best state.
 Aristotle’s Theory of Constitution
Aristotle treats constitution, government and state inter-changeably.

• Aristotle is known as father of constitutionalism because he does not permit the deviation between constitution
and manner of government.
• Polity is the best practicable form of government
• Rule of law: “Law is a reason without passion”.
• Aristotle has compared rule of law with rule of philosopher king/person and has established the superiority of
rule of law.
• The context of Aristotle’s theory is the criticism of the institution of the philosopher king. Plato has given
absolute powers to the philosopher king. In the words of Plato, “For no law or ordinance is mightier than
knowledge”.
• Law is a reason minus passion. Law does not change according to the person. It is impersonal. Law has additional
benefits.
• Law represents collective wisdom which is preferable to the wisdom of one person.
• Law represents the wisdom of ages and it would not be wise to challenge the collective wisdom of ages in the
name of ultimate knowledge.
Aristotle suggest that we should not sacrifice well for the sake of best because best is unachievable.
Aristotle’s classifies of states based on two
principles:
•On the basis of his study of 158 constitutions,
Aristotle has given a classification which became a
guide for all the subsequent philosophers who
ventured to classify governments.He have classified
constitution on two parameters:
1.Objective of governance.
2.Number of persons ruling.

Criticism:
• Aristotle’s classification has become outdated, for it
cannot be applied to the existing system.
• What he calls the classification of states is, in fact,
the classification of government for, like all the
ancient Greeks, he confuses between the state and
the government.
Kingship and Tyranny:
• According to Aristotle, both kingship and tyranny are rule of one and in spite of this basic similarity there
is difference between the two.
• : A king looks after the interest of his subjects and the tyrant considers his personal gain. But other
differences are: a tyrant captures power by force, but the power of the king is based on law.
• Tyrant’s power is exercised over the unwilling subjects. But people of the king are willing subjects.

Aristotle has distinguished five different types of kingships

• 1. Spartan kingship,this is not absolute monarchy. King’s power is limited. They are vested with the power
to command in war..
• 2.This type of kingship is common among the barbarians and is a mixture of kingship and tyranny. The
kings have complete power equal to that of tyrannies but they are legally established and hereditary.
• 3.This type is elected tyrant. It used to exist among the ancient Greeks and goes by the name of
dictatorship (or aesymnetes). This is an elective form of tyranny. It differs from barbarian kingship.
• 4.This type of kingship existed in heroic ages. It was both hereditary and legal and willingly accepted by
subjects. These kings started their rule by launching welfare programmes and also making discoveries in
arts and peace.
• 5.This type of monarchy and, in his opinion; it is different from other forms. The king is absolute and
controls everything.
Aristocracy:
• Aristocracy as defined by Aristotle is the rule of the few best men. These few best men rule
for the common interest of the people
• The first species combines both wealth and numbers.
• The second species is of Spartan type. It is the combination of virtue and democratic
principle of freedom.
• The third includes those varieties of polity which incline more to oligarchy.
• Some species combine oligarchic principle and democratic principle of wealth and freedom.
But ultimately it gives weight to wealth.
• The ideal aristocracy and ideal kingship may be indistinguishable. Because, in both cases,
virtue is the supreme quality.
• The only difference will be in number. But if in aristocracy one man takes the leading part
and in kingship the king is advised by few virtuous persons, then what is aristocracy and
what is kingship will be a problem.
• He is not clear about the true nature of ideal aristocracy. In several places he has discussed
aristocracy. What is the ideal form we do not know.
 OLIGARCHY
Oligarchy is one of the perverted forms of government. The rulers of oligarchy always
give priority to private interest and, as a result of it, common good is neglected.

Another feature of oligarchy stated by him is that only the wealthy persons dominate
the politics as well as administration of the state.

• 1.The first type of oligarchy is based on property qualification. But this is not restrictive.Participation in the
affairs of the government is open to persons who acquire property.
• 2.For second type of oligarchy a high property qualification has been recommended. In a sense, the rulers
of the second form of oligarchy are richer and, naturally, fewer.
• 3.The third type is narrower still and includes the further restriction that membership of the governing class
is hereditary.
• Finally, officials and not law exercise the sovereign power. An oligarchy of this type is sometimes called a
“Power Group.”
 Democracy
In the perverted form of government there are three types and democracy is one of them. Both Plato and
Aristotle did not see this form of government with favour.
• Democracy prevailed in Athens for over a century and Aristotle got the
opportunity to see this form of government from a very close distance.
• So his observation of democracy is based on practical experience.
• According to Aristotle, the foundation of democratic constitution is liberty.
• Everyone will have the freedom to rule and is legally entitled to all
privileges. There is another principle. Democratic principle is based on
numerical justice.
• The decision of the majority is final and to accept it is justice and its denial is
injustice. To put it in other words, in democracy, people are sovereign.
ARISTOTLE’S CITIZENSHIP

• Aristotle define state as a collective body of citizens it is not determined by residence

It is a cohesive citizen body where everybody would know one another intimately.
• A good citizen is someone who could live in harmony with constitution and had sufficient leisure
time to perform the responsibility of the citizen
• A good citizen posses moral goodness.he pleaded for proper education for citizen controlled by a
state

Who is citizen ?
• A person who participated in the administration of justice and in legislation as a member of the
deliberative assembely is citizen.
• Who posses the capacity to rule and be ruled at the same time.
• Possession of leisure.
• Possession of property and owenershp of slaves helping to attain citizenship.
• Based on hereditary.
 • According to Aristotle Slaves,resident aliens,foreigners,labourers
and mechanics.
Who can’t • Women is intellectually inferior to man So even She can not be a
citizen.
be a citizen ? • Children and old people also can not be a citizen as one is
immature and another is infirm respectively.

• It encourages the class rule and neglect welfare of the society.

• It is against the organic nature of the state.
• It is not justicable to exclude children ,women, workers and oldman
from citizenship.
• It ,ll infuse a feeling of disinterests among non citizens in the affairs
Critisism of state,whereas they represent majority class in a state.
• Its also unfair that mere the property holders and possesses the
citizenship
• Its also a great injustice with non-lesiured class.
• Its against the modern notion of citizenship.
• Its also not suited the modern notion of Nation-State.
Good Citizen and Good Man:
• According to Aristotle,a good citizen may not be a
good man; a good citizen is one who does good
services to the state and this state may be bad in EACH POLITICAL
principle. SYSTEM

• In a constitutional state, a good citizen should

know how to rule as well how to obey. The good PRINCIPAL,LAWS •.
man is one who is fit to rule. ,RULE

• Citizenship in such a state is a moral

training.Aristotle strongly believed that the middle PEOPLE
FOLLOWING
class have a powerful role to play in the state. THESE LAWS

• One of the greatest values of Aristotle’s theory of

citizenship was the salvation of political society lies
GOOD CITIZEN
in the enthronement of rulers of that salutary
middle class, which represents the happy mean
between wealth and poverty.
 Criticism of Aristotle’s Theory of State

01. Totalitarian in character.

• His concept of the state is all- embracing. The individuals in his state have no separate status.
They are completely merged with the state. Its organic nature reveals the totalitarian feature.
• Critics says If the individuals are separated from the state they will lose their importance as
the separated parts of human or animal body lose their activity.

02. Associations or communities have no separate importance or position.

• The state or polis embraces all other communities. They owe their existence to the state. It
means that all the communities are merged in the body of the state.
• This view of state is anti-democratic. We do not regard individuals or associations as mere
appendix parts of the state.
• In modern times, the community plays the important part in the field of developing the
personality of individuals.
3. State or polis is not the greatest manifestation of supreme good.
• State aims at some good no doubt but not the supreme good.
• In real life, the state in no capacity can mould or determine the character of individuals in an absolute
way.
• The state, in practical life, is never the holder of supreme authority.
• The absolutist character of a state is always inimical to the balanced development of human
personality.
In spite of these criticisms something need to be said in support of his
concept.
• According to Aristotle the state is not the product of any contract.
• It is natural. This does not mean that man has no role behind the creation of the state.
• The evolution of man’s consciousness and intelligence has helped the creation of state.
• It has not been made by certain individuals all on a sudden. Efforts of centuries lie behind the creation
of a state.
• This is the evolutionary theory of state. It is also called the scientific theory.
• Family, community and state—all are perfectly natural.
• We all agree with this contention of Aristotle. Even modern thinkers are of opinion that the state is the
final form as a political organization.
 Theory of Justice
“When perfected, man is the best of animals, but when separated from law and
justice, he is the worst of all.”
• According to him, justice is virtue, complete virtue, and the embodiment of all goodness. It is not
the same thing as virtue, but it is virtue, and virtue in action.

Justice is virtue, but it is more than virtue; it is

virtue in action

Virtue in practice.
• Reason is, for example, a virtue, but the reasonable/rational conduct is justice; truth is a virtue, but
to be truthful is justice.
• What makes a virtue justice is the very practice of that virtue. So Aristotle says: “The good in the
sphere of politics is justice, and justice contains what tends to promote the common interest.”
Distributive justice and remedial or corrective justice
Ross says: “Aristotle begins by recognizing two senses of the
word. By ‘Just’, we may mean what is lawful or what is fair and THEORY OF
equal”. JUSTIC

• ‘General Justice is complete goodness.

• It is complete in the fullest sense, because it is the exercise of complete PARTICULAR
goodness not only in himself but also towards his neighbors.” JUSTIC
UNIVERSAL
JUSTIC
Particular justice is a part of complete/general justice

• it is, therefore, a part of complete goodness, its one aspect. COMMUTATIVE DISTRIBUTIVE
• A person seeking particular justice is one who observes laws but does not JUSTIC JUSTIC
demand from the society more than what he deserves.

Particular justice is of two types—distributive and corrective.

“It is unjust to treat equals, unequally; it is equally unjust to
treat unequals, equally.”
According to Aristotle, justice demands that the persons who are equal, posse’s equal merit
ought to be treated equally.
• If a state goes for discrimination against the person who deserved to be treated equally, such person will be tempted
to go against a state.
• He commonest cause of resolution is the feeling of inequality, real or imagined.

Aristotle does not support absolute equality.

• Absolute equality will be injustice with the person who is more talented or meritorious. If state will give equal
treatment to more meritorious and less meritorious.
• It will give rise to the feeling of injustice. Feeling of injustice will also lead to revolutions and seditions. We can see
the linkage between Aristotle’s theory of justice and his theory of slavery.
• It will be injustice if state will treats masters and slaves equally. Aristotle was supporter of meritocratic society.
• Merit can be one of the criteria of the justice, but it cannot be the sole criteria of justice.

According to John Rawls, Justice is fairness.

• Constitution of India reflects the idea of justice based on the concept of fairness in India because level playing field
does not exist, merit alone cannot be criteria of justice.
Theory of Slavery
• Aristotle strongly believed and justified the institution of slavery.
• Aristotle opined slaves as the possession of the family or, in other
words, was considered the property of the master or the family.
• Slavery is natural and beneficial to both the masters as well as the
slaves.
• He was of the belief that the slaves have no reasoning power despite
the ability to understand and follow their intellect.
• Those who were not virtuous were slaves
• There are inequalities with reference to their capabilities and
capacities, all those who had higher capacities were called masters
and the rest are slaves.
Aristotle justified the institution of slavery on the following grounds:

Natural: Necessary: Expediency:

• Slavery is a natural • Slaves are • Slavery is a social NATURAL

phenomenon. The considered necessity.
superior would rule necessary because • Aristotle was of the
over the inferior they provide opinion that slaves
just as the soul leisure that was have sustained the
rules over the body most essential for Greek social and
and reason over the welfare of the economic system,
NECESSARY SLAVERY
appetite state. and they helped
• The masters are • Aristotle stated that Greece against
stated to be slavery benefited social disorder and
physically and the slaves as well. chaos.
mentally strong EXPEDIENCY
• It was
than the slaves. So, complementary to
this set-up naturally the slaves as well as
makes the former the masters and
the master, and the that it aids in
latter the slave. perfection.
Aristotle approved Slavery only under certain conditions :
• Only those who were mentally deficient and virtuously not superior
should be enslaved.
• Aristotle was against the idea of slavery by force. He, never agreed to
the enslavement of prisoners of war.
• Aristotle insisted that masters must treat their slaves properly,and
strongly propagated that cruel masters must be subjected to legal
punishments.
• He advocated the liberation of only those slaves whose conduct was
good and who developed capacity for reasoning and virtue.
• Slavery was essential for the all-round development but the master
has no right to misuse his power. Slaves are only assistants but not
subordinates.
Criticism of Aristotle’s Theory of Slavery:
• Classification of individuals on the basis of capacities is wrong and
Aristotle never provided any logical method to be adopted to classify
individuals.
• He rejected historical origin of slavery and justified it on philosophical
rationalization.
• His views on slavery reflect his conservatism and primitive outlook
towards life.
• His theory is highly prejudicial and contradictory to the human dignity
and necessities of life.
• It is prejudicial, in the sense it presupposed that Greeks were fit to rule
the world and they could not be enslaved even if they were defeated
by the barbarians
Aristotle’s Theory of Revolution: Causes and Methods to Prevent Revolution

• Aristotle explained in great detail the theory of revolution..

• Aristotle gave a scientific analysis and expert treatment to the subject of revolutions
• Firstly, it implies any major or minor change in the constitution such as a change in
monarchy or oligarchy and so on.
• Secondly, it implies a change in the ruling power even though it did not lead to a change
in the government or the constitution.
• He further stated that a revolution could be either direct or indirect, thereby affecting a
particular institution.
 Theory of Revolution

• In Book V of the Politics, Aristotle discussed one of the most important problems related to political
instability or the causes and cures of revolutions.
• “In Book V of the Politics, Aristotle follows up his elaborate array of the causes that produce revolutions by
an equally impressive array of means of preventing them.”

Aristotle’s meaning of revolution, one may say revolution implies:

1. A change in the set of rulers;

2. A change, political in nature;
3. A palace revolution;
4. Political instability or political transformation;
5. A change followed by violence, destruction and bloodshed.
General Causes for revolution:

Aristotle was an advocate of status quo and did not want political changes, for they brought with them
catastrophic and violent changes. That why he devoted a lot of space in the Politics explaining the general and
particular causes of revolutions followed with his suggestions to avoid them.
Universal passion for power and privileges.
• Carelessness and corruption of the ruling classes.
• Over reach of high headedness of the ruling class.
• Inequalities in income and wealth.
• If state gives undue importance to certain individuals and does not give due importance to certain
individuals who deserves.
• Disproportionate increase in any aspect of the state.
• Sudden influx of foreigners.
• Rivalry between classes.
• Neglect of small changes by the ruling class.
• Change inevitable and people have liking for change.
Regime specific changes:
• Monarchy: family quarrels and jealousies.
• Oligarchy: poor will be conspiring against the rich and rich will be
neglecting the poor.
• Democracy: people will elect demagogic leaders who will establish tyranny.

Solution:
• Treat the causes.
• He gives some additional solutions:
• Cultivate the spirit of obedience to law.
• Educate citizens about civic virtue.
• Inculcate patriotism.
• Moderate exercise of power.
"Aristotle is 'a status-quoist". In the light of this statement, examine Aristotle's
views on revolution.
Theory of Property and ownership
• 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 for the normal functions of household and social growth.
• Property is a general term for rules governing access to and control of
land and other material resources.
• “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.
• Having property is basis of self-respect, pleasure and self-love. It can be
used for the improvement of the society.
Importance of Private Property
• The qualities like generosity, liberality, hospitality and
righteousness can be encouraged by the property, which plays
an important role in the human personality.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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 :

Some people may own but its

The use of property and Common ownership but
produce must be used by the
common ownership. private use of property.
community.
Types of Property
• Aristotle differentiated property into two groups:
• 1.Animate
• 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
• The natural methods are cattle rising, agriculture and hunting which helps in obtaining required maintenance
• 2. Unnatural wealth.
• 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.
Questions- Central to Aristotle’s political thought is his classification of the
different types of political constitutions in the politics. Evaluate?
 Time of Plato:
427-347 B.C.

Plato belongs to Athens (place).

Peloponnesian War – Sparta Vs Athens, Sparta

defeated Athens.

Athens was defeated by Sparta; Plato wanted to know

the reasons for the decline of Athens.
He wanted to make Athens an ideal state.
Peloponnesian War
Importance of Plato’s Political Philosophy
Plato deeply influenced on Western philosophy and developed distinct
areas of philosophy as epistemology, metaphysics,
ethics, and aesthetics.

He was prototypical political philosopher whose ideas had

a profound impact on subsequent political theory. His greatest impact
was Aristotle.

The Academy, the school he founded in 385 B.C.E., became the

model for other schools of higher learning and later for European
universities.
Usage of dialectic- a method of discussion involving ever more
profound insights into the nature of reality, and by cognitive
optimism, a belief in the capacity of the human mind to attain the
truth and to use this truth for the rational and virtuous ordering of
human affairs.
Plato Life and influences
Family
• Plato came from one of the wealthiest and most politically active families
in Athens.
• His father’s side descending from Codrus, one of the early kings of
Athens
Influence of Socrates
• He considered Socrates the most just man of his time, and who, although
did not leave any writings behind, exerted a large influence on
philosophy.
• It was Socrates who, in Cicero’s words, “called down philosophy from the
skies.”
• Socrates’ execution on an unjust charge of impiety, Plato came to the
conclusion that all existing governments were bad and almost beyond
redemption.

The Academy
• Provided a base for succeeding generations of Platonic philosophers until its final
closure in C.E. 529, became the most famous teaching institution of the Hellenistic
world.
Influences on Plato
I. Heraclitus
• According to Heraclitus, change is
the characteristics of the world in
which we live.
• Aristotle and Diogenes agree that
Plato had some early association
with either the philosophy of
Heraclitus of Ephesus.
• The effects of this influence can
perhaps be seen in the mature
Plato’s conception of the sensible
world as ceaselessly changing.
 Influences on Plato
II. Parmenides and Zeno
• Parmenides gave idea of
permanence. There is continuity
as well as change.
• Plato’s theory of the Forms, which
are plainly intended to satisfy the
Parmenidean requirement of
metaphysical unity and stability in
knowable reality.
• Parmenides and Zeno also appear
as characters in his dialogue, the
Parmenides.
• He mixed together in his works the
arguments of Heracleitus, the
Pythagoreans, and Socrates
 Influences on Plato
II. Parmenides and Zeno
• Parmenides gave idea of
permanence. There is continuity
as well as change.
• Plato’s theory of the Forms, which
are plainly intended to satisfy the
Parmenidean requirement of
metaphysical unity and stability in
knowable reality.
• Parmenides and Zeno also appear
as characters in his dialogue, the
Parmenides.
• He mixed together in his works the
arguments of Heracleitus, the
Pythagoreans, and Socrates
 Influences on Plato

III. The Pythagoreans

• Plato’s Pythagorean influences seem
especially evident in his fascination
with mathematics, and in some of
his political expressed in various
ways in several dialogues.
• Pythagoras who was a the famous
mathematician influenced Plato
especially the Idea of Universe is
based on some mathematical
principles and Importance of
geometry for the ruling class.
• Plato’s theory of soul influenced by
Pythagorean ideas.
 Influences on Plato
IV. Socrates
• No influence on Plato was greater than that of
Socrates.
• Plato considered himself as the disciple of the
Socrates. He considered Socrates as the wisest man
on this earth.
Plato was influenced by:
• Socrates Theory of Knowledge.
• Socrates method of dialectics.
• Events in the life of Socrates

Socrates was ordered to drink poison. Socrates had

opportunity to escape. Socrates preferred to die for his
principles.

• When Socrates was ordered to drink poison at that time it

was democracy in Athens.
• Plato hated for democracy is linked to life of Socrates.
 Plato’s Perspective
Plato is idealist; those who think what ought to be there
rather than what is.

Plato is utopian (imparticle).

Plato is radical (who is looking for far reaching changes), Plato

is a 1st feminist.

There is a transition is Plato’s ideas; a process/period of changing

from one condition to another.
• Plato’s Republic – it is a work of Plato when he was
young.
• Statesmen – it is a book of Plato in transition.
• The Laws – mature Plato – when Plato was mature.
 Plato’s methodology

1. Deductive method
• also called the philosophical method.
• Pre-conceived conclusions and then
seeks to see them in actual conditions
around him: general pririciples are
determined first, and thereafter, are
related to particular situation.
• This method of investigation stands
opposite to the inductive one where
the conclusions are reached after
studying, observing, and examining
the data available at hand.
 Plato’s methodology

2. Dialectical method
• 'Dialect' has been a tradition with the
ancient Greeks.
• Socrates followed this methodology in
responding to the views of his rivals by
highlighting fallacies in their thinking.
• Plato, following his teacher Socrates,
pursued this methodology in his search
for 'the idea of good' and the way it
could be reached.
• Plato discussed the views of numerous
individuals, examined each such view,
and ultimately reached the conclusion.
 Plato’s methodology

3. Analytical Method
• He divided a phenomenon into its possible
parts, analysing each part fully and
thereafter knitting the results of all parts
together.
• According to Plato human nature constitutes
human nature appetite, spirit and reason;
• He found these elements in body-politic as
well: 'appetite' in the producing class,
'spirit' in the soldiers' class; and 'reason' in
the ruling class,
• Constituents of the ideal state are producers
(who provide the material base), soldiers
(who provide the military base) and the
rulers (who provide the rational base).
 Plato’s methodology

4. Teleological method
• Teleology means 'the object with an
objective’.
• It follows that every phenomenon
exists for itself and keeps moving
towards its desired goal.
• Plato's teleological approach can well
be seen in his theory of Forms. Plato
was convinced that what appears is
the shadow of what it can be.
• Form is the best of what we see
realities can attain their forms.
Plato’s methodology

5. Analogy method
• Form of reasoning in which one thing
is inferred to be similar to another
thing in a certain respect on the basis
of known similarity in other respects.
• Plato saw such analogies in the
realms of the material world.
• For the producers of the ideal state,
Plato used the word 'human cattle',
'the copper' or 'the bronze'; for the
soldiers, he used the word 'the watch
dogs' or 'the silver'; and for the rulers,
'the shepherd' and 'the gold'.
Plato’s work

Theory of Theory of Theory of Theory of

Ideas. Justice. Education. Communism.

