B.A. (Hons.

) Political Science Semester-V

Core Course
Paper-XI : Classical Political Philosophy
Study Material : Unit 1- 4

SCHOOL OF OPEN LEARNING

University of Delhi

Editors : Dr. Mangal Deo

Dr. Shakti Pradayani Rout
Department of Political Science
 Graduate Course

Paper-XI : Classical Political Philosophy

Contents
Pg. No.
Unit-1 : Text and Interpretation Dr. Shakti Pradayani Rout 01
Unit-2 : Antiquity
(a) Plato (429-347 BC) Dr. Nishant Kumar 13
(b) Aristotle (385 BC–322 BC) Dr. Nishant Kumar 28
Unit-3 : Interlude
Machiavelli (1469-1527 A.D.) Dr. Mangal Deo Singh 47
Unit-4 : Possessive Individualism
(a) Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) Dr. Nishant Kumar 58
(b) John Locke (1632-1704) Dr. Nishant Kumar 70

Edited by:
Dr. Mangal Deo
Dr. Shakti Pradayani Rout

SCHOOL OF OPEN LEARNING

UNIVERSITY OF DELHI
5, Cavalry Lane, Delhi-110007
 Unit-1

Text and Interpretation

Dr. Shakti Pradayani Rout

Structure
 What is text?
 What is Hermeneutics or Art of Interpretation?
 Reason we interpret any text?
 Approaches to interpret text? (Traditional)
1. Textual
2. Contextual
 Terence Ball’s multiple approaches to do interpretation of any text (Modern and
pluralistic Approach)
 Schools of Interpretation
1. Totalitarian Approach
2. Feminist Approach
3. Marxian Approach
4. Post-Modern Approach
5. Cambridge ‘New History’ Approach
6. Psychoanalytic Approach
7. Strussian Approach
 Conclusions
 Check Your Progress
 References

Let us discuss our chapter by understanding what is text? According to the Oxford Advanced
Learner’s Dictionary, the text indicates ‘the main written part of a book or magazine, not the
information or pictures’, or any type of published material, or the section, case novel or any
handbook could be viewed as a text. A text is an object that can be ‘readable’ and transmitted
to some kind of informative message to create knowledge. Every text has some formal
meaning. We are here to understand and read ‘classical text’ written by Plato, Aristotle,
Machiavelli, Hobbes and many more. So, text is more than spoken words, it covers wide
range of expressions than written one.
Now let us discuss what is hermeneutics? The genesis of the term ‘hermeneutics’ is from
the Greek word, hermeneuein .This means to make something clear to announce or to unveil
a message, which is related to art of interpretation.

1
 The prime objective of interpretation is to understand the essence of text, written by
various philosophers. Mainly in this process we try to understand the persistent intention of
the author. Why he wrote it? In this way what would be the purpose of the text or book? In
this way we try to understand the language, meaning of everything that appears in the text.
Hence, human being is considered as meaning seeking species who tries to understand
whatever comes in his or her way. Gadamer has acknowledged this the art and process of
interpretation is a matter not of method but of on to a logical necessity of being human. He
asserts that the world we inhabit and the text we read are normally actually interpreted and
also invested with meaning. By interpreting and understanding the classical texts, we come to
appreciate our own mankind. The art of interpretation is hence a key part of the art of living
to human being. The art of interpretation is not a luxury but an essential human activity. To,
Leo Strauss, the classics also perform a vital moral and educative role by teaching us how to
think about the political world. Thus, understanding or interpreting any Classic is a way of
exploring the truth comes with the territory of being human.
Classical Political Philosophy as a subject we try to understand how to read and decode
the classics in Political Science and use them to solve contemporary socio-political crisis. The
course tries to connect with historical written texts and interpret it in familiar way (the way
Philosophers think). For example, how Plato visions his ideal state is being realized through
the work of ‘Philosopher King’? What are the typologies of Aristotelian state? What are the
attribute and quality Machiavellian ‘Prince’ should uphold? Then we need to clearly connect
them to contemporary issues (problems related to man, State and Society) and develop our
ideas to solve them through logical validation in present context. For example, the problem
related to ethical devaluation of man; injustice; corruption; failure of state or related
institutions are the contemporary problems of which we are searching for solution. Thus,
studying of classics would equip us to understand the perennial or timeless problems
occurred in various historical phases and how philosophers or writers tried to encounter them
through their own manner and vision.
There are many classics we are going to interpret in our course, Plato’s Republic and
Laws; Aristotle’s Ethics and Politics; Machiavelli’s Prince and Discourse on Livy; Hobbes’s
Leviathan; Locke’s Second Treatise of Civil Government; Rousseau’s Social Contract,
Hegel’s Philosophy of Right; J.S Mill’s On Liberty; Marx’s Economic and Philosophic
Manuscripts and Communist Manifesto etc. These classics are being written by different
philosophers in the different countries’ and in different socio-economic sphere. So, to sum
up, the chapter would summarize the points and would read the article of Terence Ball:
 The classical texts provide us informative knowledge which is essential to solve
problems related to man, state and society.
 The Art of interpretation is a key part of the art of human living; it’s certainly an
essential activity (Indispensability of Interpretation).
 An efficient interpreter reduces the strangeness of any classical text, and makes it
easily understandable to the reader.

2
  There are multiple approaches of interpretation.
 According to Terence Ball our interpretation should pluralistic and problem-driven.
Approaches to Study Classics (Traditional)
In the field of scientific inquiry of social phenomena, an approach is concerned with the
selection of a suitable method or perspective to inquire anything that is political. It talks of –
how to inquire? And focuses to study what to inquire? To understand the text of any classic
would require both approach of text and context.
Textual Approach
In textual approach the interpreter requires read the text in simple form and understand its
meaning and language. The main objective of textual interpretation is to read the author in his
words: What he actually said? What is the objective to say? What massage he is trying to
give to the reader through his language. As Leo Struss once said the reader or interpreter need
to ‘read, reread and reflect’ upon the said book or classic. This approach always emphasis
more on the actual wording of any of these written or printed books. To understand the a,b,c
of any classical text we have to read a text ‘over and over again’ as said by Palmenatz (1963:
I, X). The meaning and context of the text can be sometime being misunderstood by the
researcher or reader. Sometimes researcher also (mis) understand the meaning of any text
written in any classics. So, the role of interpreter becomes very crucial while interpreting.
When interpretation or reading of any text is being narrowly intentioned, it leads to rise of
fundamentalism. In the words of Terence Ball, the (mis) reading of Koran by Osama Bin
laden may lead to rise of fundamentalism in Afghanistan. Similarly a narrow interpretation or
(mis) quotation is a serious challenge of interpretation.
Textual approach wants to look at ‘text’ as itself or as self sufficient substance to
understand any philosopher. For example, to understand the meaning of Leviathan, we only
have to read it again and again, if required we have to read other related text of Hobbes. It
surely says that, if some passage in the Leviathan is unclear to us, we take the help of some
other passage in the same book to understand and re-evaluate or revise the existing
interpretation. So, reading carefully and connecting to establish a meaning out of any classics
becomes the main activity of interpretation.
Contextual Approach
The textual method of studying of Classics in Western tradition of political thought came
under attack, in 1960s by the founder of ‘Cambridge School’, who argued to look at any text
or classic from emergence of its circumstances or contexts. According to them, when we look
at classics from only ‘textual’ point of view, we miss the historical context of it. That means,
the writer or philosopher do not write in their own creative framework, but usually of that
time they lived. So, that time usually depict of socio-economic context of the philosopher.
Hence, textual approach was been equally works, hand in hand with contextual approach.

3
 Skinner (1966) Pocock (1971), Dunn (1979) and Collini (1983) are leading exponents of
contextualism or contextual approach (founders of Cambridge School). They visualized that
depending on mere textual approach is inherently weak, it overlook the historical and social
context or purpose of writing. So, contextual approach consider, every text is the result of a
conscious effort of authors or philosopher. So, ignoring the historical context of the text
would lead to an error in interpreting and understanding. Skinner popularized the method
called Speech-act theory. According to which the author’s intention could be better decoded
if one examined what the author was doing while writing something. Here, we can analyse
the intention of the author.
Context talks of environment which forced or influenced philosophers / thinkers/authors
to write such text. It indicates about the socio-economic and cultural milieu of the writer.
Sabine held that political theories of any age are the product of the social circumstances in
which politics had operated. So, we require giving emphasis on both textual approach and
contextual approach. Now we will discuss about the views of Terence Ball.
Terence Ball’s View on Interpretation (History and the Interpretation of Texts)
Interpretation of text has many implications. Some time it is as serious as matter of difficulty.
Sometimes it is simply a deadly matter. As Terence Ball mentions because of irresponsive
interpretations, one dimensional interpretation work of Marx; writings of Nietzsche are being
misunderstood. Thus, the challenge of irresponsive and one dimensional interpretation can be
tackled by carful, contextual and pluralistic interpretations.
Therefore, the work of political theory or thought is in large to understand these classical
works which comprise an important aspect of political traditions. The political scientists are
perennially interested to understand, reflect and reread these classics. And try what is being
said by philosophers, in what situations; and why are being said in certain period of history.
So, it is important for the researcher of political scientist to read, translate and interpret any
classical text and make them understandable to the readers or students. The purpose of any
interpretation should simplify the text and context of any classics. “A good translation or
interpretation is one that diminishes the strangeness of the text, making it more familiar and
accessible to an otherwise puzzled or perplexed observer” (Ball in Kaukthas & Gaus,
2004:19). The work of interpreter is to simplify the meaning of classical text from completely
objective manner to the reader.
Schools of Interpretation
There are number of influential schools or approaches to, interpretation. Each takes a
distinctive approach to read the history of political thought, and each is highly critical of
others. Despite strong differences of their view points, Terence Ball in his article preferred a
multiple and pluralistic dimension of approach over monolithic interpretation. So, let us
discuss various approaches to read or interpret classical text:

4
Totalitarian Approach
It can be other way can be said as totalitarian approach to textual interpretation. There was
rise of Fascism, Nazism in 20th century Europe. Thus, there was a major shifting in
interpretation of classical books took place. While interpreting Plato’s classic Republic, the
roots of these totalitarian beliefs are being found. The behaviour of Hitler, Helicaft and the
work of Gulag of Stalin being searched in the classic wrote by Plato. As we know Plato’s
Republic all administrative, legal and executive authority were entitled to the ‘Philosopher
King’. The Philosopher King at a time becomes the source of law, executer of law and
implementer of law. Likewise in the Machiavelli’s Prince, Hobbes ‘Leviathan’ does spoke
about the totalitarian aspects had also seen Rousseau’s ‘Social Contract’ from this approach.
The characteristic of Rousseau’s ‘General Will’ can also be seen from the totalitarian aspect.
So, totalitarian approach is an influential approach to textual interpretation and views these
ideologies are rooted in the writing of early political thinker or theorist like Plato and
Rousseau.
These earlier theorist, when put into modern political theories or practices are allegedly
produced Hitler promoting Holocaust; Stalin using Gulag to eliminate bourgeoisie class. It is
therefore very important to detect and expose the philosophical ‘origins’ or ‘roots’ of modern
totalitarianism by rereading and reinterpreting earlier thinkers in the light of theorizing these
‘classical texts’.
Let us look at the proto-totalitarian themes and tendencies of early Nazism (propaganda),
their roots can be traced back in the Plato’s Perfect Republic, ruled by a Philosopher King
who deploys censorship and use ‘noble lies’ which were backed by propaganda and false
promises.
The most prominent representatives of ‘totalitarian’ approach to textual interpretation
was the late Karl Popper, who wrote, The Open Society and It’s Enemies, which is the most
sustained and systematic attempt to trace the roots of modern totalitarianism. The book has
tried to understand Plato to Marx from this approach. Karl Popper was an Austrian Jew who
fled from Nazis and immigrated to New Zealand in the 1930s. Popper regarded his research
for and writing of open society as his ‘war effort’ (1976: 115). It may be instructive to revisit
Pooper’s Open Society to show how sincerely held present day concerns can inform- or
misinform-our interpretation of ‘classic’ works in political theory. Let us choose from the
preceding rogues’ gallery a single example for closer examination: Hegel’s remark in
Philosophy of Right that ‘The rational is Actual and what is Actual is rational’ (1952: 10) can
also be analyzed from this point of view (ibid: 21). The translation of this statement of Hegel
from German language that time is of different meaning. The technical and philosophical
idiom used by Hegel was being mis-interpretated in the context of totalitarian society the
author (Hegel) lived in.
Popper tried to look at Hegel’s quote from a different approach. He translated his word
into English that ‘everything that is real must be reasonable must be real, and everything that
is real must be reasonable’. In that way Pooper insisted that Hegel has supported the then
Prussian state which was an authoritarian police state. During that time the state was
arbitrary, practised censorship and imprisonment without due process of law. That means

5
Hegel was being impressed by Prussian prototype of the modern totalitarian state, as Popper
claims can he be considered as a ‘totalitarian’ thinker. Hegel as Popper says in short can be
considered as an enemy of ‘open society’.
However, there is a larger hermeneutical lesson to be learned from Popper’s reading of
Hegelian nature of state and its translation to readable English of his time. Thus it is very
urgent for any interpreter to understand the proper context of any philosophical writings. We
have to look in to interpretation that ‘how these philosophers are using an apparently ordinary
terms in a non-ordinary or technical way’. So rereading of Plato, Rousseau and Hegel must
be holistic and took account of both context of philosophical writings and their proper
translation too.
Feminist Approach
Feminism has a different and lasting impact on how we interpret the history of political
thought. A feminist approach puts issues of gender, gender related concerns at the forefront.
Feminist like Susan Okin observes, ‘the great tradition of political philosophy consists
generally speaking of writing by men, for men and about men’ (1979:5). That certainly
showcases that as all the mainstream political theory; conceptualisation, theorization; female
related issues kept women’ issues as its secondary aspects in public debate. The philosophical
debates in both western and non-western political thought kept women issues away from the
mainstream debate.
A feminist or gender–centred approach to the history of political thought started in
1960s. The women issues and concerns taking new directions in Political Science discourse
during this period. One early anthology (Schneir, 1972) included not only selections from
Mary Wollstonecraft, Emma Goldman, and others. Some discussion took place ‘Men as
Feminist’, which placed Friedrich Engels, John Stuart Mill, other men as feminist category
(first wave of feminism). Several specialized studies of particular thinkers appeared during
this brief period.
For example, Melissa Butler (1991) found the ‘liberal roots’ of feminism in Locke’s
writing named ‘attack on patriachialism’. In the work of Boralevi, 1984, in chapter two
honoured Jeremy Bentham as ‘the father of feminism’. As Williford in 1975 said, that John
Stuart Mill as the ‘patron saint’ of feminist thought. However, these honours are being
criticised by hard core feminist like Susan Okin, Pateman. They charged both Rousseau and
Aristotle as ‘something of a misogynist’ and the ‘patron saint as a closest sinner with feet of
clay’. The feminist claimed that male theorist marginalized women by placing them outside
the public or civic sphere in which men move and act politically (Elshtain, 1981) (Ball in
Kaukthas & Gaus, 2004: 23). In the name of protecting the weak, men philosopher kept
women out of the public and administrative activities.
During second phase of feminist movement-the criticism went stronger and more
accurate. The feminist scholars set out to expose and criticise the misogamy lurking in the
works of Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Bentham, Mill and Marx
and many others. Pateman complained that the public institutions covertly support patriarchy
present in the history of political thought. She said that public and private dichotomy and
concept of ‘consent’ in the liberal writings of social contract as a ‘fraternal’ concept. The

6
modern welfare state to Pateman is covertly present the patriarchal set up of our political
philosopher. To some feminists Plato’s the Republic (380-370 BC) was one of the earliest
exponents of total political and sexual equality.
In the third phase of feminist movement went more robust to discuss on civic virtues of
men which were turned in to vices. The male attributes which are being lacked in women are
being considered as subordinating (hunger for power; domination; simply showing off). The
dichotomy that Men are domineering, women as nurturing; men as competitive, women are
co-operative; men think and judge in abstract and universal categories, women in concrete
and particular instances are being debated (ibid: 24).
Mary Dietz in 1985 talked about active engagement of females in civic activities or
‘citizenship with a feminist face’ came as a perspective to analyse. A more generous reading
of Aristotle and other seminal works took place.
A number of feminist specialized studies of specific thinkers emerged in political
thought. Theorists who are liberal like Melissa Butler (1991) indentified the ‘liberal roots’ of
feminism in Locke’s work of ‘attack on Patriachialism’. Jeremy Bentham was honoured as
‘the father modern feminism’ and an advocate of feminist rights. However, the major
challenge of this approach is that it looks at every political issue from gender lens. In the
words of Ball, the Western tradition of writing is not arbitrary or misogynist but represents a
‘wellspring of political wisdom’. Thus, reading text from multiple approaches would make
reader more near to the truth spoken by the authors.
Marxian Approach
The dominant idea of Marxism looks at society that the mainstream ideas of any age are those
which serve the interest of dominant ruling class. In 1947 Marx and Engels said that ‘the
ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas’. As we read the classic of
Aristotle, we can find that slavery is justified in forth-century BC in Greece by Aristotle.
According to Marxian interpretation books, newspaper, magazines, movies plays actually
depict the practices of elite or ruling class. Likewise Aristotle being the part of Ruling elite
had justified slavery and exclusion of women from the public life. Thus, the objective of the
Marxist interpretation of text should always focus on the ‘uncover realities of the societal
appearance’. That certainly says why and on what circumstances Aristotle had justified
slavery.
Accordingly, the Marxian interpretation brings the task in the interpreter to ‘go behind
the screen and expose the realities’ what Marx calls ‘the illusion of that epoch’1947:30.
According to Ball, this general approach, this is called as ‘the hermeneutics of suspicion’.
The role of interpreter here is to unveil the hidden socio-economic realities existing in society
that are being noted by any philosopher in their ‘classics’. For example, C. B. Macpherson
tried to look into the system of Modern Capitalism. In his book The Political Theory of
Possessive Individual is (1962) tired to conclude that ‘possessive individualism’ serves to
support and legitimize those mainstays of modern capitalism-economic interest and the
institution of private property.

