The Individual and
The Individual and
The Individual and
state
Pantheistic Theory of the State
He viewed the different parts of the universe
as informed or unified by a psychic principle,
of which the individual things we see are just
manifestations or extensions.
Underlying Plato’s politics is his concepts of
justice, which is synonymous with harmony
and unity.
The purpose of the state is unity and
harmony, which can be attained only if the
state possesses absolute sovereignty over it’s
subjects.
Theory that views all things as different
expressions of the Idea (the absolute) is a
continuous process of evolution.
To Hegel, the state has become an aspect of
the absolute which is the common substrate
of all things, the universal substance of which
individual things are so many accidents or
determinations “The State’, he says, “is the
social substance that has arrived at self-
consciousness. It is the rational of itself and
for itself… it is a terrestrial divinity”.
Criticism
The Platonic and the Hegelian systems give
no place for the individual. Logically, it would
destroy all individuality and all liberty. There
can be no individual rights and freedom in a
government where the possesses absolute
control over the citizens.
But man existed first before the state. Man is
man before he is a citizen. Man possesses
rights with which the state may not interfere
save to define and defend.
Divine Right Theory
The ruler according to this theory
impersonates the state, which he
himself holds his office directly by
divine right. He is then responsible
directly to God alone and need
give no account to his subjects for
his government.
Criticism
The argument advanced in support of this
theory amounts to this: All powers come
from God. Now I have (as a king) this
power. Therefore, my power comes from
God.
All power in itself comes from God. But not
all powers come from God directly. The
concrete appointment of authority is a
matter of human arrangement. Just so, any
concrete distribution of property, though
founded on God-given right, can not claim
Theory of Social Contract
Another theory is that the state owes it origin to a social
contract freely entered into its members.
• Hobbes- Development of the idea in favor of Absolute
Monarchy.
• Rousseau- Interpreted the idea in terms of absolute
democracy and individualism.
Hobbes began with the premise that man is
fundamentally evil. To Hobbes the original state of nature
was one of continues warfare. To this war of every man
against man, this is also consequent that nothing can be
unjust, where there is no common power there is no law,
where there is no law there is no injustice.
Criticism
It is not true that the only motive which draws men
to civil society is the fear of violence. Hobbes fails to
consider such facts and exigencies of human
nature as sympathy, friendship, cooperation, etc.
As Joseph Ricaby says in Moral Philosophy, “it is not
true that all rights are the creation of the state. A
man is man first, and a citizen afterward. As a man
he has actual and potential; thus the state exists,
not to create for they are prior to it in the order of
existence but to determine them, where
indeterminate, to sanction and safeguard them.”
The Theory of Rousseau
On the other hand, he viewed man as naturally
good, completely free and virtuous.
Unfortunately, however, this utopian state of
primitive man did not last. Man was born free
and good; now he is in chains and has become
bad. According to him, this is due to the evil
influences of society, civilization, learning and
progress. Man, therefore, lost his original
goodness, his primitive tranquility of spirit.
In order to restore peace, bring back to
him his freedom and return to his true self,
man saw the necessity and came to form
the state through the social contract
whereby everyone grants his individual
rights to the general will.
Criticism