Theory of Whether,
Theory of Was Plato
Philosopher Plato was 1st
Soul. Fascist.
king. feminist.
Political Philosophy of Plato
1. Theory of Ideas
• “Reality is the shadow of ideas”
• Theory of Forms or ideas is at the center of Plato's philosophy. All the other views on knowledge, Psychology,
ethics, and state can be understood in terms of the theory.
• Plato has developed his theory of ideas on the basis of Socrates theory of knowledge.

What is Socrates theory of knowledge?

• Importance of knowledge: According to Socrates, knowledge is virtual. It means knowledge is a source of
good life. In the words of Socrates “unexamined life is not worth living”.
• Which knowledge? : the knowledge of what constitutes a good life. The real knowledge is inherent in
human soul. Soul can tell us what we should do and what we should not.
• Following Socrates, Plato believed that knowledge is attainable and believed it to have two essential
characteristics:
1.Certain and infallible;
2.Contracted with which is only appearance.
Myth of the cave
The essential characteristics of Plato's theory of Forms
would, thus, include:
There is a difference between 'Form' or 'Idea'; 'Knowledge' and 'Appearance'; 'Actual', or
'Opinion' as there is difference between the ideal/ invisible world and the physical/ visible world.

The form is the ultimate object of appearance.

The actual world can attain the ideal world.

Knowledge can replace opinion and is attainable.

The visible world is the shadow of the real world.

What appears to be is not the Form, but is a form of the Form.

 Virtue is knowledge
Plato's theory of Form is closely related to his belief
that virtue is knowledge.

According to Plato, the idea of virtue is the idea of

action;

the ultimate object of virtue is to attain knowledge;

the knowledge of virtue is the highest level of

knowledge;

knowledge is attainable; and so is virtue attainable.

Political Philosophy of Plato
2. Theory of Justice
• “For Plato, justice does not consist in mere adherence to the laws, for it is based on the inner
nature of the human spirit.
• It is also not the triumph of the stronger over the weaker, for it protects the weaker against the
stronger.
• A just state, Plato argues, is achieved with an eye to the good of the whole.
• A just society, the ruler, the military, the artisan all do what they ought to do.
• In such just society, the rulers are wise, the soldiers are brave, and the producers exercise self-
control or temperance.
• 'Justice' is the central theme of the Plato's Republic; its sub-title entitled "Concerning Justice".
• Almost a similar view was been expressed by Sabine. He says: "Justice (for Plato) is a bond which
holds a society together."
The essential characteristics of Plato's notion can be
stated as these:

Justice is another name of righteousness.

It is more the performance of duties than the enjoyment of rights.

It is individual's contribution to the society in accordance with his abilities,

capacities and capabilities.

It is a social morality; man's obligation.

It is the strength of the social fabric as it involves a web of social system.

Plato's own theory, as stems from the discussion which went on among characters such as Cephalus,
Polernarchus, Thrasymachus, Glaucon, Adeimantus and Socrates, appears to be as under:

• Justice is nothing but the principle that each one should pursue a function for which one is fitted by
nature; each one to do one's own for one's own and for common good.
• Justice means specialization and excellence.
• Justice helps people to be in a society; a bond that holds society; a harmonious union of individuals, of
classes with the state. It is a bond that brings together individuals, classes and state into one frame.
• Justice is both a 'public' and 'private' virtue. It aims at tlie highest good of the individual (private), and of
the whole society (public).

Plato's theory of justice leads to division of labour, specialisation and efficiency.

• It is, therefore, a principle of specialisation, unity, non-interference and harmony.

• His notion of justice implies a social virtue, a private and public ethics and a moral dictate.
• And yet Plato’s theory of justice is totalitarian in the sense that it subordinates individual to the
state.
 Criticism of Plato’s theory of Justice
1. Ignores conflict or disagreement
• Plato enunciated the doctrine of specialisation as a vital precondition of justice and harmony of
society. But it is unfortunate that he has not uttered a single word about the conflict or
disagreement among the members of the same class or among the different classes.
• Barker says—”…the justice of whom Plato speaks is not really justice at all.

2. The theory establish hegemony over the entire society.

• Plato’s concept of justice has another drawback. The guardian class endowed with wisdom will
predominate over the entire society.

3. Individual is completely merged with the state.

• In Plato’s theory of justice there is no special or separate importance of the individual. He is not an
isolated self, but part of the whole order and the order is the ideal state.
• Plato has given no scope to the individual of thinking in his own way. In the vast order of the state
the individual cannot have separate identity.
 Political Philosophy of Plato
3. Theory of Education
• Plato’s theory of education is important in his political theory. It is important in so far as it
provides a basis for the ideal state designed to achieve justice.
• Following his teacher, Socrates, Plato had a belief in the dictum that Virtue is knowledge
and for making people virtuous. He made education a very powerful instrument

Education is not a private enterprise

• Plato also believed that education builds man's character that it is, therefore, a necessary
condition for extracting man's natural faculties in order to develop his personalities
State-directed education scheme
• In Plato’s mind there was an idea of compulsory education system which we today see in
many modern states. Sabine says that state-directed education scheme of Plato is
perhaps the most important innovation.
 Structure of education system proposed by Plato
It consisted of three stages: elementary between 6 to 20; higher, between 20 and 35; practical,
between 35 and 50; It divides into three stages-

1. Elementary education (6 - 20 years of age ) which culminating the beginning of military service.
• Younger people should be taught mythological stories treating of the divine nature whose very essence is to
be good and true.
• God is the manifestation of good and truth and mythology containing the stories of God should be taught.
From the very childhood young people should be well-acquainted with good and truth.

2. Higher education, (21- 35 years of age), those selected for higher education were those
who were to hold the highest positions in the guardian class.
• The guardians were to be constituted of the auxiliary class, and the ruling class. These two classes were to
have a higher doze of gymnasium and music, greater doze of gymnastics for the auxiliaries, and greater doze
of music for the rulers.
3. Third and final stage (36-50 years of age)
• The purpose of learning science and philosophy is to produce a guardian class or, more particularly,
statesmen and rulers.
• In Platonic model of politics justice, education, and communism all correspond to the concept of ideal state.
The absence of one of these will make the state incomplete.
 Evaluation of theory of education
Plato’s theory of education is “fascinatingly modern in many
respects”. His scheme of higher education is really innovating.

• His scheme of education was for the guardian class, i.e., the auxiliary class
and the ruling class; he had ignored the producing class completely;
• His whole educational plan was state controlled;
• It aimed at attaining the physical, mental, intellectual, moral development of
human personality;
• It aimed at preparing the rulers for administrative statesmanship; soldiers for
militarily skill; and producers for material productivity;
• It sought to bring a balance between the individual needs and social
requirement.
Criticism of Plato’s theory of education

Undemocratically devised in so far as it ignored the producing class. It was limited in nature
and was restrictive in extent by laying more emphasis on mathematics than on literature.

The whole plan was unexpectedly and unduly expensive.

It was un-individual in the sense that it restricted man's thinking process and his autonomy.

It was too abstract and too theoretical, so much so, it lost sight of administrative intricacies.
 Political Philosophy of Plato
4. Community of Wives and Property
• Domination of appetite is a great hindrance to the purification and goodness of the soul.
• Similarly, in the ideal state, there are three classes—the ruling class, military class and
farmers.

If the former two classes are guided by economic motive, then there will be
gross negligence of duty on the part of these two classes and that will
erode justice.
• Plato, for this reason, had prescribed the introduction of communism for these two classes.
• As Barker, writes for Plato: " the abolition of family life among the guardians is, thus,
inevitably a corollary of their renunciation of private property.
• According to Sabine, so firmly was Plato convinced of the pernicious effects of wealth upon
government that lie saw no way to abolish the evil except by abolishing wealth itself.
 Plato's communism takes to forms
1. Prohibition of private property

• Whether houses as land or money, to the rulers (and auxiliaries) and the provision that they
shall live in barracks and have the meals at a common table.

2. Abolition of a permanent monogamous sexual relation

• Substitution of regulated breeding at the behest of the rulers for the purpose of securing the
best possible offspring".

This two-type of communism is applied on the rulers and the auxiliaries

called the guardians by Plato.
 Comparison of Plato's and Marx's communism

Plato's communism has a political objective- economic solution of a political ailment;

Marx's communism has an economic objective-a political solution of an economic

ailment.

Plato's communism is limited to only two classes the rulers and the auxiliaries while
Marx's communism applies to the whole society.

Plato's basis of communism (or property) is material temptation and its nature is
individualistic while Marx's basis is the growth of social evils, which result from the
accumulation of private property.
 Criticism of Plato’s Community of Wives and Property
Plato's plan of communism been denounced by many, from his disciple Aristotle down to Karl Popper.
• Aristotle criticises Plato for having ignored the natural instinct of acquisition, making the scheme partial in so far as
excluding the producing class from it and declaring it ascetic and aristocratic, surrendering the best for the guardians.
• Plato’s communism has been criticized as “half Communism” due to the fact that it is not the Communism of the whole
society, but of the’ half society.
Others including Karl Popper, condemn Plato in numerous grounds, especially the following:
• It is doubtful if the communism of families would bring greater degree of unity by making the guardian a
single family.
• Aristotle hints at, it was bound to create confusion, if not disorder-one female would be wife of all the
guardians and one male, the husband- of all the females.
• Common children would tend to be neglected, for everybody's child would be nobody's baby.
• It is also doubtful if the state-controlled mating would ever be workable; it would rather reduce men and
women to the levels of mere animal by suggesting temporary marital relationship.
• The whole scheme of communism is too rigid, too strict, and too stringent.
• A system of marriage which is neither monogamy, nor bigamy, nor polygamy, nor polyandry.
• Too idealistic, too utopian, too imaginary, and accordingly, far away from the realities of life.
Question
Whether, Plato was 1 communist?
Political Philosophy of Plato
5. Theory of Philosopher king/ Ideal State
• . It is the job of the government, Plato affirmed more than once, to help people live a complete life.
• The problem which Plato addressed was not how best a government could be created but how best a
government could be installed.
• In the Republic, Plato constructs the ideal state in three successive stages:

1. Healthy state
• The healthy stale or what Glaucon termed as ‘the city of pigs’, is more or less a social grouping where men
get together, on the principles of ‘division of labour’, and of ‘specialisation’, to meet their material needs;

2. Luxurious state
• Rising out of the men of a healthy state to quench their thirst of ‘sofas and tables’, also of ‘saucer and
sweets’, and requiring, thus, a band of ‘dogs keen to scent, swift of foot to pursue, and stray of limb to
fight,’

3. Auxiliaries; the just state

• The ideal one, where among the ‘dogs’, the philosophers are able to judge by ‘the rule of knowing;
whom to bite,’ that is, ‘gentleness to friends and fierceness against enemies’, are there to guide the rest.
Thus, there is a clear hint of the classes, which constitute the ideal state—the producing class, the
auxiliary class, and the ruling class.
There are the ‘dog-soldiers’ for guarding and watching the human cattle aid
also for keeping the wolves—enemies—at bay; ‘the shepherd— guardian’ for
looking after the human sheep—all these are mentioned in the Republic.

• There is ‘the physician-statesman’ responsible for the general health of the ailing-state;
• ‘the pilot-statesman’, skilled in his art, wise in his job and rich in his experiences, for ordering the
affairs of the ship of the state;
• ‘the weaver-statesman’ for a creating a ‘just harmony’ uniting different elements of human.

Knowledge the merit which qualifies the rulers to rule their people. It helps
them, Plato said, Perform their responsibilities in the most perfect manner.
The rulers, he insisted, ought to know the science of politics; they ought to
use this science, he held, as the artist uses his art.
• Plato wanted the art and science of polities to be directed toward the attainment of a just order
in which each individual, or each group of individuals does his own appointed function.
 Criticism of Plato’s Political theory
Aristotle, Plato’s disciple, was his greatest critic. Karl Popper (The Open Society and its Enemies)
are men who have condemned Plato.

1. Enemy of the open society

• Of all the critics. Popper’s criticism of Plato the most devastating. Plato, to Popper, was an enemy of the open society.
Popper holds the view that Plato advocated a closed system which was not different from an idealised reproduction of the
tribalism of the past.

2. Justifying authoritarianism and totalitarianism

• To Karl Popper, Plato’s philosophy and its theories—of justice, communism, and education etc. are so many subtle ways of
justifying authoritarianism and totalitarianism. Plato’s philosophy sought to perpetuate or eternalise the ideal —the ideal of
anti-democracy, anti-change and anti-open society.

3. Plato’s ideal state would lead to a closed system

• Karl Popper: “Excellent as Plato’s sociological diagnosis was, his own development proves that the therapy he recommends
is worse than the evil it tries to combat. Arresting political change is not the remedy; it cannot bring happiness.
Questions
• Should Plato be called as Totalitarian thinker?
Questions
Whether, Plato was enemy of open society?
Questions
Assess Popper’s critique of Plato.
 Plato’s Place in Western Political Theory
Plato has been described as the father of philosophy, politics and literary idealism.
• He has given it a direction, a basis and a vision.

Political idealism
• Political idealism is Plato’s gift to western political philosophy. An idealist, as Plato really was, he was
more interested in future than in the present; in a model that in state can be than in the actual state;
in the form of the state than with a state that appears at present.
• This does not mean that the idealists do not take into account what the present or the actual state is.
In fact,the idealists build the fabric of the future on the basis of the present; in the present that
dictates their future.
• Plato’s idealism was grounded n the circumstances of the then city-states; his was the movement to
change the Greek of his own times.
• Plato can be described as an idealist, but not a utopian; a physician and not a life-giver, a reformer
and not a dreamer.
Questions
Evaluate Plato’s political philosophy. What is Plato’s contribution to
western political thought?
 Thomas Hobbes
• Importance of Hobbes’ Political Philosophy
• Hobbes’s methodology
• Political Philosophy of Hobbes
• The State of Nature
• The Social contract
 Introduction
Thomas Hobbes was a English philosopher, scientist, and historian, best known
for his political philosophy, especially as articulated in his masterpiece
Leviathan (1651).
• Hobbes viewed government primarily as a device for ensuring collective security.
• Political authority is justified by a hypothetical social contract among the many that vests in a
sovereign person or entity the responsibility for the safety and well-being of all.
• His enduring contribution is as a political philosopher who justified wide-ranging government
powers on the basis of the self-interested consent of citizens.

Time Period
• He has witnessed the troubled phase of British History. He has witnessed Puritan revolution of
1641. It led to the civil war in Britain. There was complete anarchy. There were different groups
fighting against each other, e.g. Catholic Vs Protestants and Royalist Vs Anti-Royalist.
• In a situation of anarchy, there was no security of life; hence order and self-preservation became
the concern of the philosophy of Hobbes.
 Importance of Hobbes’ Political Philosophy
Sabine acclaimed Hobbes as "probably the greatest writer on political philosophy that
the English speaking people have produced”.
According to Michael Oakeshott: "The Leviathan is the greatest, perhaps the sole,
masterpiece of political philosophy in the English language“.

Hobbes is now generally regarded as the father of modern political science.

It is he who for the first time systematically expounded the absolutist theory of
sovereignty and originated the positivist theory of law which was perfected by the
analytical jurists of the 19th and 20th centuries.
Karl Marx himself is said to have remarked that "Hobbes was the father of us all."

John Rawls thinks that Hobbes' state of nature is the classic example of the "prisoner's
dilemma" of game-theoretic analysis.
 Hobbes’s methodology

If Machiavelli is treated as Galileo of political science, Hobbes can be treated as Newton.

Hobbes was first person to apply a scientific method.

His own method was deductive and geometrical through and through. It was the
resolutive compositive method as developed in the school of Padua and followed by
Galileo and other natural scientists. According to this method, one comes to understand
a given object of inquiry by intellectually “resolving” it into its constituent parts and then
subsequently “composing” it back into a whole.

In spite of Hobbes' claim about the unity of his thought and its foundation in scientific
materialism, modern scholars have neither endorsed the supposed unity of his
philosophy nor accepted the scientific basis of his ethical and political theory.
According to Michael Oakeshott, the basis of Hobbes' politics was not scientific
materialism but philosophic rationalism, not a specific view of the nature of the
world, but a particular notion of philosophical knowledge.

He is infamous for having used the social contract method to arrive at the
astonishing conclusion that we ought to submit to the authority of an
absolute—undivided and unlimited—sovereign power.

While his methodological innovation had a profound constructive impact on

subsequent work in political philosophy, his substantive conclusions have
served mostly as a foil for the development of more palatable philosophical
positions.
 Political Philosophy of Hobbes

Hobbes sought to discover rational principles for the construction of a civil polity
that would not be subject to destruction from within.

Having lived through the period of political disintegration culminating in the English
Civil War, he came to the view that the burdens of even the most oppressive
government are “scarce sensible, in respect of the miseries, and horrible calamities,
that accompany a Civil War”.

According to him virtually any government would be better than a civil war, and, all
but absolute governments are systematically prone to dissolution into civil war,
people ought to submit themselves to an absolute political authority.
Continued stability will require that they also refrain from the sorts of actions that
might undermine such a regime.

For example, subjects should not dispute the sovereign power and under no
circumstances should they rebel.

In general, Hobbes aimed to demonstrate the reciprocal relationship between

political obedience and peace.
 The State of Nature

To establish his political philosophy Hobbes consider what life would

be like in a state of nature, that is, a condition without government

Human Nature
• The Human condition prior to the formation of civil society, is derived from the
nature of man, his basic psycho-physical character, his sensations, emotions,
appetites and behavior.
• Like all other things in nature, man is primarily a body governed by law of motion
which permeates the entire physical world.
• There are, Hobbes says, two kinds of motion in animals- vital motion and voluntary
motion.
Vital motion

• It is the automatic movement of the physiological mechanism which goes on within organism from
birth to death, without being conscious of it.
• Circulation of blood; breathing, digestion, excretion are examples of this kind of motion.

Voluntary motion
• It is first "fancied in our minds" and is caused by the impact of external stimuli on our sense organs
which produces phantasms in the brain and also initiates internal motion that is carried through the
nerves to the seat of vital motion that is the heart.
• This internal motion appears as sensation which either aids or retards the vital motion and thus helps
or hinders the continued existence and vitality of the physiological system
If the transmitted motion helps or heightens the vital motion, we are attracted to, or there is an
'endeavour’ toward, its originating cause or object in the external world; if it retards it, we are repelled by
it. Thus two original motions or emotions are generated which we call desire and aversion.
The predominant passions of desire and aversion are the root cause of conflict in the
state of nature according to Hobbes. Everybody is moved by the natural impulse of self-
preservation to desire and possess the objects or goods that are conducive to his
existence.

Since the goods or objects of desire are limited and men are roughly equal in strength,
when physical power of some is offset by the mental superiority or cunningness of others,
there consequently occurs an ruthless competition and conflict of interest among
individuals in which no one is eventually victorious.

Competition for goods of life becomes a struggle for power, because without power one
cannot retain what one has acquired. But it is in the very nature of power that it must be
continually augmented to save it from dissipation.
Hobbes in Leviathan says that "in the state of nature, we find three principle causes of
quarrel:

1.Competition,
2.Diffidence;
3.Glory.

The first, makes the men invade for gain; the second for safety; and the third, for
reputation.
 State of nature
If man is individualistic by nature and there is a continuous search
for power, the state of nature will be the state of war of all against
all. Since man wants to enjoy forever, man wants to gain power.
• When one person acquires power then other person will feel powerless. He will also
try to gain power. Power of one will become the cause of insecurity for the other.
This will create a situation of security dilemma.
• Hence, the state of nature will be such where there will be no scope for arts, letters,
navigation, industry, the life of man will be ‘Nasty, poor, Brutish and short’.
• Above description of state of nature show the influence of anarchy which was
prevailing in England during the times of Hobbes. It is also the one reason the
Hobbes takes the pessimistic view of human nature and the state of nature.
 Why contract is needed?
Since man is utilitarian by nature, man wants to enjoy. In the state of nature the life of
man is nasty, poor, brutish and short. Hence to avoid such situation man enters into the
social contract.
• The main contract for which man enters into the social contract is the preservation of life. Life is a source of
pleasure and death is the end of pleasure. Hence, man wants to avoid death and wants to secure life.

“I and fear were born together”.

• Hobbes was not only one of the greatest political philosophers. He was one of the best authors of English
literature. He has used metamorphic language.
• He tries to establish that the fear in man is the foundation of political obligation. State statement is also
influenced by the event of his life. His mother gave premature birth to Hobbes out of the fear of Spanish
Armada. Hence, he suggests that man is born with fear. There is a linkage in the feeling of fear and utilitarian
nature of man.
• Man is pleasure seeking and man is fearful of losing the things which gave his pleasure. The biggest fear is the
fear of death or loss of life because life is a source of pleasure. Hence, it is for the protection of life or self
preservation that man enters into contract and creates the state. The most important role of the state is to
provide the security of life. Hence, state is also the institution of utility for man.
The Features and outcomes of the contract

• It is a contract of all with all. Since no one trust the other it is important that each
secures the guarantee from the other.
• All people will agree that they will transfer all of their natural rights to the state or
the common wealth on the condition that every other person does so.
• Contract will result into the creation of the state. State is the third party. State is a
guarantor for the contract. State is under no obligation except one.
As a result of the contract state will emerge sovereign.