7
 Marxian interpretation to text encounters many shortcomings. Some of them are like:
Both Marx and Engels belong to the strata of elite class but they tried to showcase the
problem of oppressed class. So, the Marxist assumption that the ruling ideas of a period are
those that serve the interests of the ruling class seems false.
Then questions arises how Marxist can interpret all the issues and aspects of world from
one dimensional view point. The other dimension like, political, social, religious and spiritual
aspects remained untouched by Marxist interpretation. Karl Marx (1818-83) is reported to
have made this comment: ‘All I know is that I am not a Marxist’ (Gauba, 20). Yet Marxist
interpretation or view point is being considered and remained as major alternative of any
interpretation.
Post-Modern Approach
The post-modern approach or perspective look into the failure of systematic philosophers and
their ‘grand meta-narratives’ such as Hegelianism and Marxism those which are emerged
from the tradition of the European Enlightenment. Post-Modernism is not a single, unified
perspectives. It clearly talks about ‘deconstructing’ the grand theory.
The post-modern sensibility is not a single, stable thing. There are three main version of
post-modern thinking. One derived largely from Nietzsche and Michel Foucault and other
from Derrida. The Facultian approach to interpretation seeks to expose and criticise the
multitude ways in which human beings are ‘normalized’ or made into subjects and wilfully
participated in their own subjugation (Foucault, 1980). Thus, to Ball postmodernist
perspective on the interpretation of texts typically focuses on the way in which earlier
thinkers like Rousseau or Bentham, for example –contributed ideas to the mentalite that
paved the way for the creation and legitimating of the modern surveillance society.
In Derrida’s version of post modernism, the aim of interpretation is to expose and
criticize the arbitrary construct a character of claims to truth or knowledge, particularly by
examining various binary oppositions or dichotomies such as knower/Known, object/
representation, true/ false through a process which Derrida termed as ‘deconstruction’. As it
is being famously puts it, ‘there is nothing outside the text’ and even within the text its
constitutive concepts or ‘signifiers’ have no constant and same meaning. Ambiguities within
the text only increase with the passage of time because of multiple reading. It is the readers
who make the meaning of signifiers. Thus, to Derrida, ‘the death of the author’ refers not to a
physical fact but an artefact of postmodernist approach.
However, various criticisms can be levelled against on post-modernist perspective on
interpretation. One is that we do sometimes wish, and also justify so, to know whether
something Marx or Mill said was true (Ball, 2004:26). However, the postmodernist suffer
from the challenge that the reader wants to hear from the text. Sometime by not looking at
any ‘binary’ approach the lead to personalized analysis of any text. The multiple
interpretations sometimes lead to rejection of knowing any type of truth. Some critic
considered post-modernism as ‘moral bankruptcy’.

8
Cambridge ‘New History’ Approach
The origin of this approach can be traced in the work of R.G. Collingwood (Skinner, 2001).
This approach says that history is not eternal but some finite set of questions are being
answered by different philosophers in different manners.
In contrast to those who claimed that there are ‘perennial’ questions or problems of
political theory and thought (Tinder, 1979), Collingwood argued that question themselves
change in subtle but pertinent ways. According to him, “if we are to understand the meaning
of something that are a particular political theorist wrote, we must first understand the
problem he was addressing and attempting to solve”. So, political inquiry of any age tries to
solve the contemporary problems of the time. A philosopher usually tries to solve a problem
of his age.
By using this approach Peter Laslett had tried to interpret John Locke’s Two Treatise of
Government in 1960, which tried to understand the political and historical context of his
writing. During the Exclusion Crisis of 1680s Locke was deeply involved in the radical
politics of the Shaftesbury circle. Laslett while digging into the writing of Locke’s book Two
Treatise tried to understand the stand of Locke for Glorious Revolution which took place in
England in 1688-9. However, the detective work of Laslett opened up the way investigative
attitude among Dunn, 1969; Tully, 1980; 1993; Ashcraft in 1986 used the ‘new history’
approach to read other works of political theory more generally. In his book The Political
Thought of John Locke, Dunn took historical approach to look in to pose question of the
time.
The Cambridge historians’ work of political theory as forms of political action, grasping
the point or meaning of which requires that one recover the intentions of the authors and the
linguistic resources and conventions available to him or her (Skinner, 2002). Thus, the work
of political theory is itself a political act or intervention consisting of a series of
interconnected actions with words –‘speech act’ in J.L. Austin’s sense– that are intended to
produce certain effects on the readers. They want to warn, to persuade, to criticize, to
frighten, to encourage, to console. Actually political scientists are those who are engaged in
high-level of propaganda and persuasion on behalf this they support or criticize some issues.
As of some philosophers’ in their time
Psychoanalytic Approach
In his seminal works like The Interpretation of Dreams, The Psychopathology of Everyday
Life, Sigmund Freud famously argued that human actions are often influenced by wishes,
desires; fears which are unconsciously exist in our mind. Psychoanalytic interpretation comes
under the category of ‘the hermeneutics of suspicion’ like Marxian interpretation. The
approach tries to indicate that the author or writer is unconsciously influenced by his wishes,
desires and fears while writing any text. So, psychoanalytical approach can be used to
analysis all sort of writings of political science. This approach was being extensively used by
many political analysts while reading various classical texts. For example, Pitkin read
Machiavelli in 1984; Erikson read Mahatma Gandhi in 1969; Bruce Mazlish studied John
Stuart Mill in 1975.

9
 Mazlish interpreted J.S. Mill’s famous work On Liberty and found that the Mill was
unconsciously intended to declare he is independent of his father James Mill. Somehow after
23 years of after his father’s death he declared himself independent (Mazlish, 1975: chapter
15; Ball: 22). So, reading and interpreting of any author’s/ philosophers book gives sometime
an autobiographic outlook of the writer or philosopher. However, the writing and
appreciation for freedom and liberty in his book showcased the how J.S. Mill was missed the
freedom as child to James Mill. Because James Mill was a strict father and did not allowed
young Mill to associate with other children, to play games, or to do anything except to read
which are being scrutiny by his father. What Psychoanalytic approach tries to mention here
that the strict regimentation of J.S. Mill’s childhood lead him to think more on freedom and
made liberty as the foundational value of all democratic activities. In the end of 20 year,
J.S.Mill’s became more prolific writer than his father and tried his best to reform the
Bentham and James Mill’s view on utilitarianism.
Mazlish also tried to interpret J.S. Mill’s late love and marriage to Harriot Taylor Mill
from the understanding of ‘Oedipus Complex’. This scientifically mean J.S. Mill was
unconsciously developed hatred for his father and wanted to get rid of his restrictions in life.
The Oedipal complex is a term pronounced by Sigmund Freud in his theory of psychosexual
stages of development to describe a child’s feelings of desire for his or her opposite-sex
parent and jealousy and anger toward his or her same-sex parent. So, reading and interpreting
of any classical text can be looked through the lenses of psychoanalytical view points. This
gives us the autobiographic outlook of author’s creation and his or her dreams, desires,
limitations and motivational values. This approach gives us insightful and investigative
dimension to read any classical text but suffers from many shortcomings.
However, this approach too has many shortcomings and lacks evidentiary challenges.
The approach is being criticised that its do give more stress on speculations, falsifiable truths
and coincident which can considered as cause. So, to understand the real motive of J.S. Mill
to write On Liberty cannot be precisely being said winning of son over father but can be an
outcome of the socio-political environment of that England which motivated J.S. Mill to
write so. So, the psychoanalytical approach is being less used by political scientists because it
lacks evidentiary challenges.
Straussian Approach
The followers and students of Leo Strauss (1899-1973) claims that the work of Plato and
handful of other philosopher contains the Whole Truth about politics, these truths are eternal,
unchangeable and understandable to very chosen few who take the initiative to read these
classics. So, according to Ball ‘gaining access to this truth requires a special way of reading
and interpreting what one reads’.
Leo Strauss was Jewish refugee from Nazi Germany who immigrated to United States
and subsequently detested modern liberalism and distrusted liberal democracy, in no small
part because Hitler came to power in a liberal-democratic regime by legal and democratic
means. Struss detested modern liberal politics and found that the liberal tradition is in crisis.
The liberal tradition in Germany that time had produced powerful and authoritarian regime of

10
Hitler and endorsed Nazism. In Straussian point of view, the ‘the crisis of our time is
consequence of crisis of political philosophy’ (1972: 41; Ball, 2004: 24).
Thus his disciples’ of historical inquiries and textual interpretations attempted to trace
the origin and diagnose multiple maladies of present liberal regimes. The Straus’s approach
involved to analyze classical text through both the exoteric (intended for or likely to be
understood by the general public) disguise intended for the public and decoding the esoteric
(intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized
knowledge or interest) doctrine embedded between and hidden behind the lines. The main
objective of this approach is to reveal the ‘real’, albeit hidden, meaning which is
communicated, as it were, in a kind of invisible ink.
Thus to Terence Ball, Straussian interpretation owes much to the cabalistic (secretive)
tradition inaugurated by medieval rabbis and scholars, who tried to read religious scriptures
as texts those are being encoded by authors in the fear of prosecution and wishing to be
understood by readers who have pure and clean inner soul. (Ball, 2004: 25)
However, this approach is being criticized on number of grounds. The approach
supposed to depend much on ‘insider’s knowledge’ that is transmitted to chosen few. Second,
remaining in fearful psychology and secretiveness the interpretation of texts remain out of
‘public’ reach.
Conclusions
For Terence Ball, no single method is sufficient to answer all questions related to
interpretation. So, Ball suggested for pluralist approach is preferable to address many
questions and find out a range of answers to them. A second feature which was being
endorsed by Ball is that, ‘our interpretative inquiries are problem driven; that is, we are likely
to be less interested in authors, texts, and/or contexts per se that in particular problems that
arise as we attempt to understand them’. To Ball, we read, reread and reflect on Locke and
Rousseau not because we wanted to know ‘all about’ them and their texts or their times, but
because we are puzzled and perplexed about some problems; and wanted to find out their
solution in their classical works. Thus, to Ball, the historical study of political theory is, in
sum, a problem-solving activity. So, interpretation is triangulation (mixing of different
method) of text, interpretation and reinterpretation. Therefore the seminal works of the
political theory should carefully reinterpret and critically reappraise any ‘classic’ from a
verity of interpretive standpoints.
For Gadamer interpretation of the text must be informed by a true intermixing of socio-
economic context. He talked of ‘fusion of horizons’: a mingling of our own horizon with the
horizon of the text makes it possible for an earlier text to have meaning for us (Jha, 2018: 6).
For the Cambridge historian, there must be strict analysis of context or specific time period
when the specific writer wrote the text. In this way we can find out the social, ethical and
political commitment of writer to the community he was representing. However, the
recommended strategy to read any classic is being mentioned in the work of Terence Ball;
firstly, select the problem to be addressed by the philosopher in his / her time period. Second,

11
read, reread and reflect on it. Third, read it at least two different interpretations. Finally,
compare these interpretations with the main text and its linguistic meaning and finally draw
readers own conclusion.
Check Your Progress (Questions)
1. Discuss the challenges of interpretation and define how you can overcome them?
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
2. Critically evaluate various approaches to study Classical Political Philosophy.
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
3. Why we study Classical texts? What should our approach to study them?
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................

References
 Ball, Terence. (2004) ‘History and Interpretation’ in C. Kukathas and G. Gaus, (Eds.)
 Handbook of Political Theory, London: Sage Publications Ltd. pp. 18-30,
https://www.scribd.com/document/432560091/Terence-Ball-pdf
 https://epdf.pub/handbook-of-political-theory.html
 https://www.philosophy-science-humanities-controversies.com/listview-
details.php?id=3123643
 Chadda, Kusumlata (2008), ‘Way of Reading A Text’ in Reading Gandhi, New Delhi:
Kaniska Publishers, pp 3-28
 Jha, Shefali (2018), Western Political Thought: From the Ancient Greeks to Modern
Times, New Delhi: Pearson India.
 Kumar, Chanchal (2019), Classical Political Philosophy, New Delhi: Scholar Tech
Press.
 Sabine, George (1973), A History of Political Theory, 4th Edition, New York: Dryden
Press,
 Ramaswamy, Sushila & Subrata Mukharjee (2021), A History of Political Thought:
Plato to Marx, New Delhi: PHI Learning Private Limited

12
 Unit-2 : Antiquity

(a) Plato (429-347 BC)

Dr. Nishant Kumar

Structure
 Important Works
 Theory of Forms
 Philosopher Ruler
 Justice in the State and Individual
 Education
 Communism of Property and Wives
 Other Forms of Regimes
 Practice Questions
 Suggested Readings

Plato in widely recognized as one of the most significant political philosophers of Greek
period. He was a disciple of Socrates and the teacher of Aristotle and founder of Academy,
one of the most popular institutions of learning in ancient Greece. He was born in an
aristocratic family with both his parents being related to the class of nobles and rulers in
Greece. The ideas of Socrates and Pythagoras had deep influence on his philosophy but most
formidable influence was the political and social context of Greece during the years he was
growing up. He was born just a year after the death of Pericles, the great Athenian statesman.
This was also the period of the famous Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta.
Sparta finally defeated Athens because its superior military capacity and what followed in
Athens was a period of political chaos that directly impacted Plato’s thought process and his
disdain for democracy. But the most important event of his life that left deep scars in his
memory and affected his philosophy was the execution of Socrates in 399 B.C. After
Socrates’s death Plato, fearing for his own life, eft Athens and travelled around to places like
Italy, Sicily and Egypt. He returned in 388 BC and founded the Academy, one of the oldest
models of universities in the history of Europe. In this institution, students were trained in a
number of disciplines which included biology, politics, astronomy, mathematics and
dialectics. The influence of Socrates and Pythagoras was clearly visible in the curriculum.
For example, mathematics was given so much importance that on the gate of the institution
one could see inscribed, “Those having no knowledge of mathematics, need not enter here.”
Plato was convinced that his ideas could be translated into real practical world if pursued
efficiently. He had firm faith that his vision of producing a philosopher ruler could be
actualized and in order to test this he agreed to tutor Dionysius, the new ruler of Syracuse in
Sicily. However, his experiments did not bear desired outcomes and he returned

13
disappointed. Later, as is widely known, in his writings one could see a drift from this
position. In the last years of his life, Plato spent time lecturing at Academy and died at the
age of 80 in 348/347 BC handing over the responsibilities of Academy to his nephew
Specesippus.
Important Works
Plato produced several important works which dealt with different subjects. Gorgias dealt
with the question of ethics in society; Meno discussed about the nature of Knowledge. In the
Apology he presents the imaginative reconstruction of Socrates’s trial where he is presented
as defending himself against the charges levelled against him of atheism and corrupting the
minds of the youths in Athens; in Crito he forwards Socrates' justifications about the need to
obey the laws of the state; and in Phaedo he reimagines the execution of Socrates and
discusses about ideas like theory of forms, nature of soul etc. He also wrote other texts like
Theatetus, Promenades, Sophist, Philebus, and Timaeus, but his most important philosophical
contributions remain to be Republic, Laws and Statesman.
Methodology
Plato's methodology can be argued to be deductive, teleological and dialectical. In Deductive
method a philosopher first determines the general principles and then relates it with particular
observations. It stands in contrast to inductive method where the general conclusions are
reached based on observation of particular phenomenon, its analysis based on comparisons
with similar occurrences. However, scholars like Nettleship have claimed that Plato does not
stick to one of these and appears to use inductive method as well, particularly in ideas where
he derives theory based on practices. However, unlike Aristotle there is no consistency in
Plato in terms of the method being used. Plato also uses teleology in his thinking. Teleology
means “the object with an objective”. It assumes that everything that exists consistently tends
to move towards the desired goal that is inherent part of its nature. So, the goal being the
important aspect here, it defines the trajectory for philosophical enquiry. This method is
easily visible in Plato’s explanation of state. Plato's dialectical method was inspired by
ancient Greek tradition but more particularly by Socrates. Constant questioning is an essential
part of this method as highlighted in Plato’s Republic. It flows from the idea that all
knowledge is contained in our souls and the only challenge is to realize it by trying to extract
it in process of thinking about questions being raised.
Socrates and Plato
Death of Socrates had a great impact on Plato. Socrates influenced him to such an extent that
most of his dialogues are written as conversations between Socrates and other notable
citizens of Athens. Socrates is the main protagonist of Plato’s Dialogue. In fact, since
Socrates did not leave any writing of his own, much of what we know today about Socrates,
through the Platonic corpus.

14
 Plato was deeply influenced by Socrates’s views on virtue and his method of dialectics,
which is explicitly evident in his own writings. Sophists, the main philosophical rivals of
Socrates opined that virtue consisted in the ability to acquire those things that get you
pleasure like wealth, honor, status, etc. So, they believed that knowledge was also an
instrument to gain power that could lead to pleasure. For Socrates, on the other hand, virtue
was the basis of happiness and virtue entailed in developing excellence or the capacity to
achieve higher ends of life. He argued that knowledge gave us that capacity and taught us
how we ought to live our lives, so knowledge was the supreme virtue. In fact, he maintained
that it was the sum of different virtues like courage, wisdom, etc. he further held that all
knowledge was contained within ourselves and the need was to realize that knowledge
through right method. So, he stressed at apriori knowledge of all primary virtues and the
method that he suggested to eject this knowledge is that of dialectics.
George Sabine in his book A History of Political Theory (1973) argued that the core idea
of Republic was inspired by Socrates’s doctrine that virtue is knowledge: “The proposition”,
Sabine wrote, “that virtue is knowledge implies that there is an objective good to be known
and that it can in fact be known by rational or logical investigation rather than by intuition,
guesswork, or luck? The good is objectively real, whatever anybody thinks about it, and it
ought to be realised not because men want it but because it is good”. By producing Republic
Plato gave this doctrine of Socrates a significant place in the history of political philosophy.
Theory of Forms
Influenced by Pythagoras, Plato in his philosophy treated the universal idea as the perfect and
whole truth and placed it above the particular or the part. The principle that logically follows
from this position is that the particular or the part is to be viewed in the perspective of the
whole. That is, to comprehend truly the particular, the nature of the whole needs to be known
first. His theory of Forms or ideas taken from the Greek word “Edios” is integrally related to
his idea of Knowledge. Like Socrates, Plato also held that knowledge can be attained and that
it had two important characteristics: firstly, this knowledge was certain and infallible; and
secondly, it needs to be differentiated from what is only appearance. True Knowledge,
therefore was permanent and unchanging, and was identified by Plato (as in Socrates), with
the realm of “ideal” as opposed to the “physical, material world”. In his view “Form”, “Idea”,
and “Knowledge”- they constitute what is “ideal”, whereas that which we perceive through
our normal sense of sight, through the eyes, is “actual”. He therefore differentiates between
what is “ideal” and what is “actual”; and what are “forms” from what are merely
“appearances”; and therefore, also between what constituted “knowledge” and what
constituted “opinion”; and between “being” and “becoming”. For him it was the world of
“ideas” or “forms” that was eternal, fixed and perfect.
Plato differentiated between the visible world (doxa) or the world of senses from the
intelligible world (episteme). Doxa was seen as the world of opinions or becoming, whereas
true knowledge lay in the world or being or forma represented by episteme. He admits that
opinion is much above ignorance. Yet, it cannot be equated with knowledge. Opinion cannot
15
naturally be infallible. Knowledge, on the contrary, is infallible irrespective of time and
space, that is, it universally applies in all times and territories. Thus, the object of knowledge
is the whole truth or reality which, different from the particular, is the general which always
is, that is, unchanging that transcends the barriers of time and space. The stages of
development of knowledge, is explained by Plato through the analogy of the divided line (to
be elaborated and explained in class).
Plato further argues that it is impossible to locate this reality in the world of senses which
is subject to change. Transcending the particular and the domain subject to sense, this idea
belongs to transcendental world where it reveals itself as a holistic, endless, indestructible
ideal. According to Plato, this eternal and universal idea is the reality around which the
process of knowledge revolves. It is not possible to have this knowledge through sense
perception. As Plato comments in Book 6thof his Republic, those are philosophers who were
able to grasp that which is always invariable and unchanging. In a way Plato insisted that the
journey from “appearances” to “forms” was only possible by following the path of education,
the culmination of which could only be reached by philosophers.
According to Plato, a philosopher was one who was in a constant quest of truth. His
earnest logging and effort to understand truth or reality leads him to develop a theory of
knowing and philosophy begins with what is called epistemology. Thus, according to Plato, a
true philosopher is always in search of what is real or true. On the other hand, ordinary
people who are not philosophers treat whatever they see through senses as reality though it is
only apparent reality. Their idea of knowledge is like that of the group of men in chains
confined within a stony cave. Since they are chained, they are unable to make any movement
of their body, not even able to shift their shoulder. There lies in front of them the wall of the
cave and behind them is a burning fire. As an effect of the light behind, they see shadows on
the front wall. As it is not possible for them to cast their eyes in any other direction, they are
compelled to watch these shadows in front and they continue thinking this false and illusive
shadow as real. However, one prisoner’s chains break and he tries to move around. He feels
immense pain. With a lot of efforts, he tries to escape the cave but the light at the entrance
makes him uncomfortable. He wants to run back and has to be dragged out of the cave. Once
he gets out, he is almost blinded by the light of sun. So, he starts looking at shadows of
animals and plants in water and then directly at each of these creations and he realizes truth is
different from what he saw and believed so long inside the cave. At last, he looks at the sun
and realizes that it is the cause of all that we can see, or the highest source of knowledge. On
the basis of this poetic narrative, or allegory of the cave, Plato concludes that those who are
denied philosophical vision are like these men chained and confined in the cave. On the
contrary, to a true philosopher, the process of knowledge begins by differentiating the real
from the apparent and then, to search for a universal idea in a super-sensible, super-
intelligible and transcendental world.
Plato had conceived the Forms as being hierarchically arranged. In fact, the whole
perception of Knowledge and process of its attainment is arranged in the form of stairs that

16
each seeker of true knowledge needs to travel in order to unravel and reach the zenith or the
supreme form, which according to Plato is the “form of Good”. This highest level of
knowledge, like the sun in the allegory of the cave, sheds light on all other ideas. This
hierarchy of different levels of knowledge is explained by him using the Divided Line
analogy. In this Plato imagines a vertical line divided into four equal parts. The two parts in
the lower section falling in the visible world or doxa. Of these, the lowermost part denotes
eikasia or the field of mistaken beliefs or superficial appearances (example: The perception
that sun rises in east ad sets in west). The higher plane of knowledge in the doxa represents
the pistis or the world of empirical realities or common sense developed on sensory
experience (example: The realization that sun does not rise or set, it is earth’s rotation that
makes it appear as such). The upper two levels form part of the intelligible world or episteme.
Of these the lower level is of dianoia or the stage of discursive thought and mathematical
reasoning (example: Knowledge of geometry, arithmetic). The highest among all these is
noesis or the stage of true knowledge or forms the topmost point of it being the knowledge of
“form of Good”. This is achieved by knowledge and practice of dialectics, which is even
more difficult than mathematical reasoning and not all people can reach to this stage of true
knowledge and only philosophers have that required capacity to reach the knowledge of
Good or idea of Good. So, he is also building a case thereby to argue that only philosophers
are capable to differentiate between true and apparent reality and judge between right and
wrong as this vision is achieved through the highest form of knowledge that they have
achieved.
Philosopher Ruler
Who is a philosopher?
Plato held that the philosopher was “one who loved wisdom, had a passion for knowledge,
was always curious and eager to learn”. He was a lover of Truth and one who had raised
himself to such level of consciousness and knowledge that could never falter from the path of
righteousness.
Why should philosopher rule?
“Until philosophers are Kings, or the Kings and the Princes of this world have the spirit and
power of philosophy, and political greatness and wisdom meet in one .... cities will never
have rest from their evils- nor the human race, as I believe- and then only will this our state
have possibility of life and behold the light of a day” – Book V of Republic.
The theory of the philosopher ruler was the linchpin of Plato’s ideal state. According to
him, a good ruler was responsible not only for preservation of the subjects’ lives but also to
transform it. Influenced by Socratic dictum that virtue is knowledge, Plato believed that
political ills and injustice could be eradicated, if knowledgeable people are put at the helm of
city-state’s politics. They are the one who had knowledge of the idea of the good, justice,
beauty, truth, courage and the other moral attributes. Forms could only be seen by those with
a rational mind as only they had the potential to reach to the highest level of consciousness.
17
Not only did the philosophers have the right kind of knowledge, they were best suited for the
job of ruling because they had no private interests. Plato did not allow his guardian class
anything private and developed theory of communism of wives and property to keep the free
from corruption or nepotism.
Plato insisted that unlike popular belief, philosophers did not stay in isolation, rather
were willing to actively participate in activities of society including politics if their role was
respected. According to him a philosopher could make a good legislature as he had the idea
of Good and shall frame laws accordingly.
He compared statecraft with soul-craft and held that the field of politics had to be ethical
with expertise required in attaining welfare of people. A philosopher by virtue of his
education and training would develop virtues necessary for the field. They shall have calm
approach, a sound mind and a good character. They also inculcate the qualities necessary for
a good ruler which included high mindedness, courage, discipline, truthfulness, public
spiritedness, wisdom and devoid of economic considerations. Plato is sure that as we reach
out to best of doctors in case, we fall sick, the sick polity also needs experts who can improve
the condition of society through expert knowledge, training and positive approach. This
person for Plato can only be a philosopher and he is therefore sure that only philosophers can
make good rulers.
Justice in the State and Individual
Plato argued that the state was nothing but the ‘individual writ large’. He firmly believed in
an organic theory of the state. Therefore, although Plato took the state as the province of his
analysis, his theory of justice does not begin with state but with individual. What is the basis
of justice in the life of individual or for the matter, what makes a man just? It was with this
moral question related to individual life that Plato began his theory of justice. However, he
was convinced that there was no fundamental difference between an individual and the state
except in extent, that is, according to him state was a magnified form of the individual, and as
he believed that it was always convenient to analyse the nature of a thing whenever it was
larger in size, he began with the life of the state instead of the life of individual in order to
find out an answer as to what justice was.
In Republic Plato presents his theory of justice as a product of a discussion between
different characters like Cephalus, Polemarchus, Thasymachus, Glaucon, Adeimantus and
Socrates. Socrates, as Plato’s representative voice, invites and involves others on the question
and engaged them through dialectics. In the process Socrates is presented as demolishing the
idea of justice forwarded by all others through deep questioning. First, he denounced the
claim of Cephalus and Polemarchus (father-son duo) that justice was concerned with giving
every man his due or “doing to others what is proper” (as according to Cephalus) or “doing
good to friends and harming enemies” (as argued by Polemarchus). Plato considers that this
traditional theory of justice had its own worth in morally compelling men to pay everyone’s
due and lead an ethical life accordingly. But he looks skeptically at the suggestion that this

18
principle could be followed at all times. The principles of justice need to be universal and
equally applicable for all and it is here that Cephalus and Polemarchus’s views have its
limitations. He also rejected Thrasymachus's (who was a Sophist) idea of justice whereby he
claimed that justice represented the interests of the stronger. Similarly, he also refuted the
idea of Justice forwarded by Glucon and Adeimantus. Rather, for Plato justice was related to
the inner nature of the man and could not be conformed through external law. Just state
according to Plato aimed at common good and therefore cannot be serving the interest of the
strong. Justice, in its English translation, gives the resemblance of the word ‘Dikaiosyne’,
used by Plato in Greek. This word has a more comprehensive meaning ‘justice’ as understood
in English. ‘Dikaiosyne’ would mean “righteousness” and also reflects a sense of social
bonding. That is the reason that Plato's idea of justice neither legal nor judicial, nor is it
related to concepts like rights and duties as in case of modern political philosophers. He uses
it to connote a definite form of “social ethics” that he felt was essential for the development
of society.
Plato opined that in society there were four primary virtues- wisdom, courage,
temperance and justice. Justice was dependent on other three virtues and if society was
managed and balance in a way that other three virtues are effectively placed, Justice will be
taken care of. Explaining the idea of virtues, Plato starts with individual as the unit as he held
that the principles that are good for individual shall also be similarly applicable and good for
the society at large. He is influenced by Pythogras’s idea about three souls and three classes
and adopts it to develop his theory of justice. He argued that each human soul had three
aspects: rationality, spirit and appetite. Each of these parts corresponds to a particular kind of
virtue. So, the virtue of rationality is wisdom, the virtue of spirit is courage and the virtue of
appetite is temperance. In each soul, one of these parts is more dominant than the others and
therefore the virtue attached with that particular part of soul would be more reflective in the
nature of that individual. In the individual where the rational faculty is more dominant,
according to Plato, is fit to represent the ruling class, as they through their wisdom had the
competence to comprehend the idea of Good. Similarly, those in whom spirit was the
dominant faculty they ought to be courageous and therefore are best suited to become
auxiliaries. They are brave and can defend the city well and were public spirited and ready to
sacrifice material interests for the common good of society. Together the ruling class and the
class of auxiliaries, according to Plato shall constitute the guardian class. The individuals in
whose soul the appetitive part dominates the others have a fondness for material things and
temperance was their virtue. So, they were appropriate for jobs like trading, business or
manufacturing and producing sector.
According to Plato, justice at the level of individual meant that each individual does the
job corresponding to its natural aptitude which meant that the job must be based on the
dominant aspect of one’s soul. Only then he will be able to perform the job with zeal and
would excel in it. Justice in a way meant harmony or balance and ordering of different
aspects of an individual’s nature by assigning it duty according to the characteristic feature of
that individual. Similarly, Plato argued that Justice at level of state would mean that the three
19
classes of rulers, warriors and the producing class are made of people whose souls reflect the
corresponding characteristics and members of each such class performed their functions
without interference in the activities of other classes. Justice was “one class, one duty; one
man, one work”. Interference in others work or mobility into the class contradictory to one’s
nature created the conditions for injustice.
The Athenians believed that they were autochthonous, children of the soil they lived on,
and not the descendants of ancestors who came from other lands. It was this illusion that
Plato uses in his myth of the metals in Republic which he proposes in a way to lent legitimacy
to his idea of justice. Plato argued that the guardians should spread this ‘noble lie' that the
earth was their mother, and as the children of earth, they were born with some metallic
components in their bodies. Some were born with gold in their bodies (those meant to be
philosophers or rulers), others with silver (those meant to be auxiliaries), and some with brass
(those meant to be farmers). This ‘noble lie' would serve two purposes. It would make every
man believe that he was part of a bigger family with all other members being his brothers,
and it would also make everyone to accept their station in life as natural, and based on the
qualities they were born with. Therefore, rather than interfering with others or rejecting their
occupations, they would focus on excelling in their respective field of work. The idea about
division of soul into three parts with each exhibiting a particular virtue only substantiated this
point.
Part of soul Virtue Class
Rationality Wisdom Rulers
Spirit Courage Auxiliaries
Appetite Temperance Artisans