• In the state of nature every person was sovereign. There was no authority over man.
However, when man was sovereign the life of man was nasty, poor, brutish and
short.
• According to Hobbes man has only two options. Either to live in the state of anarchy
or under the authority of absolute state.
 Establishing Sovereign Authority
Why man will choose absolute state?
• Because state will provide the security of life. In the state of nature man had absolute
liberty but no security. When state comes into existence man has lost all liberty but
gained security.
• Now, state has absolute power over man.
• According to Hobbes, between liberty and security, man will prefer security.

What is the only limitation on the authority of the state?

• Man has transferred all of his natural rights except one, i.e. right to life or self
preservation. It is the obligation of the state to protect the life of man.
• If state fails to protect the life of man or if state takes the life of man in an arbitrary
manner, man has right to resist the state. Self preservation is a supreme right. Man
has right to kill other person for the sake of preservation of his life or in self defence.
Rights and Duties of the Sovereign
Sovereignty, according to Hobbes, is absolute, indivisible, inalienable and perpetual.

It is not limited either by the rights of the subjects or by customary and statutory law.

Sovereign is of course obliged to act according to Natural Law, but he alone is the interpreter of this
law and none of his actions can be challenged on the ground that it is violative of reason and justice.

Justice consists in acting in accordance with promises made, and the sovereign has made no promise.
Hence his actions cannot be called unjust or injurious.

In relation to his subjects, the sovereign is always in the state of nature and enjoys all his natural
rights. No one call complain that sovereign is acting wrongly, because everybody has autoionised him
to act on his behalf .
His actions are the actions of his subjects and nobody can rightly complain against
his own action. Sovereign has absolute right to declare war and make peace, to
levy taxes and impose penalties.

He is the ultimate source of all administrative, legislative and judicial authority.

Natural laws or customs and conventions attain the status of Law only when willed
and ordained by the sovereign.
 Hobbes view on Liberty – Theory of Liberty
Hobbes considers the nature of liberty under sovereign power and says that liberty means the
ability to act according to one's will without being physically hindered from performing that act.

Only chains or imprisonment can prevent one from acting, so all subjects have absolute liberty
under sovereignty.

Although the contract and the civil laws mandated by the sovereign are "artificial chains"
preventing certain actions, absolute freedom and liberty still exist because the subjects
themselves created the chains.

Subjects write the social contract and are the authors of the sovereign's power. Thus, argues
Hobbes, the subject is responsible for all hindrances to his actions and therefore cannot
complain.
In the state of nature, liberty did not exist, because actions were hindered by fear of
death and fear of the power of others.

In the Leviathan, fear and power are still present, but because the subject has
consented to give them to the sovereign to use as tools, the subject has attained
absolute liberty.

That is, the subject is an author of the sovereign's power and is accordingly
responsible for the sovereign's actions. So even if the sovereign imprisons or kills
the subject, the subject has been personally responsible for his own fate.

Hobbes concludes that freedom can only truly exist under a sovereign power
authorized by its subjects.
 Concept of Liberty

Liberty

Negative Liberty Positive Liberty

(Freedom in the absence of (Freedom in presence
state) of state)
 Concept of Positive Liberty by T.H. Green

According to Green, human consciousness postulates liberty; liberty involves rights; rights
demand the state.

The state is, therefore an instrument of perfection as the idealist theory claims.

The state owes its origin to the social natural of men, genuine human personality is essentially a
social phenomena.

It is inconceivable that an isolated natural man should be a moral agent.

He exercise his moral freedom within the social organization, for which he needs rights. But rights
are maintained by the state ; hence the state serves as an essential base for moral freedom.
Over-enthusiastic or clumsy state intervention could easily close down opportunities for conscientious
action thereby stifling the moral development of the individual.

The state should intervene only where there was a clear, proven and strong tendency of a liberty to
enslave the individual.

He fully recognised that laws alone cannot make people good, but they can at least enable individuals
to make themselves good.
T.H. Green thereby reflects a non-utopian view as to what legislation can achieve.
Hobbes on Liberty- Liberty is the silence of law
In other words, a citizen is free to do or forbear what the sovereign
has not commanded or forbidden. However, the command of the
sovereign cannot annul the subjects' right to self-preservation.
• Liberty is the concept which explains the status of relationship between individual
and the state. In the state of nature man had absolute liberty to do whatever man
wanted to do.
• In the state of nature there was no state or common authority.
• In the state of nature man was not able to enjoy liberty as there was lack of security
of even life. Absolute liberty has resulted into the situation of anarchy.
• Since man is utilitarian by nature man wanted to come out of state of anarchy. Man
has transferred all of his rights to the state. Now state emerged absolute, when state
exists man has no liberty.
Man is free only to the extent state has preferred to keep silent and not make law.

In case if state makes law man has no liberty but to act as per the law. State also
has power to punish those who do not act as per law.

Hobbes is not the supporter of liberty. He is rather fearful of liberty. Hobbes prefers
order and security over liberty.

“Liberty or Freedom signifies properly the absence of opposition in external

impediments to motion”.

Since beginning scholar have been trying to make a difference between liberty and
capacity.

Hobbes does not believe that capacity can be linked to liberty.

 Civil Law and Natural law
After the constitution of civil society, natural law is for all practical purposes replaced by
civil law which is the creation of the sovereign.

For Hobbes the conflict between common law and the statute law, and the
constitutional crisis arising out of it was the real problem to tackle and he was confident
that this could be solved only by making the will of the sovereign supreme and the
ultimate point of reference in all legal and political matters.

H. Warrender's classifies Hobbes's natural law in civil society into two parts:

• Natural law in the old style: interpreted by the individual and applied by him to his
own situation and actions
According to H. Warrender's classification, the natural law is eternal and the civil law is
positive.

According to Him: "With the advent of sovereign authority and the civil law that it
provides, the laws of nature are not superseded, though their manner of operational is
altered. They persist in civil society together with civil law itself, and play, in Hobbes'
theory, a part in determining the patterns of obligation in civil society no less essential
than their functions in the State of Nature"
 Assessment of Thomas Hobbes as a thinker
Hobbes is greatest of all individualists
• Individualism is a philosophy which gave importance to self interest rather than the interest of the
society.
• Individualists can be categorised into Two types:

Methodological individualists
• Those who built their political theory on the individualistic nature of man.
• Through his resolute compensate method Hobbes has shown that man is utilitarian and because
man is utilitarian man is individualistic.
• Nature has not created man in such way that man can understand the pleasure and pain of other.
He builds his theory of state on extremely individualistic nature of man.
Normative individualists
• Hobbes is individualist even in normative sense. He does not believe that individualism is bad.
• He was the first person to suggest that being individualist is the nature of man and it is a sin. It is
as natural fact as earth revolves around the sun.
No contradictory that Hobbes is individualist and absolutist at
the same time
• It is because of extremely individualistic nature of man that man has no option
but to live under the absolute authority of the state.
• It is for the protection of individual that absolute state has been created. He
does not make effort to change individual. He only creates the system so that
the individualistic nature of man can be managed.
• Hobbes has given right to self preservation and puts restriction on a state to take
away man’s right to life in an arbitrary manner.
• Since individualistic nature of man and the protection of the individual is the
core concern of his theory that Savine considers him as greatest of all
individualists.
• He has even given right to resist the state to an individual for protection of life.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
• Negative impact of science and
reason
• Critique of Civil Society
• Nature of State and Human
• Concept of General will
• Concept of sovereignty
• General will as the sovereign
• Comparison Hobbes, Locke and
Rousseau
 Introduction
He is known as father of French revolution and father of concept of popular
sovereignty as he has given the theory of general will.

He lived in the age of reason, French Enlightenment, and while he attacked the
ancient regime, he was also critical of the Enlightenment.

He is best remembered for or his theory of General Will, which provides a

philosophical justification for democratic governance.
• Rousseau was the first person to highlight the negative impact of science and reason.
• As a thinker he was the fisrt person to suggest that man is not bad rather society is bad. Hence what
is to be changed is society. Man will automatically become good.

In the opening statement of his book social contract he suggest that “Man is born
free, but he is everywhere in chains”.
 Life and Time
Rousseau lived at a time when the absolutist feudal order presided over by Louis XV
reigned France.

Political power, privilege and social prestige was the monopoly of the king, clergy and the
nobility, who lived extravagantly at the expense of the masses engaged in a grim battle of
survival.

Sharing the discontent and the desire for change was a new emergent class of the French
bourgeoisie, which found the extant order too restrictive for its own development and had
joined hands with the peasantry.

In shaping the climate of opinion and the spirit of dissent against the ancient regime the
French Enlightenment played a major role. Enlightenment judged everything based on
reason and experience alone.
Inevitably it brought under attack many things that had hitherto been taken for
granted, including the church and the traditional political institutions of France.

Rousseau shared some of the enlightenment ideas, but not wholly. In so far as the
philosophes desired change, pinned their faith in man as a agent.

Rousseau was with them, but he did not share their idea of progress implied in
their modernity and had greater regard for feeling than respect for rationality.
 Negative impact of science and reason- Revolt against
Reason
Rousseau attacked Enlightenment, in a prize-winning essay written in 1749 on the
question: "Has the progress of science and asts contributed to corrupt or purify
morality?" Rousseau argued that science was not saving but bringing moral ruin upon us.
Progress was an illusion.

What appeared to be advancement was in reality regression. The arts of civilised society
served only to ‘cast garlands of flowers over the chains men bore’.

The development of modern civilization had not made men either happier or more
virtuous. Virtue was possible in a simple society, where men lived austere frugal lives.
In the modern sophisticated society man was corrupted, and greater the
sophistication the greater the corruption.

He also found support in Roman history-so long as Rome was poor and simple she
was able to command respect and conquer an empire; after having developed luxury
and engulfed the riches of the Universe Rome 'fell prey to peoples who knew not
even what riches were,’

Rousseau argued that 'our minds have been corrupted in proportion as the arts and
sciences have improved’.

The much-vaunted politeness, the glory of civilised refinement, was for Rousseau, a
'uniform and perfidious veil' under which he saw 'jealousy, suspicion, fear, wildness,
reverse, hate and fraud.’
Against intelligence, the growth of knowledge and the progress of sciences, which the
Enlightenment believed to be the only hope of civilisation, Rousseau set amiable and
benevolent sentiments, the goodwill and reverence.

He privileged sentiments and conscience over reason and proposed that all moral
valuations he had done on the basis of sentiments.

Intelligence was dangerous because it undermined reverence; science was destructive

because it takes away faith; reason was bad because it sets prudence against moral
intuition.

Without reverence, faith and moral intuition there is neither character nor society.
Critique of Civil Society
The themes introduced in his prize winning essay were developed further in his second
essay written in 1754 on "what is the origin of inequality among men, and is it
authority by natural law?”

The second Discourse, as this essay is called, is a narrative of the fall of man-how his
nature got twisted, warped and corrupted with the emergence of civil society, which in
turn was necessitated by the rise of the institution of private property and the need to
defend it by institutionalising social inequality through 'law’.

Rousseau says that in the state of nature, which is a condition prior to the emergency of
society, man was a 'noble savage'; lived in isolatioll and had a few elementary, easily
appeased needs.
Nature of State
• State of nature was state of bliss.
• It is a description of human life before the advent of modern age, science and reason.
• Freedom is to act according to one’s choice or will. It also means to act according to one’s
true nature.

What is the condition of happiness?

• When person is free to act according to his nature and Happiness got spoilt.
• According to Rousseau with the growth of civilisation, when man started settled life gradually
he started losing happiness.
• The definition of a rational man in modern society is a man who knows how to maximise his
self interest, profit and pleasure.
• Rationality taught man the difference between how you calculate self interest, profit and
pleasure.
• Rationality taught man how to make difference between mine and thine.
• According to him, man has self love as well as sympathy for others. Man is essentially good.
Though Rousseau critiqued 'civil society', he did not suggest man to choose the savage
existence, as some of his contemporaries mistook him.

For Rousseau society was inevitable, without which man could not fulfill him or realise
his native potentials.

• The key to the construction of the ideal social-political order was to handle the
problem of political obligation, namely, why Should men obey the state through a
proper reconciliation of authority with freedom, as it ought to be-a task which
according to Rousseau, was unsatisfactorily and inadequately done by his
predecessor philosophers.
• We return again to the forests to live among bears? This is a deduction in the manner
of my adversaries, which I would as soon anticipate and let them have the shame of
drawing."
 Concept of General will – General Will/Popular
Sovereignty
Terms and conditions of the contract:
• All people agree to act to with their real will.
• The sum of real wills of all creates the general will.
• General will is the sum of real wills of the all.
• General will is essentially good because it is the sum of good wills.
• General will is represented in the state and in Rousseau people coming together form the state.
• General will is represented by the state and people are state.
• The idea comes to near the view that state is individual writ large.

What does state symbolise?

• When people combine together they form body politic e.g. it is assumed that the members of the
constituent assembly were working with their real will and constituent assembly represented the
general will on will of the people of India.
General will is indivisible, collective and always right. We are free only
when we follow the general will.
• Rousseau goes to the extent of suggesting that man should be forced to be free.
• It means if anyone does not obey the laws of the state, state should have power to punish. It
is for this reason said that general will is Hobbes’s Leviathan with his head chopped off.

Types of sovereignty:

• Legal sovereignty – it comes in Hobbes theory. According to it supreme power to make law
lies with the state to Hobbes state is a 3rd party i.e. beneficiary (monarch).
• Political sovereignty – It comes in the works of John Locke, according to Locke, sovereignty of
state is actually exercised by the people who form the government (parliament).
• Popular sovereignty – it is a philosophical notion. It suggests that sovereignty lies with the
people but is a very philosophical view (ideal).
 General will as the sovereign
Rousseau’s general will is Hobbes’s Leviathan with his head chopped off.
• In Hobbes, state is the 3rd party and the beneficiary state is like the crown/monarch.
• In Rousseau, there is no head power is diffused throughout the body politic.
• However, in effect general will as well as Leviathan both have absolute powers.
• If Hobbes gives monopoly over the use of coercive to Leviathan. Rousseau also suggests that man can
be forced to be free. Hence it is said that there is not much different except morphological difference.
• However it would be unfair if we compare Leviathan and General Will and believe that they are same.
Rousseau was actually the greatest exponent of direct democracy.
• Rousseau was impressed by the system of direct democracy which was prevailing in Switzerland even
at that time.
• According to Rousseau the only way general will emerges is when people go for direct participations in
law making.
• Thus Rousseau’s ideas are subjected to the manipulation by the totalitarians justifying state that
Rousseau is one of the greatest champions of democracy.
• With Rousseau also starts the idea of positive liberty when he says that man is free only when he obeys
the state.
• Another term for positive liberty is moral freedom.
 Comparison Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau
Hobbes Locke Rousseau
The state of nature is a state of Men exist in the state of nature in perfect Men in a state of nature are free and
war. No morality exists. Everyone freedom to do what they want. The state equal. In a state of nature, men are
lives in constant fear. Because of this of nature is not necessarily good or bad. It “Noble Savages”. Civilization is what
State of Nature fear, no one is really free, but, since is chaotic. So, men do give it up to secure corrupted him.
even the “weakest” could kill the the advantages of civilized society.
“strongest” men ARE equal.

Purpose of To impose law and order to prevent To secure natural rights, namely man’s To bring people into harmony. To
Government the state of war. property and liberty. unite them under the “General Will”.
Governments are designed to Representation ensures that governments Representation is not
control, not necessarily represent. are responsive to the enough. Citizens cannot delegate
people. Representation is a safeguard their civic duties. They must be
Representation against oppression. actively involved. Rousseau favors a
more direct democracy to enact the
general will.
Governments must be designed to 1. Governments must be designed to 1. Governments must be
protect the people from themselves. protect the people from the responsive and aligned with the
government. general will.
Impact on 2. Natural Rights must be secured. 2. People make a nation, not
Founders institutions.
3. Individual wills are subordinate
to the general (collective) will.
 JOHN LOCKE
• Locke’s Political Philosophy
• Locke’s and the Liberal tradition;
• Locke’s Social Contract and Human nature;
• Locke’s Social Contract and Human nature;
• State of nature as per Locke;
• Features of the contract;
• Filmer criticised social contract
Introduction
Locke's life (1632-
1704) coincided with • Locke is also a scholar of Bourgeoisie class/capitalist
one of the most class.
• By the time of Locke capitalists who were earlier
significant epochs of supporting the absolute monarch started claiming
British history that their rights back as evident in glorious revolution.
saw the • Often identified as founder of liberal tradition of
transformation of political thought and author of most compelling case
for religious toleration.
absolute monarchy • In John Locke, we can see the justification for the
into paramilitary natural rights and specifically justification to absolute
democracy- Glorious right to property.
Resolution of 1689.
 Locke’s Political Philosophy
Locke published his Two Treatises of Government and his famous philosophical work- The
essay Concerning Human understanding in 1690.

Locke's other important writings were the Letter concerning toleration (1689, 1690 and 1692)
and Some Thoughts Concerning education(1693).

The Two Treatises of Government consists of two parts-

• The first is the refutation of Sir Robert Filmer who was strong partisan of the royalists in
the political conflicts of the day, who had argued in his book Patriarcha that kings ruled by
divine right. Filmer attempted to show that divine right monarchy was established in the
Bible.
• The second, the more important of the two, is an inquiry into the "True original, Extent
and End of Civil Government." The work was ostensibly written to justify the Glorious
Revolution.

The first was largely critical in character; the second more constructive.
 Locke’s and the Liberal tradition
Locke is the founder of the liberal tradition in political thought.

Usually, political power is taken to be a fact, not a “right.” Locke’s definition of political power contains
many noteworthy points but most strikingly is his assertion: “Political Power then I take to be a
Right…”.

Political power, according to Locke, is a certain kind of power to coerce, to make and enforce laws with
the penalty of death and consequently all lesser penalties as well.

He highlights the harsh coercive side of political power and by denoting it a right he brings to the fore
the question: what makes right this coercive power?

Locke is not taking for granted the existence and contours of political power. He demands at the outset
a justification for its very existence.
It is for this reason that he begins his political philosophizing by positing a state of
nature, that is, a “state of perfect freedom” and “a state also of Equality, wherein all the
Power and Jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another”.

Locke’s definition of political power highlights rightful coercion as the decisive means of
the political and at the same time he emphasizes the limited ends for which that power
exists: “for Regulating and Preserving Property, and […] the defence of the common-
wealth from Foreign Injury, and all this only for the Public Good”.
 Locke’s Social Contract and Human nature

Locke has witnessed glorious revolution; hence his description of human nature is not as pessimistic as that of
Hobbes. He takes balance view of human nature in 2nd Treatise, if man is self centred man also has reason.

The reason is man governs him to take care of the interest of the others in his own self interest. Thus he gives an
enlightened view of self interest.

“Reason teaches man that being all equal and independent; no one ought to harm other in his life, health, liberty of
possessions”.

Locke takes the enlightened view of self interest. In Hobbes man is dominative by passion. Man does have a reason
but only to the extent that man can satisfy his appetite. Man does not have enough reason to control the appetite.
In Locke reason and passion is balanced.

According to Locke god has created everyone equal, god has given enough reason in man. It is the reason in man
which guides him not to harm the interests of others. We can see the impact of glorious revolution on his
description of human nature.
 State of nature as per Locke

“State of nature is a state of peace, goodwill and mutual assistance”.

State of nature is a hypothetical concept to show the state of human life in the absence of common authority or a
state. State of nature is shaped by human nature.

If state of nature in Hobbes is a state of war, the state of nature in Locke is a state of peace. Hobbesian man is anti-
social whereas Lockean man is already living in the society. If Hobbes description of human nature and the state of
nature was influenced by the civil war in Britain, Locke’s description of human nature is influenced by glorious
revolution.

Since, man has reason and reason in man teaches him, not to harm other person, it was possible for man to live in
the state of peace in a state of nature.
According to Hobbes, man had natural rights but it is better calling these rights as
powers, Only those who had powers could enjoy natural rights. This shows that
man can enjoy rights only in the society.

The state of nature in Locke is already social and hence man was able to enjoy
rights.

According to Locke, natural law i.e. reason allowed man to enjoy rights. Reason in
man teaches man not to harm others. Thus, in the state of nature man had natural
right and it was possible for man to enjoy rights because of natural rights.
 Why contract is needed?

If man has a reason, man also has passion. Hence, we cannot leave things on the goodwill of
man. There is no guarantee that goodwill will continue to prevail.

Hence it will be better if there is some agency which can ensure that people do not destroy
the goodwill.

In the state of nature there was no common authority to make law, execute law and
interpret law. Each person was the law maker, executive and judge.

It goes against reason if a reason is judge in his own case. Person who has killed his brother
will not declare him guilty. It will also be inconvenient that law varies from person to person.
Features of the contract

In Hobbes there is one In Locke there are two

contract: contracts:
• By single contract man creates • Outcome of the 1st contract –
society as well as state. creation of civil society.
• Outcome of the 2nd contract –
creation of government.
 First Contract: Creation of civil society
Natural State/ Government
society
Civil Society
School, Media, Economy,
Family Organisation

Formal
Kinship
society

Informal

• Civil society is a very important concept in liberal discourse. Institutions excluding governmental and family
kinship come under civil society.
• In liberal countries civil societies enjoys lot of rights. In totalitarian countries civil society is absent, civil
society does not have rights. Civil society is a formal sphere of life whereas natural society is informal.
• In state of nature men have rights as a result of first contract they have given formal recognition to each
other’s rights.
 Second Contract: Creation of government
What is government?
• In state of nature common authority to make law, execute law and adjudicate law was absent. Hence by
contract people have formed common authority i.e. government. Government has 3 branches:
• Legislative.
• Executive.
• Judiciary.
• Law proposes separation of powers as in the state of nature there was no separation of powers.

What powers government has?

• People have not transferred all of their rights to the government. They have transferred only 3 natural
rights.
• Right to make law.
• Right to execute law.
• Right to adjudicate law.
• People have unlimited rights and government have limited rights.
Nature of the power of government:
• Government has no original power. It only has delegated power. Original powers lie with the people.
Government is a trust, people are trustees. Trust cannot run against the wishes of trustees. Hence,
government cannot make any law for which people have not given their consent. Since, people have not
transferred right to life, liberty and property. Government cannot make any law which will limit these rights.

What if government makes such laws?

• People have right to revolt against the government.

Meaning of revolution:
• Revolution in law does not mean violent overthrow of the system. It simply means change in the person
running the government by constitutional method i.e. through elections.
How government is elected?
• In the first contract all people enter into the contract with all.
• In the second contract where government is formed, few people will be elected among the people to
represent them.
• Government is elected by majority, whichever group gets majority will get right to form government. Thus
government represent the consent of the people.
According to Locke consent is of 2
types:
• Explicit consent.
• Tacit consent.

Explicit consent/Tacit consent:

• Majority gives explicit consent. It is assumed that minority has given implicit/Tacit consent. The
purpose is to suggest that government is assumed to be based on consent and everyone should follow
the laws made by government.
Scope of the power of the government:
• Government has limited powers.
• Government enjoys only delegated powers and no original powers government can make law only to
the extent permitted by the people.

Government cannot make law which limit right to life, liberty and property because man
has not transferred these rights.
 Filmer criticised social contract
According to filmer state is a big family of god. God has created Adam. God has given
absolute power to Adam. Adam is the 1st king. Hence he should enjoy absolute authority
• Filmer did not accept contract as the basis of political authority.
• According to him, the basis of authority should be hereditary from god the power has been transferred to
Adam and from Adam to his sons and their successors. It means all kings are successors of Adam and should
enjoy absolute rights.

Filmer criticised social contract on two grounds-

1.Social contract assumed that man is born free, however man is not born free, man is born in the society.
Hence man does not have freedom to choose society.
2.If we accept the theory of contract or consent it will not be justified to impose contract on those who have
not been party to the contract. It would not be justified to bind future generations with the contract which
has been entered by previous generations.
• He also believed that if we go for system of contract with respect to the institution of private property. It will
create problems; hence he prefers the system of heredity.
Locke has criticised Filmer on following grounds:
• There is no basis to accept the theory that god has given absolute power to
Adam. Even then he assumed that god has given absolute power to Adam
what are the grounds to assume that god has given similar powers to his
successors.
• Even if we accept that god has given similar power how to assure that which
king or king are real successors of the Adam. Contract is the best basis for
institution of property. So much time has gone since god has given powers to
Adam; such event does not carry significance in the present time.
• It is wrong to give absolute authority to the king. The authority of the king and
authority of father is different. Authority of father is absolute because children
are completely dependent on father, same cannot be said about the citizen.
• On above grounds he rejects filmer’s theory of the justification of
absolute authority of the state. Though Locke has criticised filmer but
according to some scholars he would have preferred to criticise
Hobbes and Hobbes book not been so controversial.
• Locke initiates his “Labour Theory of Property”, which is meant to
refute Filmer’s critique of the possibility of private property on any
basis other than his notion of an original divine donation of the world
to Adam.
• Locke’s discussion of property was also addressed against traditional
notions of property, which, in various ways, set limitations on
acquisition, ownership, and use of property.
 Locke’s theory of Natural Rights
Man enjoyed natural rights in the state of nature out of all natural rights the most important
rights are right to life, liberty and property.

• A right, it was rejoined, is not merely a liberty, but it is a morally valid claim such that it comes with a correlative duty
in another to respect or recognize that right in some way.
• Thus, if Thomas has a right of free speech, others have a duty or obligation not to interfere with Thomas in his
exercise of his right.
• Or more immediately to the point, if Thomas has a right to life, then others do wrong if they take his life; they violate
a duty, moral limitation imposed on them by Thomas’s right.

All the natural rights men possess “property”

• Locke affirm that men have property in themselves, and goes so far as to call all the natural rights men possess
“property”; he affirms, for example, that man “…hath by nature a power, “…to preserve his property, that is, his life,
liberty and estate, against the injuries and attempts of other men”.

Life, liberty and property are the parts of man’s personality. It is unreasonable to think that
man can alienate himself from his life, liberty and property. Locke has given justification for
absolute right to property.
To affirm property is to affirm that nobody else has a right, without the consent of the owner, to seize,
damage, or otherwise infringe on the property of another. Thus, Locke can say that the infringements by
others on one’s property are “injuries,” i.e., actions against rights.

Lockean rights, whether derived from God’s ownership or from self- ownership, thus have as correlates
duties of forbearance on the part of others. They have instead a moral immunity against others using
violence or otherwise impinging on their bodies.

It is wrong for others to coerce or interfere with the bodies (the platform of life), the actions (liberty), or
the external goods (property) of others.

Because men have the basic natural rights and the correlative immunity from coercion, the initial
situation is rightfully conceived of as a state of nature, that is to say, a state where there is no authority or
political power as Locke has defined it, for that is at core the right to use coercion even into death.

The state of nature then is an inference from the natural endowment with rights, understood as derived
either from divine or self-ownership.
 Locke’s Theory of Property
Locke devotes an entire chapter of his Second Treatise to the topic of property.
• The chapter on property has attracted as much attention as it has because its main line of argument and its
conclusions have been held to lay the ground work for the theory of capitalism.
• The purpose of life is pursuit of happiness. God has created apple, milk, meat to eat and drink to satisfy the
appetite. God has not created man to sacrifice. Like Hobbes, Locke is also utilitarian. Property is a source of
good life.
“the Regulation and Preserving of Property” as the purpose for which political power
exists
• His identification of “the Regulation and Preserving of Property” as the purpose for which political power exists
means that he understands the purpose of government in the same terms as Thomas Jefferson used in the
American Declaration of Independence: “in order to secure these rights, governments are instituted among
men”.
At the time Locke has used the term right to property in an inclusive sense to include
life and liberty. It gives two meanings:
• Without property life and liberty carries no meaning.
• It also means that they are man’s property and not states property, so state cannot deprive man from his
natural rights.
Origin of property:
• Initially, property was held in common, however, it is commonsense to understand
that property cannot remain in common. Those who were hard working industrial
us became owners of property and became rich and those who were fanciful.
Lazy, quarrelsome, contentious remained poor.
• Hence, Locke suggests man’s absolute right to property. Property is a part of man’s
personality. Man should have absolute right on his personality. Property is the
product of man’s labour. It includes the labour of his horse and labour of his slave.
Locke has put 3 limitations on right to property:
1.Labour limitation: Property should be earned by the use of labour it includes the
labour of horse or slave. Property should not be earned by force or fraud.
2.Spoilage limitation: God has given property to enjoy not spoiling.
3.No one should deprive the other from earning property.
Role of the state with respect to right to property:
• “The sole purpose for which man has created commonwealth is the preservation of
property.
• Locke has given the theory of night watchman state order for the sake of
preservation of property which includes right to life and liberty. State is not expected
to perform any other function. Man has created state/government to remove
inconvenience present in the state of nature. State in Locke is not a necessity as in
Hobbes. State is just a matter of convenience. Since, Locke has justified absolute
right to property, Locke is known as a scholar of possessive individualism.
• In contemporary time, Robert Nozick has revived the argument of Locke in his
entitlement theory of justice. According to Nozick minimal state is inspiring and right.
Rousseau and Marx view on Property
• The new system of private property greatly advantages some over others, for
some own land, while others are reduced to their self-owned bodies and labor-
power, which they must sell in order to survive.
• Locke sees this arrangement, so objectionable to thinkers like Rousseau and
Marx, as justified by the rights of the owners but also by its service to all,
including the non-owners.
• The creation of a complex society with a complex division of labor, and great
productive power is of benefit for all, because, as Locke says, “a king of a large
and fruitful territory (in America, where there is no private property) feeds,
lodges, and is clad worse than a day labourer in England”
Assessment of Locke as a thinker
Locke as father of liberalism
• Every political ideology represents the interest of a particular class.
• Karl Mannheim suggests the concept of ‘Sociology of knowledge’.
• Liberalism was the philosophy of emerging bourgeoisie class. Bourgeoisie class demanded equality
before law and equality of opportunity. Bourgeoisie class demanded absolute right to property.
• In Locke theory we can see the concept of night watchman state/limited state.
• Liberty is one of the core value of liberalism. Locke claimed absolute right to life, property and
property. Liberalism believes in the rationality of man since man is rational, man can be given
rights. US constitution comes nearest to the ideal of liberal government.
• Reflection of Locke’s philosophy on the basic principles of US constitution like limited
government, absolute FR, religious freedom/toleration, representative government, separation of
powers.
• Hence, it would be appropriate to John Locke as a father of liberalism. He is a source of inspiration
for liberals like Montesquieu, Robert Nozick, and Milton Friedman.
 Scholar of possessive individualism.
Canadian political scientist C. B. Macpherson who is liberal egalitarian calls John Locke as the scholar of
possessive individualism. His theory of democracy, his justification for absolute rights to property serves
the interest of bourgeoisie class. Hence his theory of democracy is not qualified. His democracy is for rich
class.

According to Mac Pherson It is hard indeed to turn Lockean doctrine into any kind of unqualified
democratic theory.

Mac Pherson has given a detailed analysis over the different theories of democracy. John Locke gives the
theory of limited government. Government is elected by majority Government represent the consent
according to Locke majority has given explicit consent and minority has given Tacit consent.

Locke has even ensured that state cannot infringe Man’s right to life, liberty and property.
Hannah Arendt
• Origins of totalitarianism –
political work.
• Philosophical work on human
condition.
• Theory of action or concept of
politics
• Hannah Arendt’s concept of
revolution
• Eichmann in Jerusalem –
concept of banality of evil.
 Introduction
Hannah Arendt is a heterodox thinker
• Hannah Arendt was prominent philosophers of the 20th century.
• Her work was related to historical and contemporary political events, such as
the rise and fall of Nazism, and drew conclusions about the relation between
the individual and society.

She describes her thinking as ‘thinking without barriers’

• She was a German-born American political theorist. Though often labelled as
a philosopher, she rejected the notion that philosophy is concerned with
"man in the singular" and instead defined herself as a political theorist
because her work centres on the fact that "men, not Man, live on the earth
and inhabit the world"
She gives her own meanings to the conventional concepts.
• Though, she cannot be linked with any specific school of thought yet the common
idea connecting her work is the concern for participation in civic affairs.
• Hence some scholars categorise her as belonging to civic republicanism.

She adopted the methodology of phenomenology.

• Phenomenology is a method where theories are given on the basis of experiences
as they are lived rather than on the basis of reason or logic.
• She was influenced by scholars like Aristotle, St. Augustine, Martin Heidegger and
Karl Jaspers.
Works of Hannah Arendt

Origins of Philosophical work

totalitarianism – on human
political work. condition.

Eichmann in
Jerusalem –
concept of banality
of evil.
 Origins of totalitarianism
In her books on origins of totalitarianism she has analysed the
totalitarians regime of 20th century. This includes Nazism and Stalinism.

She describes totalitarianism as the rule of terror and ideology.

• In the words of Hannah Arendt totalitarianism is bureaucratically centralised violence

made possible by 20th century technology in the service of 19th century ideology.
• In order to clarify the difference between earlier autocratic regimes and 20th century
totalitarianism she suggests that it is completely a new form of government with no
examples in history.
• In all autocratic regimes so far violence has been used as a means but in totalitarianism
violence becomes an end in itself. It is a use of violence without strategic rationality.
• In earlier autocratic regimes, regimes tried to control the speech, these regimes tried to
control thought also. It was not just the control of body, it was controlling souls.
 Reasons for totalitarianism
Hannah Arendt traces the origin of totalitarianism the long history of tribalism, racialism and
imperialism found in Europe.
• Hitler was not the only person believing in the myth of racial superiority. It has always been
present in European culture.
• Totalitarianism leaders use myths of racial superiority to justify their regimes. She blames
scholars like Joseph Arthur de Gobineau who gave the myth of racial superiority of Aryans.
• He held that fall of Aryans had happened because of inter-mixing of blood in inferior races
like Africans and Jews.
• Gobineau made Jews a separate race just because they were following different religion.
• The myth of racial superiority got strengthened when European came in contact with other
civilisations as a part of expansion of capitalism.
Since they won these wars, it consolidated the myth of racial superiority. These leaders use
these myths to build power. She also blames scholars like Rousseau who have developed myths
like General Will. Thus tribalism, imperialism, romanticism provided the basis for
totalitarianism.
According to her the dangers of totalitarianism arrives when
the stable context in which people live get disturbed. In 20th
century Europeans were suffering of multiple pathologies:
1.Expansion of capitalism.
2.Growth of bureaucratised state which has undermined the possibility of
viable public life which unite citizens.
3.Conversion of classes into masses.
4.Control of state by bourgeoisie.
5.Over emphasis on economic sphere and delegitimisation of political
institutions.
6.Decline of principles of citizenships and deliberation.
 Theory of action or concept of politics
Hannah Arendt theory of action is given in her book ‘human
conditions’.
Action
Human beings perform two types of actions i.e. thinking
and action.
Thinking
Labor is that activity which corresponds to the biological Action
processes and necessities of human existence, the practices (Vita-
(Vita-Activa)
which are necessary for the maintenance of life itself. contemptetiva)
Arendt refers to humanity in this mode as animal laborans.
Because the activity of labor is commanded by necessity,
the human being as laborer is the equivalent of the slave;
labor is characterized by unfreedom.
According to Hannah Arendt, action is important. Plato is
wrong when he says thinking is important and Marx is
correct when he says action is important.
She makes difference between strength, force, violence and power.
• Difference in strength and power: Strength belongs to the person (personal) whereas power
belongs to people (group). It means person is either strong or weak. Person is not powerful
or powerless. It is not the characteristics of individual. Power is a characteristic of a
community.
• Difference in force and power: Force belongs to the world of nature and power belongs to
the world of humans.
• Difference in power and violence: Power belongs to the people and violence belongs to the
state.
From the above analysis we can understand following features of power:
• Power does not belong to the individual.
• Neither economic resources nor bureaucratic office makes one powerful.
• Power is sui-generis means power emerges on its own and disappears on its own. No one can
control and hold power.
• Power emerges when people came together; power disappears when people go back to their
private sphere. The purpose of power is not coercive, according to Hannah Arendt power is
‘Acting in concert with one another’.
 Politics as performance and self-discovery
Arendt is not a deliberative democrat, envisioning public life as a discussion about what
should be done, in which people try to discipline their own interests and personalities in the
interests of the common good.

She appreciates competition and the pursuit of excellence in public life. And people
discover their full humanity by displaying their personalities in public.

“Freedom was understood as being manifest in certain, by no means all, human activities,
and that these activities could appear and be real only when others saw them, judged them,
remembered them.

The life of a free man required the presence of others. Freedom itself therefore needed a
place where people could come together—the agora, the market-place, or the polis, the
political space proper”
 Civic republicanism/liberalism
Arendt sees political participation as a source of happiness (at least for some) and self-
discovery.

It is thus an intrinsic good, not just a means to justice, or security, or happiness, or other
goods.

And you need government not so much to guarantee good outcomes for communities as
to be a space for politics.
That reflects what is now being called the “civic republican” tradition, in contrast to what
is sometimes called “liberalism,” which holds that politics and governments are costs we
must pay to get benefits.
The liberal tradition sees government and politics as a cost, whereas Arendt sees politics
as a benefit and government as the space that allows politics.
 Hannah Arendt’s concept of revolution
Hannah Arendt is critic of Marx because Marx favours violent revolution. Marx
looked revolution as a means for resolving social and economic questions.

According to Hannah Arendt the real revolution is secularisation.

• It is freedom from fear, it is freedom from myths. The real revolution means the fundamental
change in the manner we think.
• She compared French revolution and American Revolution. She appreciates American
Revolution because it gives political freedom.
• She criticises French Revolution because in the name of social and economic justice state
enhance its power. Though American Revolution is better yet it is incomplete.
• It provided constitutional checks on the arbitrary exercise of power but has not created enough
space for people’s participation in public sphere.
Banality of evil
The concept of banality of evil came into prominence with the
publications of her book ‘Eichmann in Jerusalem’ in 1963.
• Book became controversial because Hannah Arendt does not blame Eichmann.
Eichmann was the chief architect of Hitler’s holocaust (mass killing of Jews). He was
captured in Argentina and brought to Israel for trials.
• During trials she realised that Eichmann was a very normal person. He killed Jews
not because he hated Jews, but because he was implementing the orders. Eichmann
had no regrets about his acts. His response was duty is duty.
• According to Hannah Arendt such crimes are committed not by psyopaths or
sociopaths but by perfectly normal person. He killed Jews not because of presence
of hatred but absence of imaginative capacities.
• He could not understand the human and moral consequences of his action. He did
not exercise his capacity to think. If he had thought about the moral consequences
he would have been aware of the evil nature of his deeds.
Eichmann was innocuous person operated without thinking, incapable of moral
judgments. Had he applied the judgments sufferings of his victims would have
become real.

In the words of Hannah Arendt evils become benal when it acquires unthinking and
systematic character. It becomes banal when ordinary people participate in it, build
distance from it justify it in countless ways.

There are neither moral conundrums nor revulsions. Evil does not look like evil it
become faceless.

Implications:
⎯According to her evils becomes normal because it has become part of our daily
life, if a crime against humanity becomes regular feature of life without being
named and opposed, such crimes become normal.
Alan Wolfe argued that Arendt concentrated too much on who Eichmann was,
rather than what Eichmann did. For Arendt’s critics, this focus on Eichmann’s
insignificant, banal life seemed to be an ‘absurd digression’ from his evil deeds.

Gershom Scholem, calls her banality-of-evil thesis was merely a slogan that ‘does
not impress me, certainly, as the product of profound analysis’.
 Antonio Francesco Gramsci
• Gramsci’s model of history
• Concept of Hegemony
• Concept of civil society
• Concept of integral society
• Gramsci’s theory of revolution
• Gramsci’s analysis of intellectual class
 Introduction
While Marxism has met with certain definite political failures, it has
withstood the test of time and academic achievements.

Marxism has shown itself as a successful social analytical theory

particularly from the point of view of subaltern masses struggling for
their emancipation.

Antonio Gramsci, an Italian Marxist, is one among those who have been
very much instrumental to changes and developments in present day
Marxism.
Gramsci is founder of communist party of Italy. Contemporary of Mussolini.

Gramsci joined to work in the Socialist Party of Italy and the October Revolution of 1917 in Russia
inspired him to become a Marxist.

The second greatest personality in the history of Marxism.

Gramsci has saved Marxism from the criticism of crude economic determinism.

Since Gramsci was put behind the bar, Gramsci had no access with respect to the changes happening
outside. Gramsci wrote on pieces of paper which were later published as ‘prison notebook’.

It is said that the advisors of Mussolini advised him that Gramsci should not allowed thinking.
Prominent contributions of Gramsci

Concept of Concept of civil Concept of

Hegemony society integral society

Gramsci’s
Gramsci’s theory
analysis of
of revolution
intellectual class
 Gramsci’s model of history
The Gramsci has given 3 layered structures. According to Gramsci elements of superstructure are not just the reflection
of base but structures in themselves. He divided superstructure into 2 levels: Civil society and State.

State

School Church Media State

Integrated
State
Civil Society
Economic Structure
Gramsci has given more serious thoughts on the elements of
superstructure and hence Gramsci is also known as the theoretician of
superstructure. In this way Gramsci rescue Marxism from being crude
economic determinism.

“Men make their own history but they do not make it as they please.
They do not make it under self selected circumstances; but
circumstances existing already, giving and transmitted from the past”

• According to historical materialism economical structure is the basic structure of the

society. A structure constrains choices.
• Human beings are not autonomous agent. They are not free to choose. Their choices are
shaped by the system e.g. if economical system is capitalist then capitalist even if he
want he cannot give higher wages because his actions are constrained.
Though Marx suggest that humans are not autonomous yet Marx is not pessimistic.
He believes that man can shape history. Once working classes come out of false
consciousness they will develop true consciousness. They will overthrow the
exploitative system of capitalism.

Marx has applied the laws of dialectics.

• Seeds of communism are inherent in capitalism. Capitalism is full of
contradictions. Capitalists dig their own graves.
• Capitalism is bound to collapse workers are the progressive classes. They are on
the right of side of the history.

Capitalists even when they resist the change they will not be successful hence despite
being deterministic Marx is optimistic.
 Relevance of Marx

The biggest reason to put question mark on relevance

of Marx is collapse of communism around the world.
• Russia adopted neo-liberal economic model. China had adopted
market modelling back in 70s itself. India also left command
economy and had gone for structural adjustment programs.
• Towards the end of 1990s we see the hegemony of neo-liberal ideas
and expansion of globalisation based on neo-liberal ideas.
• American scholar Frans Kuky Yama describes the moment not just
end of cold war but the end of history. He described western liberal
democracy as the end point of man’s ideological evolution.
Relevance of Marxism has also been questioned because Marxism
remains an utopia, whatever practical form of communism that has
emerged is equated with totalitarianism by western scholar.
• Karl Pauper called Marx as enemy of open society. However if we look at the
developments since September 11, 2001 we cannot say that there is a universal
acceptance of western liberal model.
• We cannot say that end of history has happened as globalisation has progressed
there has been a growth of inequalities.
• Thoman Piketty in his book ‘capital in 21st century’ has given evidences about the
phenomenal rise of inequality since 2008 western world is going through the
economic crisis.
• The future of neo-liberal projects like EU remains under threat. Since global financial
crisis there has been a renewed interest in class capital of Karl Marx.
 Structuralism
Structuralism is supposed to be scientific approach in social sciences. It is
based on the assumptions that there are some structures or elemental,
fundamental aspects of reality.