Plato forwards three important ideas here. Firstly, every individual was a “functional unit”,
who had the quality to perform a particular kind of job for which he was naturally inclined
and that he should focus on performing this job properly and excel in it. Secondly, he
visualizes society as a harmonized entity based on the division of labour according to one’s
natural instinct, the principles of which are intact and should not be faulted with. Thirdly,
based on the above two observations it can be understood that Plato presented an organic
theory of society whereby the functional specializations should be kept intact and till the units
perform well the society remains in order and progresses.
Education
The ideal state imagined by Plato was to be ruled by the philosopher ruler. One of the most
remarkable features of this state, about which Plato was very particular was the education
system. In fact, the philosopher ruler and the entire guardian class was to pass through this
education system which was to be state controlled and rigorous based on a diverse curriculum
and absolutely based on merit. Education was seen not only as a medium of socialization but
rather of moral reform to transform individuals and provide them right platform to enhance
20
their capabilities. The theme of education is widely spread in Boks II, III and X. through this
education system Plato attempted to mix two contrasting systems of education” The Spartan
model based on military excellence and discipline with the Athenian model based on
creativity and individual excellence.
We main characteristic features of his model of education can be listed as following:
 His system of education was only meant for the guardian class, which included the
rulers and the auxiliaries. He looks to completely ignore the education of the third
class i.e. producer class.
 He promotes a state controlled and state managed education system.
 The education curriculum was so devised to develop the human personality
holistically through a balanced physical, mental, intellectual and moral growth.
 The aim of education system was also to produce skilled workforce and to judge the
abilities of individuals so that they could be fixed to the stations that their natural
abilities were most suited for.
 It therefore sought to balance individual excellence and social needs. So, it produced
able administrators, able soldiers and excellent manufacturers.
 He proposed same education for both boys and girls.
 Elementary education from 6-18 yrs. Curriculum to this stage to include primarily
music and gymnastics to simultaneously inculcate gentle and fierce characteristics. He
recommended stringent state censorship on kind of literature, music and stories
audited or read by children. Sorrowful or lethargic music was absolutely forbidden to
prevent children from getting lazy or fearful of death.
 This was followed by two years of compulsory military training. During military
training self-indulgence and luxury was prohibited and strict discipline was followed
to equip each child with best of capacities to defend their lands when need be.
 At age 20, everyone was to take a test. Those who fail this test take jobs like
businessman, clerk etc. Those who pass could continue their education.
 Next 10 years those who continue the education are trained in mind and body.
Curriculum included Arithmetic, Geometry, and Astronomy to sharpen mind.
 Again, test at this stage at the age of 30. Those who pass could continue education.
Those who fail at this stage qualify to become auxiliaries.
 For those who continue education, there shall be another 5 years of training in
dialectics, metaphysics, philosophy and logic. This is the highest level of education
and not all are capable to grasp it. At 35 the students would be placed at junior
positions in military and political offices as interns to get first-hand experience of
working in government. They shall work there for 15 years to achieve first-hand

21
 experience and during this period their training and practice of dialectics shall
continue.
 At age 50, according to Plato, the candidates are fully prepared and equipped to take
job of philosopher ruler as they have received the highest form of knowledge and
training.
Criticisms of Plato’s plan of education
The first charge against Plato's system of education was that it was undemocratic as it
completely ignored the producing class. Further, the focus on mathematics being clearly
visible, the curriculum was not as diverse as it claimed. The training in history and literature
were either overlooked or given much less preference. It is also held that the formal education
has been stressed too much and consumes the best years of ones’ life. Also, it did not have
much scope for enhancing individual autonomy. In the name of discipline, humans are being
treated in a very restrictive was with certain telos in mind thereby rejecting the possibility of
developing one’s individuality.
Communism of Property and Wives
Plato aimed to develop a meritocratic society that was free of corruption, selfishness and
nepotism. He firmly held that corruption in different forms was the primary cause of
degeneration of societies and therefore this menace needed to be nipped in the bud by
understanding its basic cause. Here he was inspired by the Spartan society. Therefore, he
wanted to inculcate virtues in the guardian class so that they are not diverted from the end
they are meant to achieve. This was also based on the belief that the concentration of political
and economic power among same people could lead to tyranny. Based on these
understanding, he devised the principles of communism of property and wives in his thought
which was only applicable for guardian class to ensure they do not indulge in corrupt
practices.
He held that the guardian class would live together in common, like soldiers in barracks.
This shall give them a feeling of oneness and they will learn to live with minimum
possessions. They were not allowed to possess any form of gems, gold or silver, and allowed
for a minimum amount of property that was thought essential for their survival. They were
also not allowed ownership of any property or private space including house etc. For
subsistence and livelihood, they would receive only fixed quota of goods from the producing
class. The third class or producing class were allowed to have property, but even they could
not appropriate too much property. His system allows for supervision of the guardian class
over the property of the producer class and if the gap between rich and poor seem to increase
a lot, their property could be taken under state control for redistribution.
In the same way the communism of wives was also applicable only for the guardians
aiming to end any form of preferential treatment or nepotism in society. Plato was wary of
the negative emotions like selfishness, envy, hatred that institution of family encouraged. He

22
saw the institution of monogamous marriages as discriminatory against women. He held that
both men and women should be treated equally and argued the even women should even be
allowed to become legislators and rulers. His theory of communism of wives is an attack on
the conventional marriage, particularly permanent monogamous marriage. He rejected the
idea that marriage was spiritual union or sacrament. However, he still held that some form of
sexual union important for reproduction and continuity of human race. The truth is that he
saw marriages as only serving the purpose of sexual intercourse to produce children. If that
was the case, he was more concerned about how to produce best breed of children and hence
proposed controlled form of sexual union. In this only best of men (brave ones and good at
war) and women (beautiful) would be paired. He held that the best marriageable age was 25-
55 for men and 20-40 for women. The entire system was controlled by the philosopher ruler
who shall arrange the pairing through a system of open lottery but shall manage the pairings
internally in such a way that the best of males ate with the best of females. The secret
management is also allowed because only the philosopher ruler shall know about the
relationship of the candidates in the lottery and shall ensure that son-mother, father-daughter
are not paired.
Plato’s understanding on the subject is so instrumental that he allows for all forms of
abortion is there are any chances of foetus developing deformities or is born of sex outside
regulated marriages or outside prescribed age limit as he is sure that such children will not be
healthy and proof to be a burden for society. He also allows for killing of children who are
born with some forms of handicap. Once a healthy child is born, he is taken away by state to
state-maintained crèches and nurseries and shall be raised there along with other children.
They shall never come to know who their parents were and the mating partners or the mother
or father of a particular child shall also never come to know about their relationship. This
ignorance for Plato is a bliss because he believed that no knowledge about one’s children
shall inspire all men and women to consider all children as their own and love each one
equally.
Plato presents a very complicated system in his communism based on his own perception
and understandings. There are several limitations of these understandings. For example,
scholars have pointed that he considers property as an evil, whereas property can also have a
rewarding value so that it motivates individuals to work harder. Similarly providing the
producer class the right to property can develop jealousy among the guardians which can
have repercussions. Similarly, his views about marriage in its instrumental form is deeply
problematic. It completely overlooks the emotional bonding among partners and concentrates
only on sexual relations, and even there his belief that the best breed could only be born of
marriage between strong males and beautiful females is deeply flawed and as progress in
medical sciences have shown, it is also irrational. Also, if family as an institution is
demolished, it can also affect the balance of society as family provides the first and most
significant stage in socialization process, a point stressed strongly by Aristotle as well. Also,
the faith that if no one knows who their child is they ought to love all children as their own

23
could also backfire as it was possible that all children get equally ignored and in absence of
emotional bonds, they do not receive proper care.
Based on the fact that Plato suggested some form of communism, some scholars have
tried to compare between Plato and Marx. C. C. Maxey has gone as far to claim that Plato
was the predecessor of all forms of communism. Though there may be some merit in this
conclusion, Plato’s comparison with Marx’s idea of communism is quite exaggerated. Plato
provides a theory of communism that was purely political in nature, whereas Marx’s idea is
primarily economic. Secondly, Plato’s communism is limited for the two classes of rulers and
auxiliaries, whereas Marx’s communism aims at fundamental transformation of entire social
order leading to a classless society. For Plato the reason to devise communism was his fear
that the society could be corrupted, But Marx sees Communism as a natural culmination of a
society that evolves through the struggle between forces of production and relations of
production and passes through the stages of primitive communism, slavery, feudalism and
capitalism. As visible, the idea of communism as present in Marx’s philosophy is very
different from Plato’s.
Other Forms of Regimes
Plato’s ideal state was the rule of the philosopher ruler, where justice shall prevail and all
classes would be engaged in their respective duties based on their individual virtues. In the
ideal state, as pointed by Plato, reason shall rule over spirit and appetite. But Plato also
examined other forms of state and the reasons for their instability and decay. He discussed
about four such regimes: timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny. He argued that each
of these regimes, due to their inherent character, was bound to decline into tyranny. It seems
he has listed all these degenerate forms to suggest that if the ideal state is not respected and
firmly established, it can gradually lead people to worse form of states, thereby trying to
legitimize his ideation about the rule of philosopher-king.
 Timocracy– Timocracy was the first form of degeneration from ideal state.
Succeeding generations, if lacked the talents and did not get educated in the right
spirit, the society was bound to decline along with the quality of ruling class. The
ruling elite in this form of regime, valued wealth and material things above
intelligence and wisdom and soldiers and auxiliaries are valued more than
philosophers.
 Oligarchy– When virtues further decline, and wealth earns centrality, it turns to be
rule of few rich or oligarchy. Gap between rich and poor gradually enlarges, and the
lust for wealth could undermine rule of law. As a consequence, the poor shall revolt.
 Democracy– it was characterised by license, wastefulness, anarchy and desires and
appetite ruled. Product of revolt of poor in oligarchy. It was unjust and Plato equated
it with ‘mobocracy’ as people from any walk of life could participate in politics.
Quantity rather than quality was main criterion with respect to values cherished. Due

24
 to excessive lawlessness, it was bound to invite a central, strong leader to take control
and the tyrant shall rise.
 Tyranny– In the name of security and protection, tyrant shall control the life of
people and curtail all liberties. Plato does not suggest any way out of tyranny.
Was Plato forerunner of modern totalitarianism?
Many scholars have argued that Plato’s political theory shows early inklings of
totalitarianism. Many of these scholars belong to the traditions of liberal democracy and
uphold the values of rights and liberties and based on these ideals they judge other writings.
The context of most of these commentaries was the background of the growth of Nazism in
Germany and fascism in Italy as well as the growth of Communist states in many parts of
Eastern Europe including former USSR. One of the essential features of totalitarianism is its
deliberate denial of the autonomy and dignity of the individual. On this consideration, many
of modern writers have identified Plato as an advocate of totalitarianism. Their point is that
the separate identity of individual is hardly recognised in Plato's Political ideas. According to
them, Plato wanted to make political authority indomitable and universally acceptable.
Crossman (1939) in his book Plato Today has argued that Plato’s views and ideas
present a dangerous cocktail that was absolutely threatening during his own times and also
for contemporary period. He argued that Plato aimed to create an ideal society by reforming
the system prevalent in Athens. He identifies many such evils including class conflict, poor
system of education and the loopholes within the political system. However, Crossman
highlighted that Plato had several assumptions that were problematic like: a) he did not have
faith on the wisdom and rationality of masses and therefore favoured a particular class; b) his
belief that philosopher ruler has full understanding of right and wrong and is infallible in his
views; c) his belief that suppression of different liberties was important to maintain peace and
harmony in society and maintain a pure social order based on discipline. Crossman therefore
claimed that Plato could be seen as against basic ethos of liberal democracy, like liberty,
equality and democracy, because he did not have faith on the capacity of individuals to
balance and contain the fallouts of these values.
Similarly, Berlin (1969) argued that Plato’s philosophy does not show any respect for
individual freedoms like freedom of opinion, or freedom of choice. He also pointed that
Plato’s views rejected any scope for plural life style by presenting a disciplined social order
where the role and boundaries are well defined for each class.
However, the most skating attack came from Karl Popper (1945), who in his book Open
Society and its Enemies, accused philosophers like Plato, Hegel and Marx of being enemy of
open society. An open society, according to him, allowed for dissenting views and critical
analysis of the political structure and system. It included free thought and opinion, freedom of
action, and open system of education based on liberal values. It had individual at its core and
took care of individual’s rights and liberties. Contrarily, as Popper asserts, totalitarian
systems reject and is antithetical to the principles of open society. For him, Plato’s political

25
philosophy and his vision of ideal state with an absolutism granted to the philosopher ruler
was non-democratic and reflected a sense of extreme centralization. Plato further disallows
any prospect for social change and advocated for status quo. Further Popper points that for
Plato ruling elites mattered the most and all his focus is on guardian class, which is equally
non-democratic and against principles of equality. Based on these observations, Popper
claims Plato to be representing the initial visions of totalitarianism.
On the other hand, there are also scholars like H. D. Ranking who in his work Plato and
the individual argue that it would be unfair to come to the conclusion that, in his political
philosophy, Plato totally ignored the individual. Indeed, in his political ideas, there are
several pieces of evidence disproving that he was indifferent to the individual. For instance,
first, it is around the life of individual that Plato introduced his theory of justice. Second, he
realised that the welfare of society and the state, on the whole, is in the ultimate analysis
dependant on the achievement of individual of excellence in his mentality, character and
physique. Third, he gave due regard to the diversity of individual nature and character. He
admitted that individuals are different from each other in every respect. Fourth, he not only
viewed the individual in the context of class to which he belonged but also, in some cases,
evaluated a class in terms of individuals included in it.
Joad (1966) comments that although there are many similarities between Fascism and
Plato’s state, they also have fundamental differences. One of the most fundamental
differences, Joad highlights, is that Plato aims to build a state to uphold the principles of
common good and justice, whereas Fascism was against these ideals. So, Joad argues that it
will be exaggeration to compare modern fascism with Plato.
As is visible, there is a divided house among scholars who comment on and interpret
Plato. But the comparison of Plato’s views with modern forms of totalitarianism is over
exaggerated. Even his critics like Popper fail to establish clear linkage. At the most they
claim that Plato’s views are not supportive of the values celebrated by liberal democracy. But
does not being a supporter of liberal democracy fix you as a totalitarian thinker? There appear
severe limitations in these ideas with extreme level of reductionism based on creation of a
binary between liberal democracy and totalitarianism, which in reality does not exist. It has to
be understood that context of any thinker is important and therefore to implant or judge a
thinker based on modern understanding of particular ideas and its parameters does not do any
justice to his political philosophy and is bound to fail the test of methodological rigour.
Practice Questions
 What are forms? Discuss Plato’s explanation of the theory of forms using examples.
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………

26
 Who is a philosopher ruler? Why does Plato think that philosophers are most suitable to
rule.
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
 Analyze the idea of Justice as discussed in Plato’s Republic?
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
 Discuss Plato’s views on communism of wives and property. Why does he consider it
important for state.
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
 Do you think Plato is rightly considered by some scholars as the forerunner of modern
totalitarianism? Give reasons.
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………

Suggested Readings

 Kraut, R. (1996). ‘Introduction to the study of Plato’, in R. Kraut (ed.). The Cambridge
Companion to Plato. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-50.
 Reeve, C. (2009). ‘Plato’, in D. Boucher and P. Kelly, (ed.) Political Thinkers: From
Socrates to the Present, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 62-80.
 Sabine, George H. (1937). A history of political theory. Henry holt and company: new
York, 1937.
 Mukhopadhyay, A. K. (1988). Western political thought: from Plato to Marx. K. P.
Bagchi & company: Calcutta.
 Nelson, Brian R. (1996). Western Political thought: from Socrates to the age of ideology.
Waveland press Inc: Illinois.
 McClelland, J. S. (1996). A history of western political thought. Routledge: London.

27
 (b) Aristotle (385 BC–322 BC)
Dr. Nishant Kumar

Structure
 Life Sketch
 Important Works
 Aristotle on Virtue and Moral Action
 Theory of the State
 Rule of Law and Constitution
 The Best system of Government (Practicable)
 Nature and Composition of the Ideal State

Life Sketch
Aristotle was not an Athenian like Plato, although he spent a substantial part of his life in
Athens. He was born in 384 BC in Stagira, a city of Thracia. His father, Nichomachus, was a
physician to King of Macedon. In early years, he studied medicine under his father. Then,
after the death of his father in 366 BC, he went to Athens and joined the Academy of Plato as
his pupil. Plato was much impressed by the brilliance of this pupil. Naturally, he developed
an intimate relation with his master and remained in Academy for 20 years. When Plato died
in 347 BC, he expected that he would be elevated to the post of master of Academy. But his
hopes were belied when the position went to Plato’s nephew. A disappointed Aristotle then
joined the court of Hermias, a tyrant of Atarneus, as a physician and tutor. But when in 342
BC, Hermias was dethroned and killed by the revolutionaries, Aristotle lost his job. Soon
after, Philip, the King of Macedon, appointed him a tutor of his adolescent son Alexander. He
continued this job until 336 BC and then returned who items and founded high school named
Lyceum which went on for 12 years. Then, after the death of Alexander, there took place an
anti Macedonian riot in Athens that forced Aristotle to flee Athens and took shelter in the city
of Chalcis of Euboea where he breathed his last in 322 BC.
Important Works
Metaphysics, Physics, Rhetoric, Poetic, Eudemin Ethics, Athenian Constitution, Politics,
Nichomachean Ethics, De Anima, De Interpretatione
Aristotle’s differences with Plato’s ideas
Though Aristotle was Plato’s student and there were many things common, they differed in
fundamental ways. They both represented similar context and their philosophy aimed at the
idea of common good, they varied in their imaginations about how this ideal could be
achieved. The points of differences can be noted as following:
28
 Aristotle refused to share the Platonic view that the ideal is to be located only in the
transcendental world. According to him, this idea is to be built with very many
elements of the temporal world. This is why in his Politics, he does not present like
Plato an imaginary ideal state but turns his eye only to those earthly objects with
which it is possible to construct an ideal state.
 Unlike Plato’s claim that all knowledge could be found upon a single set of axioms
and could be reached through dialectics, Aristotle opined that knowledge could be
productive (based on making of things like rhetoric and poetry), practical (focused on
action like ethics and politics), and theoretical (based on exploration of truth as
ultimate good).
 He criticized Plato’s theory of forms as he argued that ‘properties’ or ‘forms’ were not
outside the things and had to be understood in relation to matter (discussed
extensively in the next section).
 Unlike Plato’s radical reforms Aristotle favored conservation and preservation of
existing tradition and institutions. His ideas of golden mean, protection of polity and
advocacy of mixed constitutions and his analysis of revolution indicate this aspect.
 He argued that Plato’s idea of state overemphasized unity at the cost of harmony and
could lead to regimentation.
 He particularly attacked Plato’s views about communism of wives and property.
 Believed that family was a natural institution and to abolish it could be
detrimental to both individual and society.
 He argued that it was better to be cared by one’s own father than be ignored by
many fathers.
 Family as an institution was important to inculcate civic duties and personal
love. At the same time he saw private and public sphere as complementary and
institution of family as significant in ensuring stability of the state. In absence
of family individuals also lack motivation and inspiration.
 For property, he argued that it was not only necessary for possessive instincts
but also for goodness and philanthropy.
 Common ownership is no ownership. He argued that those who work harder
expect better rewards. This idea is explicit in his theory of distributive justice.
 Other than these, Aristotle also pointed that permanent rule of philosopher ruler could
create discontent as it prevented circulation of elites.
 A stable polity, according to him needed to protect and accommodate aspirations of
different claimants and classes, which was not ensured in Plato’s ideal state.

29
  Further, being a pragmatist, he argued that a good ruler should be wise and conscious
about worldly affairs more than about world of ideas.
Aristotle’s Methodology
Aristotle’s methodology could be called scientific, historical, comparative, inductive, and
observational at the same time. Barker comments that Aristotle's methodology is scientific;
his work is systematic, his writings are analytical. Plato argued with conclusions that were
pre-conceived while Aristotle, in a scientific way arrived at his conclusions by the force of
his logic and analysis. Empiricism was Aristotle's merit. His chief contribution to political
science is to bring the subject matter of politics within the scope of the methods, which he
was already using to investigate other aspects of nature. Aristotle the biologist looks at the
developments in political life in much the same way that he looks at the developing life of
other natural phenomena.
Aristotle’s Philosophy and idea of forms
Focusing on the idea of ‘particular’, formerly dismissed by Plato as unreal, Aristotle
developed a kind of philosophy completely different from that of Plato. In his philosophy, he
vindicates the value of this particular. According to Aristotle, every object of the world,
whether animate or inanimate, has underlying itself a potentiality. This potentiality is nothing
but the possibility of reaching to the level of its final fulfillment that represent something
greater and better then what it is at the moment. Thus, every object presupposes two stages:
the first is the stage of potentiality and the second, the stage of final fulfillment of the
potentiality.
As visible, teleology is central to Aristotle's theory of explanation. Aristotle begins by
talking of the four different kinds of causes in his theory of explanation - the material cause,
the efficient cause, the formal cause and the final cause. Consider the case of the
development of a seed into a plant: The chemical makeup of the seed is the material cause of
development; watering and fertilizing it at regular intervals is its efficient cause; its formal
cause is the relationship between the growing seedling's different parts and the final cause is
the seed's goal of becoming a plant. Now, the issue is that while Aristotle does suggest that a
full understanding of anything requires a grasp of all four causes, he also states that it is the
final cause that provides the real explanation of any phenomena. But as evident, these are not
mutually exclusive views about his understanding.
In Aristotelian metaphysics, although natural substances are compounds of matter and
form, it is their form which is their source or cause of moving or of being at rest. It is their
form which is their internal source of movement or change, which guides them to the end
which is specific to their natural kind. Thus, Aristotle distinguishes between a statue, which is
an artefact, and an olive plant, which is a natural thing. The form of a statue exists outside of
it, in the mind of the sculptor, whereas the form of the olive plant, that which causes the olive
seed to strive towards its goal or telos of becoming an olive tree, is internal to it.

30
 From this philosophical premise, Aristotle draws two conclusions. First, every object
whether belonging to the animate or inanimate world, goes through a journey from matter to
the form or nature, and this journey is fully guided and regulated by the ultimate destination,
that is, the form. Second, this naturally implies that every earthly object has before it the form
or nature to guide itself, that is, every object has before it a final goal which, in Greek
language, is called telos. Therefore, the only criterion to measure the extent of development
and progress is the telos. On the other hand, to comprehend the characteristics of what is
called form, it is imperative to look at the matter concerned closely and to understand well
the possibilities inherent in this matter. This way, Aristotle arrives at his final philosophical
position that this world of ours is to be viewed and judged with a teleological vision that is
why Aristotle's philosophy of life and the world is known as teleological philosophy which
also serves as the basis of his moral and political philosophy.
Aristotle on Virtue and Moral Action
Resting on his teleological philosophy, Aristotle, in his ethics, attempts a moral analysis of
man's life in this manner: His primary premise in his moral philosophy is that whatever we do
or think has before it a final goal, and good is the final moral end of man's life. As he says in
his Nicomachean Ethics: ‘In every pursuit and art the chief good is that for the sake of which
all that we do is done’. In different perspectives, the goal of having this good is different.
Likewise, in case of moral life, the final goal or telos is happy life or eudaimonia. It may be
possible to attain the goal of happy life by means of honour, wealth and various other means
to meet the material wants of life. Aristotle does not altogether discard the necessity of these
means. However, he is firm in his opinion that it is only by virtue that man may fulfill the
objective of having the highest moral good. This virtue, of course, is of different kinds. But
real virtue lies at the middle of two extreme opposites. In other words, intermediary position
is the true index of virtue.
To determine the area of this activity, Aristotle points out that man alone, abstracted
from society, cannot secure happiness for him because man is a social animal, and
accordingly, the intense desire to have the association of others very much lies in him. As
Aristotle says in his Nicomachean Ethics, “No one would choose the whole world on
condition of being alone, since man is a political creature and one whose nature is to live with
others”. This association with others or for man that matter, friendship enables one to move
forward to the goal of happiness. For after all, friendship helps man to get used to the practice
of mutual give and take and thus, inspires him to look after the interests of others, rather
forgetting his self-interest. Hence, friendship in social setting is one of the important means to
ensure the achievement of moral happiness.
However, according to Aristotle although friendship grown on the basis of selflessness is
a means to attain good, it cannot, in any case, bring in the highest good because friendship
teaches one to be selfless but not to love oneself. For the sake of reaching the goal of highest
good, man also must learn to love himself. This self-love, of course, does not mean so-called
egoism nor mean attachment to self-interest. This love for oneself actually means to discover
31
the best element in one’s self and then to cultivate it with all sincerity. This best element no
doubt is mans intellect or reason. Hence, constant development of intellect or reason is the
best means to attain the highest good. Man gets the highest happiness through this intellectual
exercise because it is for sake of cultivation of intellect alone, that is, not motivated by any
other purpose, and it may be enjoyed forever. To Aristotle, the other name of this intellectual
exercise is philosophical exercise.
Aristotle points to at least three different aspects of what it is to be moral based on
rational intellectual exercise. First, in order for us to be able to say that someone has acted
morally, that someone must have intended, in his action, to have acted morally. The actor
must have some intention to bring about good for others. Moral acts must always issue from a
choice, and so volition is essential to a definition of morality. To choose to do something is
not to do it impulsively, but to do it after some deliberation. Volition is deliberate choice and
the process of deliberation is also important. This process of deliberation points to the second
feature of moral action for Aristotle: To be moral, an individual must not only have the
strength of will, but also the faculty of right judgment. Aristotle gave the name phronesis to
this faculty of right judgment. Even after deliberation, if we lack phronesis, we might choose
a course of action that will actually harm others. The third aspect of Aristotle's theory of
moral action has to do with character. By doing the right action repeatedly, that is, by
forming good habits, we can build a character, which will result in right actions.
It is also this purpose that allows us to make sense of Aristotle's claims that man is a
political animal, or that the state is a natural association. Man is a zoon politikon (political
animal) because it is only by living in a political community that he realizes his true nature,
which is to become a moral being. Similarly, the state is an association natural to man
because it is essential for the completion of his nature. According to Aristotle, men are born
with the potential of becoming moral, but this potential can be actualized only under the right
social conditions. The most important of these social conditions is being a member of a
political community. Further, only theoretical understanding might not help in attaining
virtuous life. So, Aristotle holds that Laws and good education is essential in developing and
guiding faculties in an individual to achieve the goal of good life. It is for this reason that the
state is supposed to complete the nature of men. The polis can also make its citizens moral
only by giving them the right to make political decisions. The purpose of the polis cannot be
realized without allowing all citizens a share in judicial and deliberative office. All citizens
sit in the Ekklesia, the principal assembly, and be members of the Dikasteria, the courts.
Therefore, according to Aristotle, state is an association not merely for living but for living a
good life.
Theory of the State
Aristotle's theory of the state was completely based on his teleological philosophy and moral
principles. This is why it is commonly known as teleological theory of the state. Hence, this
theory reveals that Aristotle viewed the state not only as a human organization but also as the
highest human association, that is, he treats the state as a form or nature or in other words, as
32
the final fulfillment of certain potentialities inherent to individuals. Accordingly, to
comprehend fully the nature of the state, he turns his eye to searching the potentialities,
which, when fulfilled, gave birth to the state. It is found therefore, that in his Politics to
introduce his theory of the state, he begins with an enquiry into the roots of its origin.
Aristotle's Politics begins with the statement that ‘Every association aims at some good
and the state as the highest association aims at the highest good’. According to Aristotle, at
the most fundamental level the state comprises two fundamental and natural human relations.
These are, first, the relation between man and woman and, second, the relation between
master and slave. The first is necessary for the purpose of reproduction and, thereby, to
continue the human race. The second is necessary to ensure the intellectual development of
the human race. According to Aristotle, these two relations together constitute an institution
which is family (he uses the term family interchangeably with household). The goal of family
is only to meet the daily wants of life and is the most basic unit of co-operation. It is headed
by the citizen and includes children, women, and slaves. This family, the basic human
institution, undergoes transformation whenever in course of time several families are united
together to result in the formation of a village. The purpose of the village, compared to
family, is much greater, for it caters to the needs of life higher than the daily wants including
economic needs. But Aristotle holds that all needs of individual are not even satisfied at the
level of village and eventually, when several villages are united together, it gives birth to a
much larger institution, which is self-sufficient or nearly self-sufficient, and is called the
state. Like the earlier institutions, the state also emerges to meet the necessities of life. Yet, it
is a unique institution in that its final purpose is not only to serve the needs of life but also to
ensure conditions of what is a good life on moral considerations. Furthermore, the process of
evolution through which various institutions grow reaches its final destination in the birth of
the state.
From this account of the origin of the state, Aristotle derives three premises that together
constitute his theory of the state.
 The first premise is that the state is a natural institution. The institutions that came
into existence earlier to the emergence of the state reach their final development in the
state and in the light of Aristotle’s teleological philosophy, what represents the final
development is the form and is the true essence of the development.
 Aristotle’s second premise is that man is by nature a political animal, that is, he is
ordained to be the member of a state. In fact, argues Aristotle, he who is not the
member of state is either a beast or a god. In support of this premise, Aristotle’s
argument is that nature gives man nothing in vain. Thus, nature has given man the
power of speech and practical judgment in order that he is able to determine what is
good or bad, what is justice or injustice, etc. Since man is endowed with this power of
judgment, he has been able to build up family, village and the state. In fact, he argues
that politics is nothing but a collective form of “reasoned action” (a collective
exhibition of virtue as reasoned action is an individual virtue). This is why man
cannot help being a political animal.
33
  Third, as per Aristotle's theory of the origin of the state, the family and the village
created by men came much earlier than the state. Therefore, he admits that, in point of
time, the individual is prior to the state. But he adds that in respect of importance the
state is above the individual, that is, much greater than the individual or even family
and village. He argues that the whole is always more important than the part because
the importance of the part is fully dependent on that of the whole. For example,
human body is the whole of which the hand is a mere part, and if the body is
destroyed, the hand is of no use.
It is these three premises that together represent the basics of Aristotle's theory of the state.
He tried to establish that the state, by no means, had come into existence by use of force nor
is it an artificial institution deliberately created by man, as held by the social contract
theorists many hundreds of years after Aristotle, particularly by Hobbes, Locke, and others.
At the same time, Aristotle believed that man was essentially good and it was function of
state to develop his faculties for good action for the common good. So, it was state’s duty to
inculcate virtues in its citizenry. Some similar function is also performed by family but its
focus is on individual and not on the collective. So, it caters to larger numbers and represents
the public arena where citizens, unlike in household, exercise rationality free of personal
determinants.
Rule of Law and Constitution
Aristotle took a cue from Plato's suggestion in the Laws that laws were necessary for a moral
and civilized life. Civility of law was possible if one perceived law as wisdom accumulated
over the ages and generations resulting from customs, both written and unwritten. Aristotle,
unlike Plato, contended that the collective wisdom of the people as superior to that of the
wisest ruler or legislator, for “the reason of the statements in a good state cannot be detached
from the reason embodied in the law and the custom of community rules”.
A constitution for Aristotle was not only a basic law determining the structure of its
government and allocation of powers between the different branches within a government,
but it also reflected a way of life. A constitution gave an identity to polis, which meant that a
change in constitution could bring about a change in the polis. In fact, he says that
constitution is like the form in the context of state. The state will grow as its constitution is.
Constitutions had two aspects: the ethical or the aims and goal to be pursued by a community;
and the institutional order structure of political institutions and offices, and the distribution of
power. In its ethical sense, a constitution, for Aristotle, provided the identity of a state, for it
examined the relationship between a good citizen and a good man.
Constitutional rule had three elements:
a) Common interest of people taken care of.
b) No arbitrary power of the rulers.
c) Consent and not force is the basis of obligation for constitutions.