What is Gramsci’s analysis?

• Gramsci felt that Marx has taken elements of superstructure lightly they are not just the
reflection of the base but they are structure in themselves. We cannot take it for granted
that if material structure changes, superstructure will automatically change.
• We cannot take it for granted that if mode of production becomes socialists all other
institutions will change on its own. Hence he suggests the need for deeper analysis of the
institutions of the civil society.
• Gramsci suggested that working class need to learn how bourgeoisie have established their
domination (control). Bourgeoisie class established their domination not just by controlling
the means of production but also controlling the ideology and culture i.e. means of
production of ideology and culture. Gramsci talks about the concept of hegemony.
 Concept of Hegemony
Site of hegemony
• Civil society is the site of hegemony. It is a location where hegemony is manufactured.
Often we overlook the role of civil society in maintaining the domination of
bourgeoisie class.
• Civil society acts silently. Civil society is much nearer to base than state. Civil society
acts as a cushion or a shock absorber. The states where strong civil society exists,
where media has freedom, where educational institutions are autonomous it is more
difficult to bring revolution.
Gramsci categories states into two types:
• Transparent state: In transparent state civil society is absent so the exploitative
nature of state is visible and revolution is easy.
• Opaque state: In opaque state where civil society exists it is able to hide the real
nature of the state and so revolution is difficult.
 Gramsci’s theory of intellectuals

Common understanding about intellectuals

• Common understanding is that intellectuals tell the truth.
• Gramsci’s understanding; intellectuals are not neutral their theories hide more truth than
revealing the truth. They do not tell the truth they manufacture the truth.
• According to Gramsci, all men all intellectuals but everyone does not perform the
functions of intellectuals.

What he means when he say all are intellectual?

• All jobs require the use of intellectual even manual job requires intellect. Gramsci talks
about those intellectual classes perform the role of manufacturing hegemony and
generating consent.
• It is the intellectual class which make the values of dominant class as a commonsense
value.
 Gramsci categories intellectuals into two types
01. Traditional intellectual
• Gramsci has explained traditional intellectuals with reference to the rise of capitalism. There were
certain intellectual where Gramsci has focused on the role of church fathers.
• These intellectual were the supporter of feudal class and initially resistant to the new class. Once
feudalism ended, they stopped resisting the new dominant class and bourgeoisie also incorporated
them.
• Traditional intellectuals also give the impression of neutrality. It is much easier for them to make the
impression because their growth is not linked organically to the dominant class.

02. Organic intellectual

• The class of intellectuals whose emergence is organically linked to the emergence of the dominant
class are treated as organic intellectuals e.g. in the west with the growth of capitalism the intellectual
class like supervisors, manager, doctors, engineers, civil servants came into existence.
• In case of India we can give the examples of zamindars, civil servants as organic intellectuals which
emerged as per the requirement of British Raj.
Both organic and traditional intellectuals play the role of manufacturing consent.
 Hegemony means something more specific than power and
domination

Power is a central concept of political theory.

• All concepts of politics power remains a contested concept. Different scholars define power different.
• Different scholars also bring forward different dimensions of power. The purpose of power is to get things done
by others.
• We have been familiar with the coercive dimension of power, when Marx uses the term power or power of the
state in the interest of bourgeoisie class he points towards the coercive form of power.
Gramsci has brought another dimension of power which he preferably calls as hegemony
• Hegemony is soft power it is an invisible power. If coercive power of society is located in the state, hegemony is
located in civil society, when hegemony is manufacturing consent, intellectuals play major role in
manufacturing hegemony.
• Hegemony constitutes the values of the dominant class. It is because of hegemony that these values appear as
commonsense.
• Thus Gramsci highlight the ideological power and ideological domination. He suggests the need to build counter
hegemony. He suggests the two stage revolution i.e. war of ideas and war of manoeuvre.
 Karl Marx
• Introduction
• Influence of Karl Marx
• Perspective of a Karl Marx as a thinker
• Theory of Alienation
• Concept of alienation by Hegel
• Dialectics
• Theory of Historical materialism/materialistic interpretation
of history
• Dialectical materialism
• Concept of class and class struggle
• Analysis of capitalism and concept of surplus value
• Theory of revolution
• Theory of socialism/dictatorship of proletariat
• Theory of communism
 Introduction

In the entire history of political thought, both in influence and in criticism, few political theorists can match
Karl Heinrich Marx.

Like Hegel, for Marx, the study of history was of crucial significance. Rejecting Hegelian dialectical idealism,
Marx offered dialectical materialism emphasising that the primacy of the mode of production of the
material means of life essentially conditions the overall existence of human beings as manifested in human
relationships.

Marx has written so extensively on various issues of Philosophy, Economics, Politics and Society that it is
difficult to put him in a straight jacket of any one discipline.

During his student days Marx was attracted to Hegelian Idealism but he soon shifted his interest to
Humanism and ultimately to Scientific Socialism.
Idea of evolution
• While one version of evolution was articulated by Hegel (Evolution of Absolute Idea or
Spirit), the other version was propounded by Darwin (in his Origin of species).
• His most seminal contribution lies in offering an alternative theory of historical evolution-
the theory of Dialectical Historical Materialism.
• Through this theory he rejected the Hegelian and Darwinian theories and propounded his
own theory to explain the course of human history.

Karl Marx himself said that philosophers have only interpreted the world,
what matters is to change it. Marx statement though he made for Hegel
yet it most appropriately applied for Marx in the sense that Marxism is
praxis (theory + action).
 Influence of Karl Marx
It is the influence of the Marx ideas that since 1917 October revolution in Russia till
1991 world remain divided into two blocks, the capitalist block and communist bloc.

Marx is the only philosopher after whose name exists the political ideology called as
Marxism.

Marx is considered as god by his followers. It is true that since 1991 the popularity of
Marx is declined but it is wrong to say that Marxism has become dustbin of
history/sentiment.

There is a revival of interest in the works of Marx since the concept of global financial
crisis.

The type of acknowledgement which has been received by Thomas Pikettys took
titled ‘Capital in 21st century’ show the influence of Marxist ideas.
Marx is the first thinker who talked from the perspective of poor and the
exploited class like Juliet Caesar it is said that Marx dead or alive continues to
haunt the capitalist.

It is because of Karl Marx that ultimately the nature of capitalism changed

western countries adopted welfare state.

Though Marx is a considered as a god who has failed but yet the wide
acceptance of welfare state is itself an acknowledgement of success of Karl
Marx.
Works of Karl Marx can be classified into two categories:

Young Marx
• He has discussed the concept of alienation in his ‘economic and philosophic manuscripts’. This book
of Marx came to light/public very late. The followers of young Marx are known as neo-Marxists. Here
Marx emerges as a philosopher whose main concern is to understand the concept of freedom.

Mature Marx
• The most important political work of mature Marx is Communist manifesto. Communist manifesto is a
political programme to bring communism. Here Marx emerges as a politician. Followers of Mature
Marx are called as orthodox Marxists.
Sources of influence:
1. British School of Political Economy.
2. French Revolution and Idea of Equality.
3. German Philosophy (Ideas of Hegel).
 Perspective of a Karl Marx as a thinker
01 Marx is a socialist
• If liberty is the central value of liberalism, equality is a concern of socialists.
• Marx was not the first socialist we see the origin of socialist ideas in the western world
since the time of French revolution.
• It was during French revolution that people talked about equality and fraternity. There
were many socialist during the time during French revolution e.g. Louis Blanc
(revolutionary).
• Later on we see other socialists also like St. Simon, Charles Fourier and Robert Owen
(father of co-operative movement) and together they are called as early socialists.
• Karl Marx is the most important figure in the evolution of socialism.
• Socialists are divided as socialist before Marx and socialists after Marx.
• Marx called his socialism as scientific and socialism of early socialists as Utopianism.
Marx calls his socialism as scientific and early socialism as Utopian
• Early socialists were trying to bring socialism through peaceful methods by appealing
to the conscience of the capitalists.
• Marx believed that early socialists lacked the scientific understanding of capitalism
as well as scientific programme to bring socialism.
• He called his socialism scientific because according to him, his understanding is
scientific with respect to capitalism and accordingly his programme is also scientific.
According to him socialism cannot come in a peaceful manner. Socialism can come only
through violent revolution.
• In the words of Karl Marx, Violence is a mother of change. There has been no birth
without bloodshed.
• In the words of Karl Marx “workers of the world unite you have nothing to lose
except your chains”.
• Socialism is also a doctrine of modern times. It is a belief that industrial society needs
not to be organised on the principles of capitalism (competition). It can also be
organised on the principles of socialism (co-operation).
02. Marx is a materialists
• Karl Marx is materialist.
• According to Marx ideology generate falls consciousness. Idea is illusion and
matter is real.
• Karl Marx even believed that ‘Religion is opium of masses’.
03. Marx is an anarchist
• According to Marx, “state is an instrument of exploitation”.
04. Marxism ends in communism
• Communism is a utopia of Karl Marx. It is a class less and state less society. It is a
state of perfect freedom and ultimate happiness.
 Theory of Alienation
One of the most original contributions of Marx is his Theory of Alienation. This is
contained in his early work- Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts-which were written
in 1843. It shows the 'early Marx' was mainly interested in the problem of alienation.

In order to understand Marxian Theory of Alienation it is important to understand Hegel's

views on alienation. This is so because Marx borrowed his idea of alienation from Hegel,
And Feuerbach's, particularly from Hegel.

For Hegel, alienation is the state of consciousness as it acquaints itself with the external
world in which objects appear to man external or alien. Nature is a self-alienated form of
Spirit/Absolute mind.

Man is self-alienated Spirit/God in the process of de-alienating itself. Feuerbach's position

is just the opposite, i.e. that man is not self-alienated God; rather God is self-alienated
man.
 Concept of alienation by Hegel
According to Hegel there are two parts of universe dimensions:
• The spiritualistic dimension.
• The materialistic dimension.
Man also has two dimensions in his personality:
1.Spiritual dimension.
2.Material dimension.
• Once man comes into existence man gets alienated from god. Each person has the element of
god. We are unable to understand. We can understand other person is also the part of god
when we will use our reason or mind.
• Alienation of man from god ends only in the state; we became the part of whole.
Since Marx recognizes the autonomous existence of objects, alienation can be got over only by
'object-creating praxis', i.e. by changing the very conditions in which the objects are created.

In short, whereas for Hegel alienation is a state of consciousness subject to elimination by

another state of consciousness, for Marx alienation is related to the real existing objects and can
be overcome in the real sphere of object-related activity.
In other words, it is recognition by consciousness that objects are
merely alienated or reified consciousness.

Distinguishing between objectification and alienation

• Marx vehemently attacks Hegel for identifying the existence of objects with
alienation, which makes the objective world a mere phantasm.
• Marx does so by distinguishing between objectification and alienation,
Objectification is based on the premise of material existence of the objects; while
alienation is a state of consciousness resulting from specific type of relationship
between men and objects. Such relationships cannot be a fantasy because objects
are real
 Dialectics
Marx borrowed his dialectical method from Hegel but modified it in
fundamental way. While Hegel had applied his dialectical method in the
domain of ideas, Marx applied the Dialectics to explain the material
conditions of life.

• In the process of doing so he denounced the Hegelian philosophy of dialectical idealism on the one
hand, and the theory of mechanistic materialism, on the other.
• Hence, the Marxian theory of society and history may be called Dialectical materialism” (in Fact,
Engels in his Anti – Durhing Applied the dialectics even to physical nature. This has become a subject
of intense debate among post – Marx Marxists.
Marxian dialectical materialism developed by Engels has three dimensions
• The law of transformation of quality into quality. It means that quantitative changes lead to
qualitative revolutionary situation
• The law of unity of opposites (contradiction) and
Marx holds that the material and the ideal are not only different but opposite and
constitute a unity in which the material is primary and the mind (idea) secondary.
• This is so because mater can exists without mind but mind cannot exist without
matter because historically it (mind) has developed out of matter.

In this way Marx completely inverted the Hegelian position.

• Hegel mind was primary and matter secondary. Marx Pointed out that with Hegel
“Dialectics is standing on is head. It must be turned right side up. “This he did by
making matter primary and mind secondary.
Principles of Karl Marx/Marxism
Historical
Dialectical Concept of class and
materialism/materialistic
materialism class struggle
interpretation of history

Analysis of
Theory of
capitalism and
Theory of revolution socialism/dictatorship of
concept of surplus
proletariat
value

Theory of
communism
 Theory of historical materialism
Friedrich Engels defined historical materialism as a theory which hold that the ultimate cause
which determines the whole course of human history is the economic development of society.

The whole course of human history is explained in terms of changes occurring in the modes of
production and exchange.

Starting with primitive communism the mode of production has passed through three stages:

• Slavery
• Feudalism
• Capitalism
The consequent division of society into distinct classes (slave-master, serf-baron and proletariat-
capitalist) and the struggle of these classes against one another.
Marx calls his analysis of history as scientific.

According to Marx historical, materialism is a science/scientific explanation of

history.

Marx, explains his theory of historical materialism, is contained in

his Preface to a Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy.
• The economic structure of society, constituted by its relations of production is the
real foundation of society. It is the basis on which rises a legal and political super-
structure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness.
• Along with it, the society's relations of production themselves correspond to a
definite stage of development of its material productive forces. Thus, the mode of
production of material life determines the social, political and intellectual life
process in general.
Why historical materialism is a science?
In order to understand history scientifically we have to
understand the first historical act of man, whether man
started thinking or production.
• “In order to make history one has to live, in order to live one has to eat,
in order to eat one has to produce” Thus the 1st historical act was not
thinking but production.
• Above statement tells about Marx concept to historical materialism.
Historical materialism is Marx interpretation of history. Marx claims his
analysis of history is scientific.
• He claims his analysis of history scientific because he suggests that his
approach to understand history is scientific.
In order to understand history scientifically we have to understand the first
historical act of man, whether thinking comes first or production.
• According to Karl Marx, if man has to make history he has to live. In order to live he has to eat.
In order to eat he has to produce.
• Thus the first historical act of man is production rather than contemplation. Thus production
has a priority over thinking manual labour is more important than intellectual labour without
manual labour man cannot survive.
• Marx criticises intellectual class for justifying the unjustified system of rewards. For e.g. it
was Plato who held that those performing intellectual labour ought to be the ruler and those
involved in the task of production to be deprived from becoming the ruler on permanent basis.
• The tradition continued further hence Marx suggest that intellectual class is also a exploiter
class. Ideas, ideologies generate false consciousness. It distorts reality hence when
philosophers like Hegel suggest that idea is ultimate reality he is distorting the reality. Hegel is
standing on his head he has to stand on his feet to understand that it is matter rather than idea
which is ultimate reality.
• In the words of Karl Marx, “Our consciousness does not determine our existence; it is our
existence that determines our consciousness”.
Base and superstructure conflict of Marx:
• In order to understand the society we have to understand the basic structure
of the society.
• According to Karl Marx, economic structure forms the basic structure.
How he proves that economic structure is the basic structure?
• To understand the basic structure he tries to understand the origin of the
society. According to Marx, the origin of the society is the need of satisfaction
of the appetite of man.
• As he suggests that in order to make history, man has to live, in order to live
man has to produce; production is the basis of society.
What is society?
• Society is a division of labour. For the satisfaction of appetite man enters
into the relations of production with each other. The earliest society is of
hunters and gatherers.
• Thus the structure of production or economic structure is the basic
structure.
• Economic structure is the basic structure; other structures are grounded in
the basic structure. They have no independent existence of their own.
They are just the reflection of base.
• The institutions of superstructure like state, religion etc. Are not neutral.
They are instruments of the dominant class.
• Hence, workers cannot expect justice from the state. The nature of these
institutions will not change till the basic structure remains same.
 Relations of production
Another form for relations of production is class.
• Origin of society is in the need of production. The basic structure of society is the structure of
production. The most important structure is relations of production. Man enters into the relation
with each other for the sake of production. There are two basic relations of production:
Owners and non-owners: Owners of what?
• Owners of means of production hence there are two classes i.e. haves and have not’s. Those who
are owners are the exploiters and non-owners are the exploited.
• The relations between the two classes are essentially confluctual or dialectical. Hence the
relations are only of struggle because the interests are conflicting. The can never be a
reconciliation of the conflicting interests.
• According to Karl Marx, the real identity of man is the identity of his class. His interests are
interest of his class. All politics is politics of class.
• The real interest of the workers is with the workers of the world. Religion and nature is false
consciousness.
 Components of economic structure

Economic
Structure

Means of Forces of
Relations of
production – Land, production –
production
Labour, Capital technology
 The concept of class and class struggle
“The history of all hitherto existing societies has been the history of
class struggle” Marx.

What is class?
• Class is a economic status which depends on persons relationship with means of
production. According to Karl Marx, there are only two classes owners and non-
owners, haves and have not’s, exploiter and exploited, dominated and subjugated
class.
• Relation between classes is always of struggle. There are always been class struggle
and class struggle have been moving force of history.
• Exploiter class will be a reactionary class and exploited class will be the revolutionary
or progressive class.
 Stages in the history of class
Pre-Historic age
• Before history this stage he called primitive communism. Initially property was held in common. All
were owners hence society was not divided into classes. Since classes were absent state was also
absent.
• Why he mentions primitive communism? He wants to show that there was a time when man was
living without private property. It means man can live without private property.
Slave society
• There were two classes Masters and Slaves and there was a class struggle and state was working in the
interest of the masters.
Feudal society:
• There were two classes; lords and serfs. There was a class struggle between lords and serfs. State was
working in the interest of the owners of property.
Capitalism
• There were two classes; capitalists and workers. State is an instrument of capitalist class and there is
class struggle.
Socialism is dictatorship of proletariat
• This socialism should not be confused with socialism in general. It is a very specific use of the word socialism by Marx.
This word has been popularised by Soviet Marxists as dictatorship of proletariat.
• Socialism will be the first stage after proletarian revolution. In this stage there were two classes i.e. workers and
capitalists.
• New workers will capture the state, now state is an instrument of working class. Capitalist democracy was false
consciousness. It was democracy of minority and dictatorship over majority. It was dictatorship of capitalists over
workers. Now it will be dictatorship of proletariat over capitalists. It will be the democracy for majority and
dictatorship of majority over minority.
• In Marx this stage was to be the temporary stage or transitional or intermediate stage.

What work is to be done in this stage?

• This stage is needed to make all necessary preparations before communism. As a result of communist revolution
power is captured by the workers but lots remains to be done.
• What will be the system of distribution in this stage?

From each according to his ability to each according to his work.

• In capitalism, capitalists claim that they reward each in practice. Worker is not rewarded in accordance to the value of
his work. In all countries where communist revolution happened the intermediate stage became permanent.
• In none of the countries communism came in reality even dictatorship of proletariat was not established. It was just
the dictatorship of communist party.
How communism will come?
• By peaceful method there is no need of revolution. Revolution is only when capitalism was
existing. In socialism works will capture power. Hence there is no need of revolution.
• After all necessary formalities are done there will be a declaration of communism. State which is
now owned by workers will make declaration of abolition of private property once private
property is abolished all will belong to one class.
• Property is owned collectively since classes end, class struggle end, classes end, state is not
needed, state will wither away. Hence communism is a stateless society. Communism is an
anarchism but not anarchy.
• The task which state was performing will be performed by self help groups or voluntary
associations of people.
Principles of distribution:
• From each according to his ability to each according to his need.
• The principle of distribution in socialism is need. Communism is caring society. It is a state of
perfect freedom.
 Marx analysis of capitalism
what types of system of production in capitalism?
• Capitalism differs from the previous modes of production.
• Capitalism emerges in modern time. Scientific revolution gave rise to industrial revolution. Industrial
revolution led to the mechanised production or production by machines.
• Earlier modes of production: Earlier production was through man. Earlier major source of production was
labour. People could produce for fulfilment for their needs, they could also produce some amount of surplus.
However, surplus was not of such dimension that market was required for sale.
• Once machines started production it started producing surplus. Now mass production instead of production
by masses. Factory/machine goods were cheaper and could be produced in large quantity. The system of
machine based production left no option for individual production.
• Factory based production started workers neither had land nor capital. They only had their labour to sale.

Nature of capitalism
• Capitalism is dehumanising, labour becomes a commodity or object to be sold and purchased. Capitalism is
exploitative in nature.
• Profit is the engine of the capitalism. In capitalism the motive of production is not need but profit.
• Profit is earned by reducing the cost of production.
How to reduce cost of production?
01. Capitalist law of wages
• Wages should be sufficient form him to survive; it should not be enough that he does not come back the next
day. It means no surplus to be left with the worker. They get wages which is not enough, to increase profit
further capitalists squeeze wages which increase the hardship.