34
A constitutional ruler, unlike a dictator, ruled over his willing subjects by consent. Aristotle
was categorical that a rightly constituted law was the final authority, and that personal
authority was only desirable if for some reason it was not easy to codify laws to meet, all
general contingencies. Aristotle's ideal was constitutionally-based order. Laws were less
arbitrary and more fair, since they were impersonal as compared to rule by a person. He
contended that a free political relationship was one where the subject did not totally surrender
his judgment and responsibility, for both the ruler and the ruled had a defined legal status.
Governments/Constitutions and their classification
Based on a comparative study of 158 constitutions he provides qualitative and quantitative
analysis of different constitutions. It is broadly based on number of rulers and the quality of
rulership. He believes that as the highest office of the state as well as the highest political
power is held by the ruling class, the character of a government is determined by the nature of
the rulers. This ruler may be just one person or a few persons or many persons united
together. Again, the political rule may be led by only the interest of the ruler or by larger
public interest. Thus, using the number of the rulers as well as the purpose of rule as the
criterion, Aristotle makes a six fold classification of governments. For instance, whenever the
ruling power lies with one person and it is committed to serving public interest, it is
monarchy. On the other hand, when it is meant to serve the narrow self-interest of the one-
man ruler, it turns into tyranny which represents the perverted form of monarchy.
Furthermore, when a few rule to serve public interest, it is aristocracy. Its corresponding
perverted form is oligarchy where a few rule with the purpose of looking after only their own
interests. On the other hand, many rule with a view to serving general interests, it is called
polity. But when this mass rule is directed to the goal of taking care of only the interests of
the rulers, it turns into democracy that represents a perverted form of polity. Property in a
way is both a good and an evil. Distribution of wealth and property determines character of
perverted constitutions as it was based and motivated by selfish interests, whereas the duty of
state is perceived to be to protect and promote common good. By means of this classification
of governments, Aristotle makes it clear that in his opinion monarchy, aristocracy and polity
are three good types of government and tyranny, oligarchy and democracy are three
corresponding bad/perverted forms.
Number of rulers Pure form Perverted form
One Monarchy Tyranny
Few Aristocracy Oligarchy
Many Polity Democracy

In Aristotle, there was hardly a discussion of the ideal type except sketchy details, but a
concern with the best practicable state. Among the ideal types, Aristotle concentrated on
monarchy rather than aristocracy. Monarchy would be the best form if a wise and a virtuous
King could be found. He firmly believed that it is easier to find one man who could look

35
beyond self interest and work for common good, then finding few or many people who could
do that. Being a good among human, the monarch ought to be allowed to make laws. It would
be best to allow the monarch to rule, but Aristotle was not sure whether to grant anybody the
absolute right to rule.
The Best system of Government (Practicable)
After classification of governments, Aristotle proceeded to determine which among the six
form of government, was the best. At the very beginning of this discussion, Aristotle points
out that his purpose is not to look for a perfectly ideal system of government. For him, ideally
monarchy based on constitutional law is the best form of government, but the best practicable
and stable form of government, according to him, was polity.
To prove it he relied on the theory of golden mean, essentially derived from Pythagoras
and presented in his Nicomachean Ethics. For him, organizational structure and social base of
the power holders in polity signified an intermediary position. To elaborate, he pointed out
that polity stood just in the middle of the two opposites like democracy and oligarchy as
polity represented a mixture of oligarchy and democracy. Furthermore, the rulers in a polity
were neither very rich nor very poor. They were actually the representatives of the middle
class. Aristotle further tried to prove that middle class were the best as rulers due to following
reasons:
 They are not insolent and unruly like the rich nor do they tend to get involved in
violence and crimes like the poor. Naturally, they are answerable to reason.
 Second, the rich only know to rule and dominate and are not used to obey. The poor,
on the contrary, know how to obey but hardly know how to rule. The middle class, on
the other hand, knows both to command and obey.
 The middle class is the best fitted to ensure stability, peace and discipline. Because,
on seeing the rich to possess and enjoy property to a large extent, the poor naturally
feel envious of them and become keen on wresting property from the rich. This leads
to constant instability and indiscipline in society. But as members of the middle class
are neither very rich, nor very poor. So under their rule, there is very little chance of
instability and indiscipline in the social life.
 Fourth, according to Aristotle, history gave many evidence of the qualitative
excellence of middle class. For instance, the famous lawmakers like Solon, Lycurgus
and Charondas, all emerged from the middle class.
As regards the organizational structure of Polity, Aristotle argued for combining the
components of democratic and oligarchic systems. This reconciliation may be implemented
in various ways.
 It may be done by mixing the rules of oligarchy with those of democracy. For
example, the rule may be made in polity that the poor would be paid for acting as
jury, and the rich would subject to fine, if they fail to discharge the duties of jury.
36
  Second, by taking a middle position between the standing rules of oligarchy and
democracy, the system of polity may be developed by way of making an adjustment
between the two. For instance, ownership of a small amount of property may be made
a qualification to be a member of the assembly in a polity.
 Third, instead of combining the rules of oligarchic and democratic systems, certain
elements may be chosen from each of these systems, and on the basis of such
elements, the political framework of polity may be constructed. In polity magistrates
may be chosen by vote, as is the practice in oligarchy. At the same time, the rule may
be made, as in vogue in democracy, that to be a magistrate one would not require any
property qualification.
So why Polity is the most suited to be best practicable state?
 Polity is reflective of collective rational wisdom He uses the Analogy of feast and
argues that as more people cook, we have many dishes and the feast becomes better.
Accordingly, he claims that more decision makers shall mean better and rational
judgment.
 Specialists neither infallible nor best. So, public control important. Here he uses
Builder-owner analogy. Who is a better judge about the what and how the house
should be built? He claims that neither specialists like builders nor commoners like
owner of house can have complete knowledge. Therefore, it is best that both work
together sharing their respective knowledge.
 Gives stability as middle-class dominant.
 Middle path.
 More likely to follow reason.
 Most likely to incorporate friendship and equality. Neither extremely arrogant
nor fearful. Values of shared partnership nurtured.
 No class opposed to middle class. High class and lower class identify themselves
with it.
Nature and Composition of the Ideal State
Although Aristotle disavowed the philosophical tradition initiated by his master, the ideal
valued much by Plato in his philosophy, after all, was not an anathema to him. That is why he
did not merely stop at outlining the best practicable state but also depicted in his Politics what
he regarded an ideal state. He felt that the ideal state is to be composed of elements that may
be identified in the light of experience. But he was convinced that the nature of these
elements is determined by a fundamental principle guiding the ideal. For him ideal state was
one based on constitutional monarchy.

37
 According to Aristotle, what implied to the individual equally applied to the state, that is,
when moral virtues are fully developed in the life of the state on moral criterion becomes the
best state or in other words, an ideal state. But, as in case of the individual, similarly in case
of the state, these developed moral virtues must be used in good acts, that is, he warns the
ideal state or happy state cannot be put into reality through inactivity. The highest happiness
may be attained only through good work. So, Aristotle concludes that an ideal state requires
not only statesman but also thinking philosophers.
To him, the human element was one of the most important factors in the organization of
the state. Hence, at the very start, he focuses his attention on the size of the population ideal
for an ideal state. According to him, the desirable population should neither be too large nor
too small. It should be of a medium size. For if the population is too large, it is difficult to
ensure among the people the habit of obedience to the laws of the state. After all, if the
territory of state is inhabited by too many people, it is not possible to maintain discipline, and
without the discipline it is not so easy to develop the practice of giving allegiance to the
authority of the state. On the other hand, if the state is composed of a very small population,
it cannot be self-sufficient. On the mental traits of the citizens of an ideal state, Aristotle's
point is that like the Greek citizens, they have to be both courageous and intelligent but he
cautions that being courageous does not be noted mean that they should be harsh in their
dealings with the people unknown. To him, courage is a power of soul that is invariably
reflected in friendship and compassion.
On the territory of the ideal state, Aristotle's suggestion is that it should be such as helps
the state attain self-sufficiency, that is, land should be so fertile that it may produce all kinds
of crops in abundance and, as result, people do not suffer from any want of food products. As
regards the social composition of the ideal state, Aristotle begins with the argument that a
state in order to be self-sufficient essentially requires (a) food to feed the people, (b)
handicrafts to manufacture various instruments necessary for human living, (c) the arms
required to establish authority of the state and to fight out external aggression, (d) flow of
finance to meet domestic needs and exigencies of war, (e) worship of gods and performance
of religious rites and (f) definitive methods and means to determine public interest and
justice. Corresponding to these six kinds of works, the ideal state would have six classes of
namely husbandmen, artisans, warriors, businessmen, priests, and counsellors and judges.
Accordingly, people with the highest moral virtue are capable of fulfilling the purpose of
the state. This is why he eliminates artisans and businessmen as citizens of the ideal state for
in his judgment, they are bereft of moral virtues and, hence, on moral consideration their life
is lowly and focus on profit. Similarly, husbandmen cannot be citizens of the ideal state as,
engaged in agricultural activities, they do not at all have the opportunity of enjoying leisure
without which moral virtues cannot be developed. The remaining classes would be the
citizens of the ideal state and they all would have the right of ownership and possession of
land.

38
Household (family)
 Citizen+ women+ children+ property (both animate and inanimate)
 Fulfilled the function of self-preservation+ procreation+ economic needs
 Function of inculcating civic virtues+ moral virtues (through the process of
socialization)
 Considers household as significant part of the polis. The citizen (father) is link
between political community and household.
 Looks at male-female relation as natural biological and children as bond between
them. Women important for social happiness as they educate and train young future
citizens, but they are not part of political process. Without children family may
dissolve so they are also a common good for society.
 In family male are active members, female are passive when seen from lens of state
and politics. Aristotle believed that husbands (male) have natural virtue to command
and wives (female) natural virtue to obey. So, even male child is to be trained in a
way to become citizens and girls should be trained to obey as they lacked mental
capacity to take part in politics.
Property
Aristotle justifies the inclusion of property and the art of money making in his discussion on
family on the ground that it is a means for the maintenance of family, that is, according to
him property is an integral component of the family life. He considered material wealth as
important for good life, but argued that economic activity has to be subordinate to political
activity. He distinguished between natural and unnatural acquisition of wealth, where the
prior included hunting, grazing, animal husbandry- where nature sets the limits to acquisition,
whereas in case of unnatural, it includes acquisition through other means like trade etc. and
often lead to excess acquisition. Whenever the amount of property acquired is greater than
what is required for the maintenance of family or when it is earned just with the greed to
amass property, it no longer remains a natural system and ceases to be led by a moral
purpose. Aristotle considers retail trade and usury as unfair and immoral, involving misuse of
the principle of property. Therefore, he prefers barter system as a mean, where one gets
according to their needs and has the option of giving away of the excess in the form of mutual
exchange. Aristotle regards it as neither unnatural nor immoral. After all, according to him
since man is by no means self-sufficient, would naturally like to have the things he needs by
taking to exchange of things with others. Thus, simple barter system is innocuous.
Aristotle was thus a proponent of private property system. He was naturally opposed to
communism or property proposed by Plato. In his opinion Plato’s system of communism of
property is disadvantages and, in fact, impossible for several reasons.
 Aristotle believed that, by virtue of his communism, Plato wanted to establish unity of
an extreme extent but too much unity is bad for the state because the state really
39
 presupposes plurality. However, extreme unity destroyed plurality, and as a result, the
state no longer remained a state or at best qualitatively, it became a state of very poor
standard.
 Second, in case of property under collective ownership, there may crop up a constant
conflict or dispute.
 Third, if property was under private ownership, everyone developed a special interest
in it, that is, when someone knows that he owns a particular property, he naturally
derived a kind of pleasure from his sense of private ownership.
 Fourth, one always derived pleasure from doing charity to others but one having no
property of one’s own was unable to do charity and, hence, missed the happiness of
accompanying it.
 Fifth, private property was no doubt very much required for comfortable living. For
this reason, Aristotle regarded platonic communism was unacceptable.
Slavery
Aristotle approached the institution of slavery from teleological and instrumental lens.
Slavery was practiced in Greece and he tried to defend the system as an important
relationship and an important constituent of the household. He characterizes instruments in
household as animate and inanimate and puts slaves in the category of animate objects. In the
view of Aristotle, slavery is desirable and not to be detested.
 First, he argued that a slave had immense contribution in the intellectual and moral
development of his master. It secured sufficient leisure to the slave owner so that he
could achieve moral and intellectual development.
 Second, the system of slavery was wholesome to the slave also. For, as his moral and
intellectual qualities are much inferior by any standard, he naturally benefitted much
from his subjection to his master, as tame animals are always better off when they are
under the control of men.
 Third, according to Aristotle the system of slavery was verily natural as it was in
conformity with natural law. This was so because the law of nature that applied
everywhere in the world was that some would control and others would remain under
their control, as the soul dominated over the body and intellect over appetite, male
over female and men over animals. Thus, it was ordained by nature that some are born
to rule and other to obey.
Aristotle, however, admitted that sometimes there may be an exception to this natural rule.
For instance, sometimes it so happened that someone was born in the class of slaves with the
body and mind of independent citizens. On the other hand, some among the class of
independent citizens were born with the body and mind of a slave. Furthermore, it is
Aristotle’s firm belief that Hellenes could never be slave as they invariably possessed high
intellectual and moral qualities. Despite these exceptions, Aristotle was convinced that
40
slavery was natural and justified. He, of course, made a distinction between a natural slave
and an artificial slave. This artificial slave was what was created by man and hence not
ordained by nature. Thus, when the prisoners of war, as per the practice of that time, are
forced to slaves, they are artificial slaves. Naturally, this did not get Aristotle’s approval.
However, he added a provision to it in that according to him, whenever the winner in a war
was gifted with a high moral quality, it was not wrong for him to turn the prisoners of war
into slaves. On the other hand, when the victor in a war was of inferior moral quality, his
victory was far from fair. In such a case, forcing the prisoners of war into slaves was unfair
and immoral.
Citizenship
According to Aristotle, direct participation in the functions of the state is the basis of
citizenship. Thus, in his opinion residence in a particular territory under the jurisdiction of
state does not make one a citizen. Similarly, a person cannot be treated as a citizen on the
ground that in his paternal or maternal side someone was a citizen. No support for natural
citizenship. Only a person who is associated with the functions of the judiciary or with the
deliberative functions of the public assembly is, according to Aristotle, a citizen. Only adult
male members, except slaves, are to be recognized as citizens.
After providing thus a definition of citizenship, Aristotle moves further to settle the
question whether a good man is necessarily a good citizen, that is, whether good moral
obviously gives one a good political capacity. He tried his best with various arguments to
establish that the virtues of a good man and a good citizen are not one and the same.
 His first argument is that a citizen works under a particular constitutional system.
Hence, the virtues of a good citizen are no doubt determined by the purpose and the
goal of constitutional system concerned. On the hand, the virtues of a good man are
always the same, no matter whatever was the pattern of the constitutional system.
 Second, according to Aristotle even if it is assumed that a good citizen is a good man,
it can hardly be denied that different citizens have to do different works of the state
which require different worth and capability, that is, good citizens need to have
different types of qualities but the qualities of good men for obvious reasons never
vary.
 Third, a state is constituted by different type of citizens. Naturally, in terms of
political capacities, some are superior and others are inferior. Thus, although they are
good citizens, their virtues vary.
Justice
Aristotle’s theory of justice is mostly found in his Nicomachean Ethics and sporadically in
his Politics. For Aristotle, justice is no less significant, for he regards justice as the very
virtue of the state. It is justice that makes a state, gives it a vision and coupled with ethics, it
takes the state to the heights of all ethical values. Justice saves the state from destruction and

41
it makes the state and political life pure and healthy. 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”. For Aristotle, justice is either general or it is particular- a part of complete virtue
if by general justice we mean complete virtue. According to Aristotle, “General justice is
complete goodness… It is complete in the fullest sense, because it is the exercise of complete
goodness not only in himself but also towards his neighbors.” So general justice includes
complete social relationship based on virtue and ethics, whereas particular justice is primarily
its political aspect. Particular justice is of two types- distributive and corrective. For Aristotle,
distributive justice hands out honours and rewards according to the merits of the recipients –
equals to be treated equally and unequal, unequally. The corrective justice takes no account
of the position of the parties concerned, but simply secures equality between the two by
taking away from the advantage of the one and adding it to the disadvantage of the other,
giving justice to one who has been denied, and inflicting punishment to one who has denied
others their justice. It is also called Rectificatory or remedial justice and is to be meted out by
a judge in matters like contracts or criminal law, where the merit of a person was not the
consideration.
Distributive justice
The premise Aristotle, in his Nicomachean Ethics, begins with is that what is generally taken
as equality cannot be the basis of justice, that is, to treat indiscriminately all as equal cannot
be the way to establishing justice in society. In his opinion, to distribute according to
proportion, amounts to true justice. According to this rule of proportion, those who are really
equal in consideration of worth and ability would have equal shares. As Aristotle says in
Book III, Chapter XII of his Politics, ‘Equals ought to receive an equal share’. But in case of
those who are not equal in ability and worth shares would be distributed in proportion to their
respective worth and ability. In the light of his philosophy, Aristotle believes that this worth
and ability of a citizen would be determined by his contribution to realization of the final goal
of the state. Distributive justice meant that offices and wealth, rewards and dues were
distributed among different social classes according to their contributions based on merit,
defined in accordance with the spirit of the constitution. In an oligarchy, merit meant wealth,
while in an aristocracy, it was related to virtue. In an ideal state, merit meant virtue. Since in
Aristotle's perception the objective end of the state was to ensure and promote good life, the
group that contributed most to this end could legitimately claim most of society's honours.
Thus, Aristotle does not believe in what may be called arithmetical equality. He underscores
proportionate equality by which everyone would get his due on the basis of an estimation of
his contribution to the telos of the state. As he says in Book VIII, chapter II of his politics,
“justices in an absolute sense consist in proportional equality”.
He tried to assimilate the two doctrines of distributive justice that prevailed during his
time. One was the democrats’ assertion that equality derived from free birth, or that each
would count for one, and no one for more than one. The other was the oligarchs’ view that
superiority in one represented superiority in others as well. The two principles of equality and

42
superiority could be made compatible, if both were subordinated to justice. Distributive
justice meant proportionate equality and was linked to a theory of just rewards or equal
shares according to the merit of its recipients. Even person would be awarded responsibilities
as well as financial benefits in proportion to one's just deserts.
Revolution
Aristotle’s Politics includes a detailed discussion on revolution. Revolution means, according
to Aristotle, a change in the constitution, a change in the rulers, a change-big or small. For
him, the change from monarchy to aristocracy, an example of a big change, is a revolution;
when democracy becomes less democratic, it is also a revolution, though it is a small change.
So to sum up Aristotle's meaning of revolution, one may say revolution implies: (i) a change
in the set of rulers; (ii) a change, political in nature: (iii) a palace revolution; (iv) political
instability or political transformation; (v) a change followed by violence, destruction and
bloodshed. Aristotle was an advocate of status quo and did not want political changes, for
they brought with them catastrophic and violent changes. That is 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.
According to him, revolution may be of different nature depending and its objective. For
instance, in the first place, the purpose of revolution may be to replace the prevailing political
system by a new one, that is, the objective of revolution may be to bring in a total change.
Secondly, keeping the political system intact, the objective may be only to replace the ruling
group. In such a case, the rebels tried to rest political power. Third, without forcing a total
change of political system the purpose of revolution may be to make the tune of the existing
political system more pronounced or to temperate former that is, in the case of revolution
arise look for a partial change in the character of political system. Fourth, revolution may be
organized just to create some new wins in political system or some new offices under it.
While accounting for the roots of revolution, Aristotle gave emphasis on three factors.
First, the psychological state that instigates revolution. Second, the purpose of fulfillment of
goals for which revolution is organized; and, third, the objective conditions contributing to
revolution. In the view of Aristotle, the mental state that provoked revolution is a longing for
equality or inequality (that is, the superior position). The poor masses take to revolution
because they are led by the belief that they are getting their due much less than what they
should have as equal to the few rich. Thus, they start a revolution because they want to be
equal to others. On the other hand, the rich few turn to a revolution as they feel that they
unfairly get an equal amount with others although as superior to the latter, they deserve more.
As Aristotle says in Book VIII, Chapter II of his Politics, “Inferiors revolt in order that they
may be equal, and equals that they may be superior. Such is the state of mind which creates
revolution”. On the purpose of revolution, Aristotle's point is that revolution is organized
with the objective of having gain and honour. Sometimes just its opposite is the purpose, that
is, not to ensure their gain and honour, but to save themselves or their friends from loss and
dishonour the actors of revolution may go in for it. As to the objective conditions inviting
43
revolution, Aristotle argues that there may be various kinds of such objective conditions. For
instance:
 First, the very fact that some people are enjoying greater amount of gain or honour
may generate a feeling of acrimony and resentment among others and as a result, this
may create an objective condition favorable for revolution.
 Second, impudence and indomitable lust for money of the public officials may incite
the citizens to resist the political system, and this is how an objective condition is
created to lead to revolution.
 Third, if a person or a group of persons become too powerful at variance with the
nature of the political system concerned, it may create a situation contributory to
revolution.
 Fourth, those who have committed crimes but try to avoid the inevitable
consequences of such crime or those who are anxious to free themselves from the
possible ill effects of injustice may condition leading to revolution.
 Fifth, just the contempt of the ruled for the ruler may eventually create a situation
contributory to revolution.
 Sixth, uneven development resulting in the predominant influence of a part of the
state may also give birth to a situation contributing to revolution.
 Seventh, party intrigue and deliberate appointment of person disloyal to existing
political system to the highest office of the state may create a situation inviting
revolution.
 Eight, indifference to bring in small political changes may lead to a situation
contributory to revolution. Because according to Aristotle, sometimes the
unwillingness to effect a little change in political system may finally generate an urge
to force a total change of political system by way of revolution.
 Finally, the racial and geographical diversity unless harmonized into unity, may create
an environment for explosion of revolution.
To the general causes of revelations, Aristotle adds the particular causes. In democracy the
most important cause of revolution is the unprincipled character of the popular leaders.
Demagogues attack the rich, individually or collectively, so as to provide them to forcibly
resist and provide the emergence of oligarchy. The causes of overthrow of oligarchies can be
internal as when a group within the class in power becomes more influential or rich at the
expense of the rest, or external, by the mistreatment of the masses by the governing class. In
aristocracies, few people share in honour. When the number of people benefiting becomes
smaller or when disparity between rich and poor becomes wider, revolution is caused.
After identifying the cause of revolution, Aristotle turns to measures to prevent it. In this
matter, he has following suggestions:

44
  His first advice is that in all political system care must be taken to ensure complete
allegiance to the laws of the state so much so that even the small matter in the respect
should be given due care. Because neglect of small instances of violation of law final
result in the ruining of the state. As he says in Book VIII, chapter VIII of his politics,
“transgression creeps in the unperceived and at last ruins of the state just as the
constant recurrence for the small expenses in that time eats up a fortune”.
 Second, measures taken to deceive the people should always be avoided.
 Third, cordial relations with those denied the right of political participation must be
maintained.
 Fourth, to stall the misuse of power, the term of public official should be brief.
 Fifth, it is Aristotle’s firm belief that in the face of impending danger people, afraid of
it, try their best to keep the political system intact. Hence, to arrest the possibility of
revolution the ruler should go on creating an atmosphere of fear and bring the distant
danger nearer.
 Sixth, by means of appropriate law the internal dispute and conflict within the upper
class should be restrained so that other classes of people may not take advantage of
this conflict and dispute.
 Seventh, it is necessary to stop the practice of using public office for private gain and
no official should be given disproportionate and excessive power.
 Also, a public official should be given the responsibility to keep watch on private life
of citizens so that their way of life does not at all have any harmful effect on the
political system.
 Finally, the citizens must be educated in the spirit of political system under which
they live. If thus educated, they will gladly accept their allegiance to the state not as
servitude but rather as a means to guard their interests and identity. As Aristotle
comment in Book VIII, in chapter IX, of his Politics, “the citizen should live and live
gladly in the spirit of the polity, as such a life ought not to be regarded as a bondage
but rather as a means of preservation”.
Practice Questions
 Critically evaluate Aristotle’s views on slavery.
………………………………………………………………………………….…………
……………………………………………………………………….……………………
…………………………………………………………….………………………………
………………………………………………….…………………………………………
 Analyze Aristotle’s differences with Plato.
………………………………………………………………………………….…………
……………………………………………………………………….……………………

45
 …………………………………………………………….………………………………
………………………………………………….…………………………………………
 Discuss the conception of virtue as elaborated in Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics.
………………………………………………………………………………….…………
……………………………………………………………………….……………………
…………………………………………………………….………………………………
………………………………………………….…………………………………………
 Explain Aristotle’s understanding of Citizenship.
………………………………………………………………………………….…………
……………………………………………………………………….……………………
…………………………………………………………….………………………………
………………………………………………….…………………………………………
 Why does Aristotle consider Polity as the most ideal state? Give reasons for your answer.
………………………………………………………………………………….…………
……………………………………………………………………….……………………
…………………………………………………………….………………………………
………………………………………………….…………………………………………

Suggested Readings

 Burns, T. (2009) ‘Aristotle’, in D. Boucher, and P. Kelly, (eds) Political Thinkers: From
Socrates to the Present. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.81-99.
 Taylor, C. (1995) ‘Politics’, in J. Barnes (ed.). The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 232-258.
 Sabine, George H. (1937). A history of political theory. Henry holt and company: new
York, 1937.
 Mukhopadhyay, A. K. (1988). Western political thought: from Plato to Marx. K. P.
Bagchi & company: Calcutta.
 Nelson, Brian R. (1996). Western Political thought: from Socrates to the age of ideology.
Waveland press Inc: Illinois.
 McClelland, J. S. (1996) .A history of western political thought. Routledge: London.

46
 Unit-3 : Interlude

Machiavelli (1469-1527 A.D.)

Dr. Mangal Deo Singh

Structure
3.0 Introduction
3.1 Biography
3.2 Machiavelli’s Key Texts
3.3 Machiavelli as a child of his times
3.4 Factors that influenced Machiavelli’s thoughts
3.4.1 Cultural Movement of the Renaissance
3.4.2 Resurgence of Knowledge
3.3.3 Political Situation
3.3.4 Social Condition
3.3.5 Theory of the Nation-State
3.5 Separation of politics from religion and morality
3.5.1 Politics and Religion-
3.6 Governance Considerations
3.7 Duties of Ruler
3.7.1 Earning Power
3.7.2 Reason of the State
3.7.3 The king should use inculcate, inveigle, punishment and dissimilation
according to the need
3.8 Machiavelli’s Statecraft
3.9 Summary
3.10 Exercises
3.11 References and Readings

3.0 Introduction
“The state knows ethics. What it does is neither ethical nor unethical, but entirely non-
ethical.” –Machiavelli

47
Machiavelli, the father of modern political science, was born in Italy at a time when Italy was
going through a crisis. He was born in Florence, at the time when Europe was in transition.
The circumstances have evidently shaped Machiavelli’s understanding of the state affairs.
Europe was also the centre of the Renaissance movement. He was interested in politics since
childhood and also held various positions of responsibility. His ideas and understanding of
state, religion, law, nationality and governance are deep rooted in the socio-economic
conditions that marked a historical significance.
3.1 Biography
Niccol Machiavelli was born in Florence, Italy, on May 3, 1469, into an ordinary family of
ancient Tuscan descent. His father was a simple lawyer by profession. Machiavelli began his
life as a clerk in 1494, but his talent soon earned him a promotion, and in four years, in 1498,
he became secretary of the ‘Council of Ten’ of Florence, and held the position till 1512 AD.
After the French defeat in 1509, he was taken prisoner in Florence by Spanish supporters for
planning against the Medici government in 1513. But soon after he returned home and
engaged in agricultural work. During this time, he wrote his most famous book ‘The Prince’
and soon after he died in 1527.
Machiavelli was born during the period of Renaissance movement in Florence. This was
an era when the medieval theory of the ‘religious chief’ was dying out in Europe and the
philosophy of Aristotle had come to light. The discovery of a scholar named Alchemy also
contributed greatly to the Renaissance movement. Machiavelli was a witness to all these
events and thus an imprint is visible in the impact of all these events on his political thought.
3.2 Machiavelli’s Key Texts
The important works from the point of view of Machiavelli’s politics are as follows–
1. The Prince
2. The Discourses on Livy
3. The History of Florence
4. The Art of War
‘The prince’ is Machiavelli’s most important work. In this he has explained the monarchy
while in his book ‘The Discourses’ he has commented about the republican government.
Machiavelli’s depiction of human nature was its basic premise. He was vehemently
opposed to religiosity, traditionalism, orthodoxy and erudition. His method of study was
historical, observational and with realistic and scientific features or elements.
3.3 Machiavelli as a child of his times
The influence of his own era and the circumstance of the country is so clearly reflected in
Machiavelli’s political thought that W. A. Dunning stated that ‘Machiavelli was the child of
his times’. Every learned and talented person is a child of his era because his thoughts are
48
influenced by the contemporary circumstances. Apart from this, the thinker who closely
observes and studies the problems of his country and time, while dealing with those
problems, assesses them and tries to solve them. All these three things are found in
Machiavelli. In his every thought and principle, we get a clear glimpse of the immediate
conditions of Italy, hence he is called the child of his era.
3.4 Factors that influenced Machiavelli’s thoughts
Many factors influenced Machiavelli’s thoughts and his political thought, due to which he is
not only called the child of his era but is considered the forerunner of modern political
thought. The reasons are as follows–
3.4.1 Cultural Movement of the Renaissance– The cultural movement of the Renaissance
was in those days the forerunner of an ideological revolution throughout Europe,
which was very influential in Italy, especially in Florence, the birthplace of
Machiavelli. This movement showed the way to take inspiration from the ideals of the
ancient world by abandoning medieval theories and trends in the field of art and
literature. Philosophy and science were also following the same path. In the field of
policy and religion, originality beyond orthodox outlook was encouraged.
3.4.2 Resurgence of Knowledge– Two forces were working together in the time of
Machiavelli. The first force was the revival of knowledge and the second was of
religious reforms. The revival was an important movement that transformed medieval
Europe into modern Europe. It originated in Italy and reached its zenith in the 15th
century. The resurrection resulted in the emergence of a new outlook towards man
and the world. It instilled a sense of superior values in the lives of the people. The
interpersonal human nature issues surpassed the issues dealing with the relation of
soul and God. Machiavelli filled the spirit of revival in his writings and thoughts. He
adopted a realistic approach with an emphasis on practical approach. He questioned
the roots of the church and religion. The culture of Florence pervaded Machiavelli. He
kept politics away from religiosity, morality, ethics etc.
3.3.3 Political Situation– In the era of Machiavelli, Italy was divided into five kingdoms
and many small princely states, between which there was always the possibility of
war. There was also a city in these states, Florence, where Machiavelli was born. By
the end of the 15th century the influence of the wealthy class was increasing against
the feudatories who retained the power of the king. By this time the supremacy of the
Church had also come to an end and it had taken the form of a national institution.
The centre of all political thought in the Middle Ages was that in heaven there resides
an absolutely irrational God, represented on earth by the Pope of Rome, and that man
is insignificant in comparison to God. Machiavelli was also affected by the situation
in Italy at that time. He felt the need for a more powerful ruler for the unification of
Italy. H. Sabine writes that “The original aim of Machiavelli was not to formulate any
theory of the state but to solve the problems of politics. He was not only a theorist or a