02. Displace the labour and replace it with machine

• This will create more hardships for the workers. When one capitalist brings machine other is bound to bring
resulting into further lying of workers and further reduction of wages. The law of demand and supply
determine wages. As capitalism will grow it will become more and more exploitative.
• Capitalism starts developing its own contradictions. On one hand they are depriving large number of masses
from their purchasing power. Hence capitalism shows the contradiction where there is surplus in the market
but people lack purchasing power.
• Hence cycles of depression keep on coming. To some extent capitalists are able to manage the crisis but after
which it goes beyond their control.
• Capitalism automatically leads towards monopolisation. It is a cut throat competition only few big players
will survive. Even the small capitalist, petty bourgeoisie class will start losing the ownership. They will also
become proletariat middle class will start joining the proletariat.
What happens in the society?
• Complete imbalance. The concentration of entire wealth of the society in the hands of few and extreme poverty and
misery on the other hand. Masses in the state of poverty and few have wealth. This creates revolutionary situations.
• Equilibrium is the law of nature. Revolution will become inevitable. Thus, Marx suggests that capitalists dig their own
graves.
• Revolution will take place when masses develop revolutionary consciousness.
• There are two types of consciousness according to Marx:
01. False consciousness
• False consciousness is generated by the intellectual class working in the interest of dominant class. E.g. religion and
nation have been used to generate false consciousness.

02. Class consciousness

• Class consciousness is true consciousness when works become aware of their exploitation, they start developing their
class consciousness. Class consciousness also has two levels:
• Class in itself: Lower level of consciousness when person realise that he belongs to the different class.
• Class for itself: It is a high level of consciousness. It happens because of the growing understanding of exploitation,
e.g. in capitalism workers will initially develop their class consciousness. As capitalism will grow exploitation is going to
increase not only exploitation increase but the number of persons being exploited will also increase. Class for itself
shows heightened level of consciousness when people will take arm and when no more be ready to suffer the
exploitation. This is the point when revolution takes place. At this point the revolution will be spontaneous it will be a
mass movement.
 Theory of Surplus Value
Marx describes values as following-
• Use value: It is the amount of utility commodity has for a person.
• Exchange value: It is the amount person is willing to pay in return of commodity which has use value.

Surplus value
• It is additional value generated by the capitalists. Capitalist force workers to work for 12 hours. But he
pays only the amount which is equal to the value of work of 3 hours only.
• Surplus value is a theft capitalists keep the money which belongs to the workers. Surplus value gives
additional bargaining power to the capitalists. More workers works more he is giving powers to
capitalist to exploit him. Capitalist is a system which force person to work against himself.

What is the cause of poverty?

• Poverty is the problem of re-distribution. The problem is accumulation of wealth by few. The
accumulation of wealth is because of not giving others their dues, so the problem lies in the greed.
• Capitalism lead to alienation, capitalism alienates man from man.
 Marx’s concept of alienation and the remedy Marx suggest
ending alienation

What is alienation in Hegel?

• Alienation in Hegel is the separation of man from the universal spirit. Alienation can end by raising
consciousness.
• As we increase our consciousness we realise that we are part of the universal spirit. Alienation ends in the
state once person is fully conscious and his mind is completely aware he attains full freedom and real
happiness.
• Young Hegelians like Feuerbach develop the concept of alienation in a different way. He held that man remain
alienated because of religion. It is because of religion we live in the state of bondages hence once when we
leave religion we become free in true sense.

The concept of alienation in Marx is inspired by the concept of alienation given by Hegel
and Feuerbach. He was young Hegelian. Marx went further in the concept of alienation.
• Alienation will not end only by coming out of the influence of the religion. Religion is just a part of
superstructure we can end alienation only when we change the basic structure of the capitalist society.
Marx concept of alienation came to limelight only after the
publication of his economic and philosophic manuscripts in
1930s.
• Marx was critical of capitalism because capitalism dehumanises man and
alienates man. Marx understands alienation in terms of objectification and the
loss of real human nature. In capitalist society every person feels alienated.
• Alienation is not limited to workers. Even capitalists are alienated. Alienation is a
situation where all freedom of man is taken up by the market.
• According to Marx in capitalism two humans do not speak with each other, one is
a seller other is a buyer e.g. the relation between patient and doctor is a relation
of buyer and seller. Marx has explained the alienation faced by the working class.
According to Marx the true nature of man is:
• Man is creative by nature.
• Man is social by nature.
Why communism is a state of perfect freedom?
• In communism each will work according to his capacity and each will get
according to his need. Society will take care of the need of the man. Man
will work not for fulfilment of his basic needs but for his satisfaction of
creative urge.
• True freedom is freedom from necessities. We are free to do what we want
only when we don’t have to worry about our basic needs. Marx makes a
difference between freedom and liberty.
• Liberty: Liberty is a bourgeoisie concept. Liberty in a capitalist society is a
false consciousness. Liberty is a right which man has to protect himself from
the society.
• Freedom: Freedom is a condition; freedom is a situation where society
guarantees the fulfilment of basic needs of man. Freedom does not alienate
man from man. Freedom ends the alienation. In communism man can
realise his true nature i.e. his social nature and creative nature.
 Theory of Revolution
Revolution is only when mode of production changes. In Karl Marx we see only one
revolution when economic structure changes all other structures automatically change.

Law of dialectics explain the cause of revolution

• According to Karl Marx every contradiction contains the seed of its own destruction change does not happen
overnight it only appears so initially quantitative changes happen and then quantity changes into quality.
• New courses of production means of production develop when relation of production develop. For some
time old and new co-exist. However time comes when co-existence is not possible. Old becomes fatter on the
growth of new. Old has to be destroyed for new to move further.

According to Marx, communist revolution will take place only in countries where
capitalism is fully developed.

Only when capitalism is fully developed we can understand all the contradictions of
capitalism.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich
Hegel

• Influence on Hegel
• Dialectical Method of Hegel
• Use of Dialectical Method
• Philosophy of History
• Theory of State
• Totalitarian Features of Hegel’s State
 Introduction
Hegel was a product of German Idealism
• It which drew considerable inspiration from Rousseau - and Kant and integrated it with contemporary popular desire
for German unification leading to the rise of the nation states in Europe.

Hegel like Fichte echoed the sentiment of idealism

• His assertion that the real will of the individual is not in negation but an affirmation with society meant that the
rational will of the individual was expressed in the totality of the will of the state.
• The consciousness and moral authority of the state subordinated the individual will
By the dialectical logic of a spirit, the march of history moves from the imperfect to the perfect stage rationally
removing all the obstacles of acquiring the distinction between 'is’ and 'ought' as real became rational.
• Though the state is the most important institution of this present ideal, the other two important components were
civil society and the family.

Freedom played an important role in Hegel but Hegelian version of freedom was
associated with rationality unlike the thrust of British liberalism, which associated freedom
with liberty and individuality.
 Influence on Hegel
Hegel's writings show that several philosophers and thinkers of the past immensely
influenced him.
• Hegel borrowed his dialectical method from Socrates.
• The ancestry of Hegelian doctrine of dialectical idealism can be traced back to these two great Greek thinkers of
the past.

Influence of Aristotle's teleology on Hegel

• Teleology is a theory of knowledge according to which a thing is understood in terms of its end or purpose. For
example, the end or purpose of a watch is to tell time. So telling time is the true nature or the true end or purpose
of watch.

The great German rationalist Immanuel Kant's influence is also discernible in Hegel's
writings.
• The Hegelian idea that the state is founded on reason and the laws made by the state are the dictates of pure
reason is quite similar to the Kantian position.
• Like Kant, Hegel did not give to the individuals the right to resist or oppose the state or the laws made by it. There
are even traces of Rousseau's influence on Hegel.
Like Rousseau's General Will, the Hegelian Idea, Spirit or Reason is infallible.
• Again like Rousseau, Hegel gives primacy to public interest over the private interest.
• You would recall that Rousseau had drawn a distinction between the actual will and the real will.
• To put it in Hegeiian terms, Rousseau's actual will is that which promotes the self-interest of the
individual while the real will is that which promotes the public interest.
• The general will is the condensation or the sum total of all the real wills (based on reason) it is
infallible.

Hegel's philosophy was historicist in nature

• In its most general sense it is rooted in the assumption that there are limit to scientific knowledge
about human activities and achievements and such inadequate scientific knowledge cannot be
used as a means for controlling the future course of events.
• Contrary to this, historicism is linked to ambitions for subjecting all Human happenings to rational
control.
 Dialectical Method of Hegel
Hegel's political philosophies rest mainly on his dialectical method. As already pointed out
Hegel borrowed his method from Socrates who is the first exponent of this method.
• Hegel has himself expressed his debt to Socrates for this method.
• The dialectic means to discuss. Socrates believed that one call arrive at the truth only by constant questioning.
• It was the process of exposing contradictions through the method of discussion. Having taken a clue from Socrates
Hegel argued that absolute Idea or the Spirit, in search of self-realization moves from Being to non-being to
becoming.

Synthesis has in it elements of thesis as well as antithesis.

• To put it in simple words, an idea moves from a thesis to antithesis until a synthesis of the two is found. Synthesis
has in it elements of thesis as well as antithesis.
• In due course the synthesis itself acquires the status of a thesis and gives rise to its own antithesis. This process goes
on.
• In practice, Hegel applied his dialectical method to the domain of ideas. Therefore, his method may be described as
dialectical idealism.
• It means that every idea (thesis) gives rise to a counter idea (antithesis) and the original idea and counter idea
(merge) to give rise to a new idea (synthesis).
March of reason in history was a complex dialectical process
• Hegel argued that through the use of his dialectical method he has discovered
the greatest formula in the history of philosophy. He maintained that the march
of reason in history was a complex dialectical process. It is a mechanism by
which thought propels itself.
• Dialectical idealism was a logical apparatus for interpreting the history in its true
perspective.
 Use of Dialectical Method
Having stated his dialectical method Hegel argued that a phenomenon can be best
understood according to the law of dialectics, i.e, when contrasted with its opposite.
• Pleasure is best understood in opposition to pain, heat in opposition to cold, goodness in opposition to
badness, justice in opposition to injustice and so on. Hegel has given several instances of thesis, antithesis
and synthesis.

The following instances given by him are note worthy and you should remember them.

• i) Family is the thesis, civil society is its antithesis and state is the synthesis.
• ii) Similarly, despotisim is thesis, democracy is its antithesis and constitutional monarchy is the synthesis.
• iii) Inorganic world is the thesis, organic world is its antithesis and human beings are the synthesis.

Hegel believed that the true nature of thing can be known only if its contradictions are
also known.
• In this sense, his theory of dialects is rooted in contradiction or negation. He considered contradictions as
the driving force of the whole process of evolution.
• This is the fundamental law of the Cosmos as also of thought
 Philosophy of History
According to Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel the true subject of history is universal,
not the individual; the true content is the realization of self-consciousness of
freedom, not the interests, needs and actions of the individuals.
• Absolute ldea is dynamic and ever evolving. It moves forward in search of self-
realisation. This is termed by Hegel as unfolding of the reason.
• The whole universe is the result of this process of unfolding of Reason. In fact,
Hegel's philosophy of history is somewhat similar to the Christian theology, which
sees history as a pattern of meaningful events which can be understood in terms of
cosmic design.
• It is unfolding of reason under God's guidance or as willed by God.
 01. Evolutionary process the absolute Idea or the spirit
• In this evolution is the physical or the inorganic world. At this initial stage the Absolute Idea
First (or Spirit) acquires the form of gross matter.
stage

• In this process is the organic world: animals, plants etc. This stage is an improvement on the earlier
Second stage.
stage
• In is the evolution of human beings. Each stage is more complicated than the previous stage. The
Third evolution of human beings marks a qualitatively higher stage because the human beings are rational
stage agents capable of distinguishing between good and bad.

• The evolution of family system, In addition to rational element it involves mutual cooperation and
Fourth accommodation.
stage

• It marks the evolution of Civil Society. Here economic interdependence is the main feature in
Fifth addition to mutual cooperation and accommodation. The last
stage
02. Hegel's philosophy of history is the doctrine of historicism.
• It holds that the whole course of history is predetermined course.
• The human intervention or human effort can be effective only if it falls in line with the
dialectical direction of the world history.
• Like the stoic God history leads the wise man and drags the fool.

03. Hegel's philosophy of history is the use of Aristotelian teleology.

• According to it every thing in the world is moving towards the realization of its end, its true
nature.
• From the point of view of the human actors, history is a union of irony and tragedy; from the
point of view of the Whole it is a cyclic.
• When we look at Hegel's philosophy of history in its totality we can say that it is an attempt
to synthesis Kant’s and Herder's philosophies of history.
• Kant advocated scientific understanding of history, while Herder emphasized the place of
feelings and speculation. In this sense Hegel's philosophy of history is speculative reason.
For Hegel the world history exhibits the development of
the consciousness of freedom on the part of Spirit.
• Hegel actually applies his philosophy of history when he says that in the
oriental world (China etc.) there was despotism and slavery and
freedom was confined only to the monarch.
• But in Greek and Roman civilisation although slavery was there, yet the
citizens enjoyed freedom.
• In Europe particularly in Germany there is emphasis on liberty for all
and infinite worth of each individual is recognized. The world history
thus consists of definite stages of progression-Oriental, Greek, Roman
and Germanic.
In conclusion, Hegel's philosophy of history consists of two parts:

• (i) the general pattern and

• (ii) various stages in this general pattern.

Finally, Hegel's philosophy of history talks of doctrine of moving

forces in historical change.
• He argues that Reason's great design can be carried out with the help of human
passions.
• Certain great men (like Caesar or Alexander) are chosen as instruments of destiny.
• Such men are necessary if the plot of history is to be carried out. This amounts to
saying that ideas are important but there must be will power to ilnplement thein.
 Theory of State
Like Plato, Hegel is a great system builder.
• His theory of state is rooted in the axiom: "What is rational is real and what is real is
rational". It means that whatever exists in the world is according to Reason and
whatever is according to reason exists.
• Hegel's theory of state is based on the basic premise about the gradual unfolding of
Reason or Spirit or Absolute Idea through a dialectical process. Reason gets its perfect
realisation in the state.

State is Reason personified

• State is rational, state is real; therefore what is rational is real. Here, real does not only
mean that which is empirical but that which is fundamental.
• In fact, Hegel distinguishes between real and that which merely exists. That which
merely exists is only momentary and mere surface manifestation of underlying forces
which alone are real.
Thus, Hegel sought to bridge the gap between the rational and the
real. The real is nothing but the objective manifestation of spirit.

State, for Hegel, is the highest manifestation of Reason because it

emerges as a synthesis of family (thesis) and civil society (antithesis).

Family
• Family fulfills man's biological needs-food, sex and love.
• It is the first manifestation of spirit but it cannot fulfill the higher or more complex
needs for which we need a civil society.
• While the basic feature of family is unity based on love the civil society is necessary
for the fulfillment of his competitive self-interest and for the satisfaction of diverse
human needs, particularly the economic needs which the family cannot fulfill.
Civil society
• The civil society is organised on the basis of individual's material needs, which are
not wholly private and yet are primarily self-regarding.
• It is less selfish than the family. It is saved from disintegration because men begin
to realise that their needs can be met only by recognising the claims of others.
• Civil society educates the individual where he begins to see that he can get what
he needs only by willing what other individuals need.
• It is not a complete organic unity. Such unity is realised only when the tension
involved in the contradiction between family and civil society is transcended in
the final synthesis of the state.
• The civil society looks after the material needs of Human beings and therefore,
Hegel sees it as state in its embryonic form. The state looks after the universal
interests of the whole community and it acquires an organic character.
State has divine origin because the state is divinely ordained growth of
absolute Idea or Reason.
• There can be no spiritual evolution beyond the state as there can be no physical evolution beyond man.
It is the march of God on earth.
• Hegel is statist because the state in his philosophy is not a means to an end but an end in itself.
• The state does not exist for the individuals but the individuals exist for the state.
• The whole (state) is greater than the parts (individuals) that constitute it. Their (individuals') importance
is only due to the fact that they are members of the state.
• Thus, Hegel makes the individuals totally subordinate to the state.
• Only the state knows what is in individual's interest. State in that sense is infallible. It is also I infallible
because it is divine.

Hegel argued that,, "all the worth which tile human being I possesses-all spiritual reality-
he possesses only through the State. For his spiritual reality consists in this, that liis own
essence-Reason-is objectively present to him, that it possesses I objective immediate
existence for him. The State is the “Divine Idea as it exists on earth".
 Totalitarian Features of Hegel’s State
Karl Popper in his celebrated work Open Society and Its Enemies passes the following
remark “Nearly all the more important ideas of modern totalitarianism are directly
inherited from Hegel”
• The modern totalitarian doctrine of state says that the state as such is not the highest end. It views the state
from different perspective.
• This is the Blood, the Race, and the People. The higher Races or Peoples possess power and subjugate the
rest of the state.
• Hegel’s Spirit can be substituted for Blood.
• Karl Popper saw him as a precursor of 20th Century fascism.

Hegelian state is totalitarian

• Its might must permeate and control the whole life of the people in all its functions.
• “The state is the basis and centre of all the concrete elements in the life of a people – of Art, Law, Morals,
Religion and Science. The substance that exists in the concrete reality which is the state is the Spirit of the
people itself.”
• Hegel further comments, “Nations are what their deeds are. A nation is moral, virtuous, vigorous, as long as
it is engaged in realizing its grand objects.”
 JOHN STUART MILL

• On Utilitarianism.
• On liberty.
• On representative
government.
• On subjection of women.
 Introduction
J.S. Mill belongs to the time of transition

• He belongs to the time when people were realising the negative consequences of
classical liberalism or negative liberty. But they were still not having the complete
idea of either positive liberty or welfare state. Hence, there are many inconsistencies
in his ideas.

Mill is a connecting link between the classical liberals and modern liberals

• Mill considered himself as disciple of Bentham. Bentham was known as father of

utilitarianism. By that time utilitarianism came under the criticism from the
humanitarians like Carlyle who called utilitarianism as ‘pigs’ philosophy. Mill wanted
to defend Bentham hence Mill revised utilitarianism.
Mill is inconsistent thinker because on one hand he is influenced by utilitarian’s on the
other hand by idealists like Socrates and Plato.
Major works of J.S. Mill

On
On liberty.
Utilitarianism.

On
On subjection
representative
of women.
government.
 Mill on liberty
Liberty is the core value of liberalism and no one before J.S. Mill has provided the systematic view
of liberal concept of utility. In his book on “Liberty”, Mill has discussed different aspects of liberty.

Classical liberalism

• Classical liberalism is started with John Locke.

• Classical liberalism developed into 2 directions; initially it was dominated by the tradition of natural rights. Later on it
came to be dominated by utilitarianism.
• Utility has displaced liberty from its core position. It was Mill who re-established the centrality of liberty. He established
that liberty is superior to utility.

What is the importance of liberty?

• Liberty is a condition of progress.

• Liberty is essential for the full development of personality.
• Liberty is not only the individual good, it is a social good. It will benefit state as well as society.
• In the words of Mill no state becomes great with a small people because with a small men no great things can be
achieved (with a small people).
Limit on the liberty of man
• Harm principle:
• According to Mill over his body his mind individual is sovereign. All restraints qua restraints are evil. The soul
basis where mankind is warranted/permitted to intervene in the liberty of man is to prevent harm to others.
• Self harm is not a basis.

Mill divides human actions into two types:

• Self regarding actions (harm to self).
• Other regarding actions (harm to others).

Ernest barker calls Mill as prophet of empty liberty and scholar of abstract individualism.
Ernest barker call J.S.Mill as "prophet of
empty liberty and abstract individual"
Barker is positive liberal. He does not support the idea of negative liberty. According to barker,
Mill goes for artificial/non-scientific separation between self regarding action and others
regarding actions. Actually he leaves very limited scope for the liberty.

There are very few actions which can be considered as entirely self regarding. Not only is his idea
of positive liberty wrong Mill is unable to defend his idea. He creates huge scope for intervention
by the state.

According to Barker, Mill is talking about an abstract man not the real man living in the society.

It is true that Mill is inconsistent thinker, inconsistency arises because he belongs to the time
when people were realising the negative consequences of negative liberty. But the idea of
positive liberty has not yet crystallised.
There is also an inconsistency in Mill, when Mill permits state to intervene in
self regarding actions. If person is taking that actions which may harm him
because of ignorance.

He give the example of a person trying to cross a bridge which is about to fall.
It is the duty of the state to make that person aware. However, if person is
already aware self harm is not the basis for intervention of the state.

Though there are inconsistencies in Mill’s ideas yet it would not be justified to
call him as prophet of empty liberty and it is correct to say that if there is
anyone who is liberal, it is Mill.
 Mill on Freedom of speech and expression
According to Mill the most important right is freedom of speech and expression.
Besides freedom of speech and expression, Mill also recommends freedom to
found association and action.
• It is the most precious gift of god to man. Out of all species, god has given the ability to speak and
communicate through language only to man.
• According to Mill, majority should listen to minority, even when all have one view and a single person
has the different view he should be allowed to speak. The way we will not support the tyranny of one
person over all, we can also not justify the tyranny of all over one.
• He is influenced by Greek thinkers like Socrates dialogue is the only way to understand the truth. Truth
will automatically emerge. There is no point postponing the emergence of truth. We do not know from
where truth will emerge hence he suggests that even a person who is considered as mad should be
allowed to speak.
• In the words of J.S. Mill, all silencing the opinion is an assumption of infallibility. Thus we can say that
Mill as the greatest exponent of freedom of speech and expression.
• Freedom of speech and expression is a necessary pre-condition for a democracy. Democracy recognises
right to dissent/disagree.
Mill on representative government/democracy
According to Mill, democracy is the best form of government.
• Only democracies give liberty to man. Liberty is a pre-condition for the
development of man which includes the development of state.
Which is the best form of government?
• According to Mill, direct democracy is best and representative government is the
2nd best.
• In modern complex society representative government is unavoidable.
• Thus Mill is a champion of democracy.
• Mill is a inconsistent thinker.
• On one hand he is a champion of democracy on the other hand he is called as
‘Reluctant Democrat’.
 Why Mill is called as Reluctant Democrat?
He is fearful of democracy being introduced in colonies. In the words of J.S. Mill, benevolent despotism is
best for Barbarians. With respect to colonies like India, Mill preferred benevolent despotism.

According to Mill, there are certain pre-requisites for introducing democracy.

• Democracy without democratic culture will be false democracy. People should be committed for the principles of democracy.
According to him, democracy is not a free gift to be distributed.
• People have fought long struggles to get democracy. He is fearful of the future of democracy. At least at present it is accepted
that democracy is the best form of government.
• If democracy is handled by the people who are not fit for democracy there will be question mark on the view that democracy is
best form of government.

His views come near to Aristotle as well as Machiavelli.

• According to Machiavelli, republicanism should be introduced only where people are virtues.
• Mill is also known as reluctant democrat because he was also fearful about the state of democracy even in western countries.

Mill was fearful that democracy will get converted in tyranny of majority or monocracy. He was critic of
democracy in USA.
In order to protect the future of democracy, Mill has proposed
following reforms.
• The concept of weighted voting. Weighted voting: everyone to be given one vote but those who are
educated and possess property should be given more than one vote.
• Plural voting: Person should have right to vote in all such constituencies where he have his own
property.
• Proportional representation instead of majoritarial model.
• Greater powers to upper house/house of lords.
• Open ballot rather than secret ballot (compatible with freedom of speech and expression).
• Mill has proposed right to vote in favour of women.
• With the exception of right to vote for women as well as the recommendation for open ballot all of his
reforms are Aristocratic in nature. He wants to secure future of democracy by introducing elitist
element. Hence he is also a reluctant democrat in above sense.
• In comparison to Mill, Indian leaders like Gandhi, Nehru emerged as a passionate democrat.
• If for Mill people should be made fir for democracy, for Indian leader’s people will be made fit through
democracy.
• In the words of Nehru, if people cannot come to democracy, we can bring democracy to their doorstep.
Mill on subjection of women
After Plato it was Mill who was concerned with the rights of women.
• According to Mill, all forms of slavery have been abolished except the slavery of women; slavery of
women is a universal phenomenon just because it is universal does not mean it is right. He was an
advocate of women participation in public sphere. There is no harm if women are allowed to
participate. It is good for women as well as for society.

Mill's case for women's equality reflects his Utilitarian roots.

• The subordination of women, he argues, is not only "wrong in itself" but "one of the chief
hindrances to human improvement."
• By denying women the same opportunities as men, he says, society not only impedes the
development of roughly half the population but denies itself the benefit of their talents.

Foolish practice
• J S Mill says, our customs and laws are a carryover of the law of the strongest.
• The fact that men are typically superior to women in physical strength leads to the presumption
that men are superior to women in all areas, despite the fact that there is no proof to support the
claim.
Predicament of women parallels that of slaves.
• Mill argues that the progress of society requires that all people, men and
women, not be imprisoned in the "fixed social position" in which they are
born but instead be given opportunities to develop their talents and to pursue
their desires as long as they pose no threat to the rights of others.
• To the naysayer who doubts the potential of women to match the
achievements of men in literature, science, government, medicine, education,
and the arts, Mill retorts that this is self-serving speculation.
• The only way to measure the potential of women is to free them from
domestic bondage, give them the same opportunities as men, and observe
the results.
• To those who argue that authority to make decisions in any organization must
ultimately rest in a single person, Mill replies that this is certainly not the case
in successful partnerships in business, and that even if it were, this does not
mean that the controlling voice on a given matter must be the husband's.
 Jeremy Bentham
• Meaning of Utilitarianism
• The form of utilitarianism and state
• Utilitarianism and individualism
• Development of Utilitarianism
• Bentham’s theory of utilitarianism
• Sanction by the State
• J.S. Mill – Utilitarianism
• Main differences between Bentham theory and Mill
theory
• Criticism of Utilitarianism
Introduction
Utilitarianism is a moral and ethical philosophy in political theory.

Though the traces can be finding even in ancient Greek philosophy it was popularized
because of contributions made by Jeremy Bentham and J.S. Mill.
This concept has played an important role in the first half of the Nineteenth century.
Utilitarianism is a theory mainly based on the principle greatest happiness to the
greatest member.
Utilitarianism became a core principle for all most all Nations in their political,
economical, social functioning today.

Though Bentham and J. S. Mill are the strong supporters of Utilitarian concept there
are some differences between their approaches.
 Meaning of Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism was basically an ethical theory. The original basis of this theory was Hedonism, a
psychological theory.

According to Hedonism, the main aim of life is the achievement of maximum pleasure.

According to this theory, the value of an act is to be assessed on the basis of pleasure and pain
which it gives.

The act which gives maximum pleasure is good and the act which gives pain, is bad. Therefore, the
criterion of each act is pleasure and plain.

The actions which cause pain should be avoided by the individual and the state, and the action
which brings pleasure should be performed by the individual.

The actions which bring pleasure for the individual are useful, and those which bring pain to him,
are useless.
 The form of utilitarianism and state
As a school of political thought, utilitarianism owes its origin to Jeremy Bentham, an
English thinker of the nineteenth century.
• According to this theory, the government should promote “the greatest good of the greatest number”, or
maximum welfare of maximum people. Jeremy Bentham and J.S. Mill were the main supporters of this theory.
• The utilitarian’s opposed the principle of natural rights and the theory of social contract.
• They said that the people created state for their own benefit. They were not prepared to accept the divine right
concept of the state.
• The state is there, because it is a useful institution. The basis of the functions and rights of the state is
‘maximum welfare of the maximum number’.
• Which functions should or should not the state perform, will be decided by the fact as to which functions
guarantee the maximum welfare of the maximum number.

Utilitarian’s were reformists

• They supported the interference of the state in the reforms of certain social evils and defective laws because it
will ensure maximum welfare of the maximum people.
• Thus they adopted a middle course between idealism and individualism.
 Utilitarianism and individualism
They were not in favour of idealism because it absorbs fully the individual’s
personality in the state.
• Nor were they wholly in favour of individualism, because according to it, the functions of the state are
only protective.
• Though the amalgamation of utilitarianism and individualism was never complete, yet the utilitarian’s
leaned towards individualism to a great extent. It was so because John Stuart Mill was both utilitarian
and individualist.
• In its early stage the nature of utilitarianism leaned towards the view that the society should be
evaluated from the point of view of individual comfort.

Like individualists, the utilitarians were the supporters of private enterprise

• They agreed that the maximum welfare of the individual is possible only when in the economic field, the
individual is left free. It means that the state should have minimum interference in his functions.
• The utilitarians, inspired by the feeling of the public welfare, organised campaigns for improvements in
public health, education and reforms in the systems of jails and administration.
 Development of Utilitarianism
The seeds of the theory of utilitarianism which is based on Hedonism can be discovered in the
ancient times.

In ancient Greece, the Epicurian philosophers, and the ‘Charwak’ philosophers in India also, had
faith in Hedonism.

After this, certain simple hints are also available in John Locke’s books, “Essay on Human
Understanding”.

Francis Hutcheson has also expressed his views on this subjects as he says, “The action is best which
procures the greatest happiness for the greatest number”.

David Hume said that the basis of the state is utility and he condemned the theory of Social Contract.

He emphasised the fact that the state should perform such functions as help in creating the
maximum welfare of the maximum people.
David Hume’s influence was also seen in France and in the latter half of eighteenth century.
Helvetius (1715-1771) and Holbash supported these views.

They also made pleasure and pain as the criterion for public functions and said, that only those
functions are proper through which the maximum welfare of the individual is achieved.
 View of Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)
Bentham developed the views of the philosophers mentioned above and the explained utilitarianism in a clear, detailed and
systematic manner.

Bentham made his explanations in his famous work Fragmentation of Government and Introduction to the
principles of moral and legislation.

This book was published for the first time in 1773, which made him popular. His second book, ‘introduction to the Principles of
Morals and Legislation’ was published in 1789.

In this book much light has been thrown on the philosophy of utilitarianism.

Their slogan was, “Nature has placed mankind under the governors of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them
alone to point out what to do, as well as to determine what we shall do”.

According to Bentham, the only criterion to measure virtue and vice is pleasure and pain.

If we derive pleasure from an action, that will be a good action and if we derive pain from it, it will be a bad action. Good work is
worth doing, while a bad action is to be discarded.
 Bentham’s theory of utilitarianism
Mankind placed between two sovereign masters
• According to Bentham, Nature itself has placed mankind under the
governance of two sovereign masters, namely Pain and Pleasure.
• So, he said that it is the duty of the State or the State is necessary to the
individual to maximize his pleasure and minimize his pain.
• More over according to him utility is the property in any object whereby
it tends to produce benefit, advantage, pleasure, good, happiness or to
prevent happening of mischief, pain, evil or unhappiness.
 Sanction by the State
Bentham distinguished four sanctions like physical/natural, religious, moral
and political by the State
• The Physical or Natural Sanction comprises the pains and pleasures which we may experience
or expect, in the ordinary course of nature, not purposely modified by any human interposition
• The Moral Sanction comprises such pains and pleasures as we experience or expect at the
hands of our fellows, prompted by the feeling of hatred or good will, or contempt or regard; in
a word, according to the spontaneous disposition of each individual. The sanction may also be
styled popular; the sanction of public opinion or of honour, or the sanction of the pains and
pleasures of sympathy.
• The Political Sanction comprises such pains and pleasures as may experience or expect, at the
hands of the magistracy, acting under law. This might, with equal propriety, be termed the
legal sanction.
• The Religious Sanction comprises such pains and pleasure as we may experience or expect, in
virtue of the forebodings and promises of religion.
Here, Bentham said that men obey the laws of the State because the probable mischief of
obedience is less than the probable mischief of disobedience.
Pain and Pleasure could be calculated on Felicific Calculus
According to Bentham there are two kinds of pleasures and pains are
there.
• Simple pleasures or those which cannot be resolved into other (as the
pleasures of senses, wealth, skill, amity, good name, power, piety,
benevolence, malevolence, memory, imagination, expectation,
assistance and relief etc.) and
• Complex pleasures are those which can be resolved into various simple
ones.
• Simple pains are privation, awkwardness, enmity, ill-repute etc.
• Complex pains are those which can be resolve into simple ones.
 J.S. Mill - Utilitarianism
In his famous works Utilitarianism and Individualism and liberty one can find the views of the Mill about
Utilitarianism and individualism.

Though Mill is strong supporter of Utilitarianism he himself declared that he is the reformist of the
utilitarianism and proposed several modifications. Because of this he became one of the prominent
personalities in utilitarianism approach.

Mill considerably modified Bentham's thesis of pleasure versus pain by admitting and emphasizing the
qualitative aspect of pleasure. He asserted that pleasures also differ in quality.

Those pleasures which go with the exercise of intellectual capacities are higher and better than sensuous
pleasures.

Mill made a difference between higher quality of pleasure and lower quality of pleasure. He preferred
more noble pleasure over less noble pleasure.
 Main differences between Bentham theory and Mill
theory
Bentham advocated that the pleasures and the pains differ in quantity and not in quality. He said that
pains and pleasures can be computed mathematically. But Mill said that pain and pleasure can't be
measured arithmetically they differ in quality only.

According to Bentham utilitarianism there is a gulf between individual interest and general happiness.
But Mill narrowed down the gulf between individual interest and general happiness.

Bentham recognized only external sanctions. But Mill recognized not only external, but internal
sanctions also which would constrain the individual to promote general happiness, because every
individual possesses a feeling for the happiness of mankind.

Bentham's principle of utility, in a society of wolves, would exalt wolfishness; in a society of saint it
would exalt saintliness. But according to Mill saintliness should be the criterion of utility in any society
whatsoever.
 Criticism of Utilitarianism
01. The moral and psychological basis of utilitarianism is not real:
• Utilitarianism is based on the notion that whatever functions should or should not
be performed by the individual should be tested on the touch-stone of utility. If this
notion is accepted, each individual will work only for his own pleasure.
• That is why Carlyal said angrily, “Bentham’s theory is the theory of the pigs”. He
thought that “man is also a fleshy body, who need only physical pleasure and
nothing else. There is no place for a thing like moral consciousness in his
conscience”.
• Robert A. Murrary writes, “If we take away conscience, as Bentham does, there is
no such thing as moral or immoral action, though there may remain acts that are
generally useful of the reverse.
• As there is no individual conscience, so there is no collective conscience. The
culprit does not feel the censure of the community”.
02. Against human nature:
• The utilitarian’s are of the view that the individual does every work for the
attainment of pleasure and for the avoidance of pain. But this analysis of human
nature is one-sided. The fact is that human nature is complex. He has qualities like
pity, faith, service, benevolence, love, sympathy, sacrifice and forgiveness in him.
• He fixes his high ideals on the basis of these qualities and bears every type of pain
smilingly. For instance, when India was under the foreign rule, many people faced
many hardships at the hands of Britishers. They did all these not for their personal
pleasure but for their high ideals.
• Similarly, when in 1962 China invaded India and later on when in 1965 and 1971
Pakistan invaded India, thousands of heroes displayed exemplary courage and also
sacrificed their lives. They did all this not for their personal interest but for the high
ideal of the protection of their country.
• Buddha, Christ, Shivaji, Guru Gobind Singh, V.D. Savarkar, B.G. Tilak, Subhash
Chandra Bose and Mahatma Gandhi sacrificed everything not for any personal
pleasure but for high ideal of benevolence.
03. The utilitarian’s laid emphasis upon the material comforts only and ignored the
spiritual happiness:
• The utilitarian’s have cared only for physical comfort, and have ignored the suppression of sense and self-
control. They have also no cared for the spiritual comfort which one derives from self-sacrifice for the sake
of humanity.

04. It is improper to lay emphasis solely upon the quantity of pleasures:

• Bentham has stressed only upon the quantity of pleasure. He has not taken up the qualitative difference;
therefore, John Stuart Mill has taken up the qualitative difference, which is appropriate.

05. Bentham did not establish any reconciliation between the interests of the
individual and those the society:
• Maxy has written, “Nor was Bentham able to cross the chasm between individual and social utility”. He did
not agree that it was difficult to make any difference between the individual interests and social interests.
• C.L. Wayper has rightly said, “Besides in his portrayal of the hedonistic individual, Bentham seems to have
left life out of the picture……..in his study of the atomic individual, he has left out both society and history”.
06. The doctrine of maximum welfare of the maximum number is
not free from complications
• Sometimes it is possible that the majority may become selfish and in the name of
maximum welfare of maximum number; it may suppress the minority.

07. This theory ultimately leads to the theory of Laissez Faire

• A majority of the utilitarians were in favour of the view that the government should
not interfere in the affairs of the individual, so that the individual should be in a
position to achieve maximum welfare.
• Though, in public interest, John Stuart Mill accepted some control of the state, yet
he was chiefly a utilitarian. The policy of Laissez Faire harms the interests of the poor
and the weak sections of society. Thus this theory suffers from many weaknesses.
 Aristotle’s Theory of Slavery
Aristotle strongly believed and justified the institution of slavery.

• Aristotle opined slaves as the possession of the family or, in other words, was
considered the property of the master or the family.
• Slavery is natural and beneficial to both the masters as well as the slaves.
• He was of the belief that the slaves have no reasoning power despite the ability
to understand and follow their intellect.

Those who were not virtuous were slaves

• There are inequalities with reference to their capabilities and capacities, all those
who had higher capacities were called masters and the rest are slaves.
Aristotle justified the institution of slavery on the following grounds:

Natural: Necessary: Expediency:

• Slavery is a natural • Slaves are • Slavery is a social NATURAL

phenomenon. The considered necessity.
superior would rule necessary because • Aristotle was of the
over the inferior they provide opinion that slaves
just as the soul leisure that was have sustained the
rules over the body most essential for Greek social and
and reason over the welfare of the economic system,
NECESSARY SLAVERY
appetite state. and they helped
• The masters are • Aristotle stated that Greece against
stated to be slavery benefited social disorder and
physically and the slaves as well. chaos.
mentally strong EXPEDIENCY
• It was
than the slaves. So, complementary to
this set-up naturally the slaves as well as
makes the former the masters and
the master, and the that it aids in
latter the slave. perfection.
Aristotle approved Slavery only under certain conditions :
• Only those who were mentally deficient and virtuously not superior should
be enslaved.
• Aristotle was against the idea of slavery by force. He, never agreed to the
enslavement of prisoners of war.
• A slave, according to Aristotle, is not a human being. He is sub-human,
incomplete, and a barbarian.
• Aristotle insisted that masters must treat their slaves properly, and strongly
propagated that cruel masters must be subjected to legal punishments.
• He advocated the liberation of only those slaves whose conduct was good and
who developed capacity for reasoning and virtue.
• Slavery was essential for the all-round development but the master has no
right to misuse his power. Slaves are only assistants but not subordinates.
Criticism of Aristotle’s Theory of Slavery:
• Classification of individuals on the basis of capacities is wrong and
Aristotle never provided any logical method to be adopted to classify
individuals.
• He rejected historical origin of slavery and justified it on philosophical
rationalization.
• His views on slavery reflect his conservatism and primitive outlook
towards life.
• His theory is highly prejudicial and contradictory to the human dignity
and necessities of life.
• It is prejudicial, in the sense it presupposed that Greeks were fit to rule
the world and they could not be enslaved even if they were defeated
by the barbarians
 Aristotle’s theory of Justice
“When perfected, man is the best of animals, but when separated from law
and justice, he is the worst of all.”
• According to him, justice is virtue, complete virtue, and the embodiment of all goodness.

Justice is virtue, but it is more than virtue; it is

virtue in action

Virtue in practice.
• Reason is, for example, a virtue, but the reasonable/rational conduct is justice; truth is a virtue,
but to be truthful is justice.
• What makes a virtue justice is the very practice of that virtue. So Aristotle says: “The good in
the sphere of politics is justice, and justice contains what tends to promote the common
interest.”
Distributive justice and remedial or corrective justice
Ross says: “Aristotle begins by recognizing two senses of the
word. By ‘Just’, we may mean what is lawful or what is fair and
equal”.
THEORY
OF
• ‘General Justice is complete goodness.
JUSTICE
• It is complete in the fullest sense, because it is the exercise of complete
goodness not only in himself but also towards his neighbors.”

PARTICULAR UNIVERSAL
JUSTICE JUSTICE
Particular justice is a part of complete/general justice

• A person seeking particular justice is one who observes laws but does not
demand from the society more than what he deserves. RECTIFICATORY/
• Aristotle theory of Justice is also called theory of Proportionate Justice. DISTRIBUTIVE
COMMUTATIVE JUSTICE
JUSTICE

Particular justice is of two types—distributive and corrective.

“It is unjust to treat equals, unequally; it is equally unjust to
treat unequals, equally.”
According to Aristotle, justice demands that the persons who are equal, posse’s equal merit
ought to be treated equally.
• If a state goes for discrimination against the person who deserved to be treated equally, such person will be tempted
to go against a state.
• He commonest cause of revolution is the feeling of inequality, real or imagined.

Aristotle does not support absolute equality.

• Absolute equality will be injustice with the person who is more talented or meritorious.
• If state will give equal treatment to more meritorious and less meritorious. It will give rise to the feeling of injustice.
• Feeling of injustice will also lead to revolutions and seditions. We can see the linkage between Aristotle’s theory of
justice and his theory of slavery.
• It will be injustice if state will treats masters and slaves equally. Aristotle was supporter of meritocratic society.
• Merit can be one of the criteria of the justice, but it cannot be the sole criteria of justice.

According to John Rawls, Justice is fairness.

• Constitution of India reflects the idea of justice based on the concept of fairness in India because level playing field
does not exist, merit alone cannot be criteria of justice.
 Comparison of Aristotle and Plato Justice:
For Plato, justice is the performance of one's duties to the best of one's abilities and capacities; for
Aristotle, justice is the reward in proposition to what one contributes;

Plato's justice is related to 'duties'; it is duties-oriented whereas Aristotle's justice is related to

'rights'; it is rights-oriented;

Plato's theory of justice is essentially moral and philosophical; that of Aristotle is legal;

Both has the conception of distributive justice. For Plato, that meant individual excellence and
performance of one's duties while for Aristotle it meant what people deserve, the right to receive.

Plato's justice is spiritual whereas Aristotle's, practical, i.e., it is virtue in action, goodness in practice,

Plato's justice is related to one's inner self, i.e., what comes straight from the soul; Aristotle’s justice
is related to man's actions, i.e., with his external activities
 Niccolò Machiavelli
Life
• Born in the year 1469 in Florence (Italy) Machiavelli belonged to an affluent
family and was well educated for a public career. Attained one of tile higher
posts in the government of Florence.
• Acquired firsthand experience of political and diplomatic matters.
• Upheavals in the Florentine Republic caused the fall in the career of
Machiavelli in 1513, and even put to a year’s imprisonment.

‘Prince’ and Discourses’

• “The discourses” and “The art of war” were Machiavelli‟s famous books. It
contains analysis of body politics.
• “The Prince” is a handbook on the “Art of government” and “State craft”.
Hence it is said that “The Prince‟ is not an academic work on political-science
but it is a book on the art of governance.
• It is in the form of advice and addressed to any ruler.
• Niccolò Machiavelli is to Europe what Chanakya is to India.
Influence on Machiavelli and prevailing situation

“Machiavelli on the borderline between the Middle Ages and the Modern Ages”
• The public leaders were activated more by selfish motive than by public interest.
• Public morality was very low, The Papal authority in Italy constituted greatly towards political
degradation. Popes were opposed to the unification of Italy,
• The Catholic Church and the clergy of Machiavelli’s time wanted to maintain a shadow of their spiritual
power over whole of Italy, which left Italy in a state of arrested development.
• Influenced by the growing spirit of Renaissance which impelled men to re-examine things from other than
the clerical point of view.

Machiavelli as a patriotic Italian could not help being overwhelmingly moved by that.
• Securing the independence of Italy and restoring prosperity of its cities became a master passion with him.
• The unification of the entire country under one national monarch on the model of France and Spain was
the ideal for Machiavelli which particularly inspired him
 Contribution of Machiavelli
Laid the foundation of modern political thought – Machiavelli is
regarded as the founder of modern political thought
• He is the first exponent of power-politics.
• He is the first who put the theory of nation states.
• He was the first thinker who separated religion from politics and justified secular
state.
• He is responsible for the growth of modern nationalism.
• He was the first advocate of autonomy for the state.
• Put forward the concept of supreme, sovereign state and justified all powerful central
authority.
• State is an end i.e. survival of the state is the central theme.
• Gave a great insight for Art of Government and modern diplomacy
Machiavelli the child of renaissance.
Characteristics of the Renaissance
1.A renewed interest in classical antiquity;
2.A rise in humanist philosophy (a belief in self, human worth, and individual
dignity); and
3.Radical changes in ideas about religion, politics, and science.
The intellectual awakening injected rational scientific approach in every sphere
of human life, renaissance replaced the faith by reason

Humanism and rationalism were the 2 core features of Greek

thinking revived by Renaissance.
 Methods of Machiavelli’s Study
01. Historical Method
• As to the spiritual ancestry of Machiavelli the great Greek philosopher Aristotle held his imagination.
• Human problems were almost the same at all times and places, and so the best way of enlightening the present,
according to him, was possible with the help of the past.
• Like that of Aristotle, was historical. But, it was more so in appearance than in substance and reality. He was more
concerned with the actual working.

02. Political Realist

• If the governmental machinery than the abstract principles of constitution. A realist in politics is writings expound a
theory of the art of government rather than a theory of State.

03. Accurate observer and acute analyst of the prevailing circumstances.

• Adopted a form and method of political philosophy which ignored completely the scholastic and juristic ideals. He
adopted the ancient Greek-Roman philosophy because the Romans had established a well-organized empire

04. Empirically based on common sense and shrewd political foresight

• His conclusions were reached empirically based on common sense and shrewd political foresight
Machiavelli’s Prominent works

Concept of
The “Prince”
Universal Egoism

Machiavelli’s
Classification of The Doctrine of
Forms of Aggrandizement
Government
 01. Concept of Universal Egoism
He did not believe in the essential goodness of human nature, he held that all men are wicked and essentially
selfish.

Selfishness and egoism are the chief motive forces of human conduct.

Fear is the one motivating and dominating element in life, which is stronger than love, and the effective motive in
him is desire for security because human nature moreover is, aggressive and acquisitive.

Men aim to keep what they already have and desire to acquire more and there are no limits to human desires,
and all being the same there being a natural scarcity of things there is everlasting competition and strife.

Security is only possible when the ruler is strong. A ‘Prince’, therefore, ought to personify fear. A Prince who is
feared knows how to stand in relation to his subjects and aims at the security of their life and property.

Men always commit error of not knowing when to limit their hopes, therefore, the only way to remedy this evil is
to hold the opposing interests in maintaining an equilibrium between them in order to remain and maintain a
healthy and stable society.
 “The Prince”
According to Machiavelli: “those things were virtuous in a Prince which’
excelled in bringing success and power and that virtue lay in functional
excellence: these were ruthlessness, cunningness, deceitfulness, boldness
and self-control who makes capital alike of his virtues and vices.

People love at their own will but they fear at the will of the prince.
Wise prince never does what others want him to do. He does what he is
supposed to do.

Chapter XVIII of the ‘Prince’ gives Machiavelli’s idea of the virtues which a
successful ruler must possess. Integrity may be theoretically better than
collusion, but cunningness and subtlety are often useful.
The two basic means of success for a prince are—the judicious use of Law
and physical force.
 Prominent traits of human nature:
No limit to human desires.
• He is selfish and aggressive. Hence there is strife and competition.

The masses are interested in security.

• They realize that only laws of the state can ensure security hence they co-operate with the state and
obey the laws.
• Hence a ruler who wants to be successful must ensure security of life and protection of people.
People must be restrained by force because force breeds fear.
• Only force and repression can keep control and check on the evil tendencies in man.
• Hence the method of government should be force and not persuasion.
• By nature every human being is ambitious and remains unsatisfied.

No human being in content with his position.

• He is always after domination. The enmities and wars are the outcome of this desire.
• Thus human nature is selfish, power hungry, quarrelsome and guided by materialistic considerations.
Only fear of punishment is a powerful bond and it never fails.
Where the human Security and
nature is
bad,there shall Competition Conflict Survival is at
always be a risk

To end the
anarchy NEED POWERFUL RULE
Anarchy

To bring law To Preserve the

and order We need a Democrate
existence of the
Prince Despot
Society
 Machiavelli’s advice to the Prince
Machiavelli‟s “The Prince” is in the form of advice given to a ruler on the
state craft. Some significant aspects of the advise to the ruler are as follows:
• Machiavelli elaborates the doctrine of “Raison D ‟Etat‟.
• End justifies the Means.
• State is sovereign, autonomus and non-religious.
• A prince must combine the qualities of a lion and a fox.
• Use a double standard of morality.
• Favour despotic rule.
• Maintain strong army.
• Human nature is low and ungrateful, so Prince must consider this nature of man.
• He should win the popularity of his people must not touch the property of the people.
• A prince must have council of wise men and not of flatterers.
• Separate politics from religion.
• Remain free from emotions.
 Criticism
01. Absolutism and narrow nationalism
• Machiavelli suggested power politics is the Means and authoritarian absolute state is the End.
This thought of Machiavelli leads to absolutism and narrow nationalism. Power politics cannot
be End, it will lead to autocracy and war.

02. Ignored individualism

• Machiavelli ignored individualism i.e. individual liberty, equality, justice etc. He sacrificed
individual at the alter of the state.

03. One sided views of human nature

• In view of Machiavelli men are universally bad. This is really a very one sided view of human
nature. He ignores the fact that much of civilization is based on the social and co-operative
instincts of men.
• According to Savine, Machiavelli is narrowly dated and narrowly located. His description of
human nature is too much shaped by his experience of human nature during his time in
Italy.
• According to Dunning, Machiavelli has presented partial view of human nature.
04. Power and wealth are its central concepts. Morality and idealism
became less important
• According to Machiavellian thought sole aim of prince is the unification and welfare of the
state showed reality of practical politics stressed on Rationality Machiavelli’s thought was
based on empirical reality.
• It looks at and treats political problems in a realistic manner. He explained the practical aspects
of politics.

05. Utility of war

• The sole aim of the prince is to be an expert in managing and organizing a war. Because it is
the only way of increasing power. Power is the only reason of the state. Thus, Machiavelli
justified utility of war.

06. Machiavelli goes for selective use of history

• Machiavelli supports his view on the basis of examples in history. However, Machiavelli goes
for selective use of history. He has overlooked those examples which contradict his
understanding. He presented only those examples which support only his point of view.
 The Forms of Governments STATE

According to Machiavelli, the governments were

divided into two types, republics and principalities.

"All states and all dominations that have had and PRINCIPALITY REPUBLIC
continue to have power over men have been, and still
are, either republics or principalities."
(The Prince) The prince was devoted to study
monarchies, "I shall set aside any discussion of
republics, because I have treated them at length
elsewhere.
I shall consider solely the principalitly" (The
Prince,)The Discourses was purported to "explain the NEWLY
structure and benefits of a republic" HEREDITRY
ACQUIRED
Of the two types of government, Machiavelli's “own POPULAR
personal preference will always be for… a Republican RULE
form of government."
Machiavelli preferred the republican
form for the following reasons:

• The people, as a whole, were wiser than the Prince.

• They were, in general, no more vacillating than a prince.
• The adjustment of the people in the choice of the rulers was in general sound and often
unimpeachable. This could not be the case in monarchies.
• The princedom could better establish and found a state; the republic alone could maintain
it.
• The republics kept faith better than princes.
• The republics were better suited to changing conditions and circumstances of the
monarchies.
• In monarchy, the prince had unlimited power and that is why he was in a position that
enabled him to be the only man to stifle, and "if he is to survive, must stifle-the manly
impulses of those entire subject to him."
The Concept of Virtue(VIRTU)
• Machiavelli's vision of obtaining and keeping power was dominated by the term "virtu’ '', an Italian word.
• The exact translation of this word into English is virtue and that is what suggested morality and goodness.
• But Machiavelli used this concept to mean something else. He used it to indicate specific personal
characteristics of the Prince.
• All leading theorists of princely government, on the one hand, supported the notion that the Prince who
wished to keep his principality and to effect his aim of honour, glory and reputation, had to posses the
"full range of Christian as well as moral virtues." Machiavelli, on the other hand, used to deny this
conclusion.
• He refused strongly the common point of view that the best way to achieve the Prince's objectives was to
behave in "a conventionally virtuous way."
• Machiavelli suggested that if the Prince had to act virtuously, he had not to forget to avoid as much as he
can to act virtuously all times.
• (The Prince) Machiavelli's virtue was not moral one.The prince’s virtue, for Machiavelli, could be defined
as "an astonishingly creative force, the key to maintaining his state and enabling him to fight off his
enemies.
• " Another definition was that virtue "is a particular kind of skill or aptitude, combined, of course, with the
will to use it.".
THREATS TO THE PRESERVATION OF STATE

• Fortuna(Fortune)
• Conventional Morality
• Nobality/Elite
• Common People
• Neighbouring States
• Advice of Maciavelli’s Quality of Virtu
Fortune(fortuna)
Fortune
• Uncertain and Unperdictable
incidents in life.
• It may provide opportunity and may
bring destruction
• Virtu is an ablity to seize that “Fortune is an arbiter of half
opportunity of our actions, the other
half remaining our in hands”
• Compares fortunate with a river.It
brings floods
• But We can prevent the destruction
if we are prepared for the floods
before it arrives
• Virtue is here foresightedness
Conventional Morality
• Morality can be good or bad which is based on fixed and absolute
standards and principles governing our actions
• These values will originate from Religion, people of that time have a lot
of faith on religion
• Many of the conventions and scholars of that time believe that rulers
should be virtuous, Machiavelli denied this idea.
• He said, being effective is more important than being virtuous
• In this context, he said that if necessary Prince can avoid the morality or
the guise of virtuous one
• It can be done when the matter is required forthe preservation of state.
 What should Prince do:
Nobility/Elite class
“Men ought either to be well treated or
• Noblity is close to prince crushed, because they can avenge
• Elite class always compete for share themselves of lighter injuries, of more
serious ones they cannot; therefore the
in power injury that is to be done to a man ought to
• Elite class can make conspiracies be of such a kind that one does not stand
in fear of revenge.”
• Nobility Can side with Prince’s
enemies
• Nobility is close to prince
• Elite class always compete for share
in power
• Elite class can make conspiracies
• Nobility Can side with Prince’s
enemies
Common People What should Prince do:

• The relationship between prince and people should “It is better to be feared than
be based on fear. loved, if you cannot be both.”
• Because love is temporary but fear is permanent
• The bond of love can be easily broken at one’s
willbut the fear of punishment always remains “Men judge generally more by
• PRINCE MUST NEVER BE HATED BY PEOPLE: the eye than by the hand, for
• He should never touch People’s property
• He should never touch their women
everyone can see and few can
• Prince must use violence and cruelity if required but
feel. Every one sees what you
in limited manner appear to be, few really know
• Violence should be done to prevent greater what you are.”
violence
• Prince should try to appear as good as he can
Niccolo Machiavelli
Neighbouring states

Neighbouring states
always be prepared for
war “A Prince must not have any
other object nor any other
thought… but war, its
Machiavelli suggested the institutions, and its discipline;
use of Permanent(Citizen) Prince must always be because that is the only art
Army instead of ready for war befitting one who commands.”
Mercineray Army

Even in the time of peace

he must be preparing for
war
EVALUATION OF MACHIAVELLI’S POLITICAL THOUGHT
• Merits or Contributions:
• Laid the foundation of modern political thought – Machiavelli is regarded
as the founder of modern political thought1)He is the first exponent of
power-politics.
• He is the first who put the theory of nation states.
• He was the first thinker who separated religion from politics and justified
secular state.
• He is responsible for the growth of modern nationalism.
• He was the first advocate of autonomy for the state.
• Put forward the concept of supreme, sovereign state and justified all
powerful central authority.
• State is an end i.e. survival of the state is the central theme.
Machiavelli contributed new political thoughts to political theory and brought a new awakening in political field.
He is called the child of renaissance or child of his time.

• Hence modern power politics cannot be thought of without any reference to Machiavelli and his book
“Prince”.
• Guide for the Rulers: Machiavelli's advice was followed by Cromwell and Napoleon.
• Machiavelli's emphasis upon absolute power and authoritarian rule is the source of fascist movement.
“Prince” was a textbook for authoritarian rulers. It is like a guide for the rulers for ruling the state or
statecraft.
• The most revolutionary aspect of the prince: From Greek philosophy to renaissance all philosophers and
thinkers dealt with the „End‟ of the state.

They thought that the political power of the state would be used as “Means‟ to achieve further “End”. But
Machiavelli adopted a quite different line to him the power of the state is the “End‟ of the state. i.e. every state
must aim at maximizing its power.
Father of modem political theory
• Apart from theorizing about the state lie has also given meaning to the concept of sovereignty. But he never
let his belief ii the general theory of an omnipotent law giver turns into a general theory of absolutism or
absolute monarchy, which the subsequent writer Thomas Hobbes did.
• This concept of sovereignty—internal as well as external—is implicit in his recommendation of despotic
power of the ruler for making the state permanent and safe internally and externally

Machiavelli was the first who gave the idea of secularism.

• In the words of Allen: “The Machiavelli state is to begin with in a complete sense, an entirely secular state.”
• Although he attributes to religion an important place in the state, lie at the same time separates the two.
• He placed religion within the state not above it and according to him, “the observance of the ordinances of
religion is the cause of greatness of the commonwealth; as also in their neglect the cause of their ruin.”
Potency of material interests of people rather than the spiritual ones
• He influenced ages and subsequently Marx in propounding their theory of Material Origin of the State.
• Machiavelli was also the first exponent of die theory of aggrandizement which is the basis of modern power
politics. In day-to-day international politics each state aims at increasing its economic and military power
over other states.
Machiavelli was the first pragmatist in the history of political thought.

• His method and approach to problems of politics were guided by common sense and
history. According to Professor Maxey: “His passion for the practical as against the
theoretical undoubtedly did much to rescue political thought from the scholastic
obscurantism of the middle Ages.”
• Machiavelli’s idea of omnipotence of the state and the business of the government was to
provide security to person and property and has had a long lasting effect.
• His ideas were revolutionary in nature and substance and he brought politics in line with
political practice. In tile end, it can be said that a good deal of odium is attached to
Machiavelli for his cynical disregard for morality and religion.

Machiavellism has become a by-word for unscrupulousness; but it must

be noted that he wrote the ‘Prince’ and ‘Discourses’ primarily from the
point of view of the preservation of state, every other consideration
being secondary.
THE GREEK CITY-STATE
• The Athenian city-state formed the backdrop for
the political thought of Socrates, Plato and
Aristotle.
• The government of Athens in the 7th century
was in the hands of the aristocracy.
• In most of the other city-states as well, kingship
was replaced by oligarchic forms of government.
• Oligarchy, that is, rule by the few, usually the
noble born, and the rich and wealthy, was the
dominant form of government in the Greek city-
states.
 DEMOCRACY IN ATHENS
• Politically, from about 500 BCE to around 300
BCE, except for two brief interruptions, Athens
remained a democracy.
• The democratic institutions influenced
Athenian life a great deal and the flowering of
culture in Athens at that time—in the form of
the great philosophers like Plato and Socrates
was an outcome of these democratic practices.
• When Solon abolished all forms of debt-
slavery, he took one step towards reducing the
stark inequalities.
 POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS OF ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY

Citizenship was restricted to free born Athenian males.

EKKLESIA: the right and duty of every male Athenian citizen, who was over
20 years old, to attend these meetings, which were held about 40 times in
a year.

Payment was also introduced for attending the meetings of the ekklesia.

Five days notice had to be given for a scheduled meeting of the ekklesia
and a placard announcing the proposals to be discussed at the meeting
had to be put up in the agora (marketplace).
The Athenians saw free speech as integral to the proper functioning of their
democracy.

Not only was Athenian democracy based on an equal opportunity to speak

given to all citizens, irrespective of their status—but democracy in Athens also
allowed frank and critical speech—to all its citizens.

Soon there would be a demand for closure through a vote and voting would
take place by a show of hands.

This is how important issues of war and peace, treaties with other city-states,
as well as matters of domestic policy were decided by the Athenian citizens.

There were many mechanisms set in place to ensure that the citizens took the
proceedings of the assembly seriously.
BOULE OR THE COUNCIL
• It was permanently in session throughout the year, and
was responsible both for preparing the agenda of each
session of the assembly, as well as for implementing the
decisions taken at these sessions.
• The council consisted of 500 citizens, with 50 citizens (all
over 30 years of age) being assigned to it every year from
each of the 10 tribes.
• Each group of 50 from a particular tribe acted as a standing
committee of the boule for 36 consecutive days.
• This group of 50 was responsible for the work of
the boule for those days.
• On each of those 36 days, one out of those 50 would be
chosen by lot to become the chairman of the boule for that
day, and would preside over its meetings on that day.
If there was a meeting of the ekklesia set for that day as well, then he would
also preside over that meeting.

No citizen could serve on the boule more than two times in his lifetime.

The boule set the agenda of the assembly.

Mostly, no proposal could be discussed in the ekklesia unless it had already

been vetted and debated in the Boule.

The draft proposals of the boule were ‘either in the form of recommendations
or simply as open questions for the assembly to decide on’.

The boule was helped in its executive functions by magistrates, and there were
as many as 600 of them in Athens, each appointed for an annual term.
The most important magistrates were the ten generals or the strategoi,
appointed annually; one from each tribe.

Since Athens was almost always at war, the strategoi were very important
officials.

About 90 other magistrates were also elected, including the most important
financial officers and some religious functionaries.

The other 500 magistrates—the superintendents of the market and of weights

and measures, those responsible for the maintenance of roads and for
cleaning the streets, those in charge of the prisons, the record keepers, etc.—
were chosen by lottery, and usually worked in committees of ten, with one
member from each tribe.
One particular magistracy could be held
only once in a lifetime, and all magistrates
had to submit to an audit of their accounts
on leaving office.
Like the assembly, the Athenian court
system allowed for a maximum of
participation by the citizens.
Every year 6000 Athenian citizens aged 30
or over were chosen by lot and registered
as a pool of jurors.
THE SOCIOLOGICAL BASIS OF ATHENIAN
DEMOCRACY
• It has often been pointed out that when, in a population of
250,000 to 300,000, about 80,000 to 100,000 were slaves,
25,000 were metics or resident aliens with no political rights,
not to mention all the Athenian women who were not given
any rights, and only up to a maximum of 50,000 Athenian
males were considered citizens, it is difficult to call such a
system democratic.

SLAVERY was the basis of this ancient democracy.

• Both Hannah Arendt and the Marxists, for example, agree on

this one fact, although one views it positively and the other
negatively.
For Arendt, since the slaves did all the work, ordinary
Greek citizens could remove themselves from the sphere
of production and devote their energies to politics, the life
of action. Labour confines us to the realm of necessity; the
slaves made it possible for Athenian citizens to do
something more reflective of human freedom, that is,
political action.

MARX AND ENGELS decried this same fact; the slaves did
all the work and the citizens, specially the richer ones,
reaped all the fruits thereof.

• For Marx and Engels furthermore, it is labour that expresses all human
creativity, and so the Greeks lost out not only because of inequality, but
also because they were idle.
Against both these positions, E.M. Wood puts forward her
interesting thesis that it was the ordinary peasant citizens and the
craftsmen citizens who formed the basis of Athenian democracy.
Wood convincingly shows how the ordinary Greek citizen was a
farmer or craftsman, who had to do his own manual work himself.

ATHENIAN CITIZEN ARMY AND KIND OF DEMOCRACY THAT

EXISTED IN ATHENS
Every citizen over 18 years of age was to serve in the army.
Those who fought for Athens—and Athens was almost always at
war—were citizens, and not the slaves or the women.
THE SECOND PELOPONNESIAN WAR between
Sparta and Athens (431 to 404 BCE), ended in
Athens’s defeat, and it was its democratic regime
that was held responsible.
• So, according to many scholars, including Wood, it is not true
to say that politics in Athens was the preserve of the rich and
that democracy was a pure sham.
• Athenian male citizen could express his opinion at any given
time, on any subject.
• Politics, in Athens, however, was the preserve of men.
• Athenian men lived a public life.
Now that you have some idea of what the Athenian city-state looked like, in
terms of its social structure and its political organization, this might help you
to better understand the writings of Plato and Aristotle, and the reported
dialogues of Socrates.

These thinkers were obviously responding to the practice of democracy in

Athens.

Socrates’s insistence on speaking his mind on any and every occasion mirrors
the democratic practice.

Plato is famous for comparing a democratic assembly to an out of control

‘great beast’ in Republic, and Aristotle’s very definition of political rule as a
continuous alternation between ruling and being ruled in turn captures the
status of Athenian men as citizen-subjects.