49
 philosopher but also a practical realist. Whatever political theories we find in his
works, they have developed in the process of presenting solutions to practical
problems related to concrete situations. The divided Italy was the main concern for
Machiavelli. It was fully realized that if a strong central government was not
established in Italy, France and Spain would usurp it. Therefore, Machiavelli wanted
the whole of Italy to be tied in the thread of unity. He wished for the emergence of
such an autocratic rule in the country, which would be immersed in the principles of
practical politics.
3.3.4 Social Condition– Machiavelli considers his period to be a period of misfortune,
wherein the moral standard of the people had fallen very low. Corruption and anarchy
prevailed among the people. Everyone was engaged in the fulfillment of his self-
interest. This social predicament had a serious impact on Machiavelli’s heart. For the
unification of the country, he became the priest of power and for this he felt the need
of an autocratic rule and called the national army necessary for this. For this, he also
felt the need to inculcate the feeling of nationalism among the people, which he took
the lead through his works. He blamed the Church for this plight of the country as the
environment was deteriorating due to the intervention of the Pope in every aspect.
According to him, “If we, the people of Italy, have become unrighteous and evil, then
our church is responsible for that, the church has divided our country and is still
keeping it.”
3.3.5 Theory of the Nation-State– The next important aspect of Machiavelli’s life
experiences, which is the main theme of his works, is the theory of the nation-state. In
the Middle Ages, the idea of the universal brotherhood of Christ dominated all
institutions in Europe, and allegiance to the Roman Church was eroding people’s
national identity. But a new era emerged during the youth of Machiavelli, which
demanded that along with the influence of religious authority, the nationality of
individuals should also be recognized. Now the difference between English, French,
German, Italian, Spanish etc. was clearly being accepted in the policy of politicians
and the method of political dialogue. Machiavelli, observing this epoch-making trend
closely, expressed it effectively in his works. In fact, the credit of initiating the
concept of nation-state in the history of thought goes to Machiavelli.
Thus, under the aforesaid events, Machiavelli laid the foundation of secular politics. He was a
great political thinker and diplomat. He was an empiricist and his beliefs and conclusions
were based on psychology. Based on the anarchy prevailing in Italy, he concluded that the
ruler should formulate his policies keeping in mind that human beings are greedy, selfish and
evil by nature. He also placed himself in this category. According to him, the ruler should
protect the life and property of the individuals and he should not take away the ancestral
property of the people. He believed that morality denoted perseverance and bravery.
Maxie and Dunning both said that Machiavelli was a child of his age. Both of them say
that there would hardly be any other thinker except Machiavelli who would have done his
50
entire writing on the basis of the immediate circumstances. According to Dunning, “This
genius-born Florence was truly a child of his times.” Jones writes that “Machiavelli was the
child of Florence and the Renaissance.” He studied ancient literature and history and
separated politics apart from theology and ethics. Jones said that “the reflection of the one in
which Machiavelli was born is fully visible in his works. The importance of the individual,
the importance of nature and its beauty, the infinite development and intellectual reasoning of
man and the study of the realities of the world and the recognition of the inductive method,
all these are the characteristics of his ideology.
Machiavelli, while analysing the plight of his country in his era, realized that the
principle: republican system is the best, but for its success, virtuous, honest and patriotic
citizens are needed. However, in reality it is not possible to have all citizens as patriotic as
required. In order to deal with this reality, he becomes a supporter of totalitarian monarchy.
Machiavelli separated politics from ethics and thus built his ideas on the foundations of
realism. What should be the ideals of politics, what should be the goals of ideal politics of
man, by saying something symbolic on these problems, he becomes completely realistic and
draws his conclusion on the basis of historical facts. That is why he is called the first realist in
the field of politics.
Thus, in the light of the Renaissance after hundred years of old Dark Age of Europe,
Machiavelli opened a new era in the history of political thought by reinventing the trends of
his time in the form of systematic political ideas. The credit of providing a historical and
realistic basis to politics by freeing it from the paradigms of metaphysics and theology also
goes to Machiavelli. But it cannot be denied that the circumstances of his country and time
were so dominated by Machiavelli’s mind that his thinking remained confined to their own
spheres.
Machiavelli reinvigorated a new philosophy to overcome the plight of his country. The
ultimate goal of his philosophy was the interest of his country and its citizens and for the
same he felt the need to establish, preserve and spread the state. For the fulfilment of this
objective, he separated politics from ethics. For the fulfilment of this purpose, he also
allowed the king, who tries to accomplish this great task, to practice all kinds of deceit, falsity
and devious policy. He considered it necessary for the king to be cunning and cunning as he
had seen the cunning and cunning type of autocratic rulers reaching the pinnacle of success in
his era. Therefore, in these circumstances, Machiavelli emerged with his new philosophy.
3.5 Separation of politics from religion and morality
Machiavelli was the first thinker to separate politics from morality and religion. That is why
he is also considered as the first modern thinker. Their separation by Machiavelli is
considered an epoch-making change in the Western world.
Politics and Ethics– The main reason for Machiavelli separating politics from religion
and morality was his personal life experience which completely destroyed his faith in moral
ideals. Machiavelli’s approach was based on reality, he wanted to explore the reality of how
51
man actually acquires and maintains power in practice. That is why his theories are called
realistic and empiricist. Empiricist because his ideas were not imaginary but based on
experience and facts that had happened earlier in history. He was interested in real politics
and not in ideal politics. He said that the establishment and protection of a suitable state
according to the social conditions is the main goal of the society, all other goals are
secondary before it. In this way, keeping the interest of the state at the top, he considered it
good to follow the rules of religion and morality so far as they could be helpful in the defence
and growth of the state. He was a great supporter and admirer of power and skill, that is why
it says that in order to maintain power and become more and more powerful, all those means
should be adopted, no matter how unjust they may be. Therefore, he was a great supporter of
such an accomplished, notorious and autocratic ruler as Caesar Borgia, who had reached the
pinnacle of success with the help of his cruelty and treachery. Machiavelli as the diplomatic
representative of the Republic of Florence, has witnessed the success of autocracy in feudal
countries of Germany, Spain and Italy, which had a great impact on him and he became a
supporter of power. Therefore, he insists on the politics of power, saying that the state should
achieve its goal by whatever means, whether moral or immoral.
Machiavelli believed that political science and policy science are two different sciences,
with different research areas. He says that political science is concerned with the rules of
conduct of the state, whereas the function of ethics is to examine the rules of conduct of
individuals. He puts forth that the directions of these two are exactly opposite to each other.
Machiavelli says that the king represents the fulfilment of the interests of all sections of
society by eliminating conflicts of interest. Therefore, the criterion to evaluate the conduct of
a ruler and an ordinary person will also be different. This distinction is one of Machiavelli’s
most important contributions to political thought. One of his main goals behind what
Machiavelli was primarily concerned about and for which he separated morality from the
political was to somehow make the king powerful and that king could become powerful only
when he renounced morality. He says that for a state to survive for a long time it has to do
politics of power and such politics can never be achieved morally. He has to be immoral.
Keeping these objectives in mind, Machiavelli separated politics from morality. He says that
for the fulfilment of his goal, kings should not pay attention to the morality of the means. To
maintain the power, a king has the discretion to deploy the use of any kind of immoral means
like murder, dishonesty, deceit and pomp. On the basis of this idea, he separates politics from
morality. He writes that “the ruler should mould his personal conduct in such a way that he
should appears before the public with the qualities of kindness and righteousness. However, it
would also be unfair to say that Machiavelli was only a supporter of immorality. He is neither
an opponent of morality nor a supporter of immorality. He supports immorality only for the
purpose of perpetuation of power. He says that if the king can maintain his power for a long
time by following moral grounds, then it will be better, but if morality becomes a hindrance
in the fulfilment of the king’s purpose, then he should not care about morality, but immoral
and his power. Any step should be taken to save it. As Maxie also writes, “In the view of
Machiavelli, the state knows no ethics. What he does is neither moral nor immoral, but

52
absolute virtue is absolute. As far as right and wrong are concerned, the state belongs to the
impotent gender.” Machiavelli writes in his Discourse that when the security of our country is
in danger, one should not worry about what is justice or what is injustice, what is merciful,
what is cruel, and what is commendable. Leaving aside all other considerations, we should do
only that which can protect the country and preserve its freedom. The criterion of good and
bad of Machiavelli and the conclusion of his theory of separation of political science from
ethics is that the work which increases social welfare should be done only in whatever form it
may be. According to him, a good deed is that which is of public welfare and there is no
criterion for good deed except this.
In the words of Sabine, “The way in which Machiavelli kept political interest separate
from morality and religion, a close idea is found in some passages of ‘Politics’ written by
Aristotle. Aristotle has also discussed the ways of protecting the states without paying
attention to the good and bad of them, however it is not certain that Machiavelli considered
these incarnations as his ideal. It is not possible that he had the attention to follow anyone.
Yes, it may be that there has been some connection between his secularism and his naturalist
Aristoteles which inspired the creation of Defensor two centuries ago. Like Marsilea,
Machiavelli also considered the papacy to be the cause of Italy’s split. The views of Marsilea
and Machiavelli are often the same in relation to how useful religion is in worldly matters.
Machiavelli’s secularism goes beyond Maurilio’s secularism. Machiavelli is absolutely free
from religious ramifications.”
Describing Sabine Machiavelli’s theory of separation of political science and ethics,
writes that “Machiavelli takes the extreme example of double standards in ethics. One for the
ruler (MLA) and the other for the private citizen. The criterion of the former is its success in
maintaining and expanding its authority, while the latter is judged by the extent to which its
conduct provides strength to the social party. Since the ruler is outside the party or has at least
a special relationship with it, he rises above the morality that must be enforced within the
party. As the creator of the state, the ruler is not only outside the law, but if the law makes the
rules of morality, then he will also be outside the morality. There is no basis for evaluating
his actions except as to how far his political tactics were successful in increasing and
perpetuating the power of his state.
Machiavelli was a supporter of republican rule. He says that the inhabitants of every
nation cannot be capable of republic because it needs enough ‘virtue’ to maintain it. The
more the lack of virtue in the people of a country, the more corrupt they will be. Corrupt
people are not able to run their own government. Therefore, it is necessary for them to be
dominated by an absolute monarch or an autocratic ruler.
3.5.1 Politics and Religion–
Machiavelli was the first political thinker who separated politics from religion and gave the
principle of secularism. He said that religion is concerned with personal life and religion is
completely different from politics. In the Middle Ages politics was mainly based on religion.

53
It was believed that the king was completely subordinate to the Pope. The Pope is the source
of power. But all these things were unbearable for Machiavelli because he wanted to end the
power of the pope, since in his view this was the biggest obstacle to the unification of Italy.
So, he refuted the notions of the Middle Ages that the king was completely subordinate to the
Pope and that religion was the source of power. He said that both politics and religion are
different and they have nothing to do with each other. In this way he secularized the state and
freed the king from all religious and moral restrictions. His kingdom was secular with no
relation to any divine revelation, religion or God. But Machiavelli considers religion essential
to the state. His kingdom was purely religious as opposed to the divine or religious state of
the Middle Ages. Considering the state as secular, he had put an end to one of the most
important ideas of the Middle Ages, which was called divine law. He refused to accept the
existence of divine law. He separated the temporal from the spiritual and subjugated the
spiritual being while medieval thinkers believed that the spiritual was superior to the
temporal. Foster writes of this that “Machiavelli gives religion a prominent place in the state,
but the place is within the state, not above it, not even next to it.” Machiavelli exhorted his
king to respect the religion his subjects followed. Religion teaches good qualities to the
citizens like humility, acceptance of submission, observance of law etc. He says that it would
be appropriate for a good government to take advantage of this powerful tool instead of
neglecting religion and control the anti-social tendencies of the people. In the opinion of
Machiavelli, “the best restraint on the evil and anarchist tendencies of man is religion.” He
presents his religious views with the example of how Rome’s policy was encouraged by
cleverly taking advantage of the religious sentiments of the masses. Machiavelli knew very
well that the state could not develop if the citizens obeyed the orders of the state only out of
fear and punishment of the ruler. Machiavelli considers religious sentiments to be an
important instrument of state policy. The king should use religion and religious sentiments to
maintain his power. He wants people to be religious because religious sentiments can be used
for the security of the state.
According to the doctrine of the Middle Ages, the earthly ruler was the custodian of
human law and the church was the custodian of divine law. The functions and scope of these
two powers were different from each other. The Church was superior to the earthly ruler
because the supernatural goal of man was more important than his natural goal. Machiavelli
considered the authority of the Pope against the unification of Italy and for this reason
opposed the papacy. Machiavelli criticizes Christian doctrine, saying that “I think that these
principles have made men cowards. Evil people can easily control them. Cowardly men are
always longing for heaven, they bear the brunt, they do not take revenge.”
3.6 Governance Considerations
Like Aristotle, Machiavelli also divided the government into three classes: monarchy,
oligarchy and republic. Similar to the considerations of Polybius and Cicero, mixed
governance is considered to be the best system, because it incorporates the good qualities of
each system of governance and maintains proper balance of power and control. Yet he has

54
only described in detail the monarchy and the republican system of governance. He has
discussed monarchy in his book Prince and republic in Discourses. Machiavelli believes that
neither a monarchy or a republic system of government is suitable for all circumstances.
Different systems of governance may be appropriate in different social and economic
conditions. Monarchy is suitable in certain circumstances, republic in other circumstances.
3.7 Duties of Ruler
In order to make the system powerful and stable, Machiavelli has mentioned the principles in
the 18th chapter of Prince, according to which the king should conduct, so he gave the
following suggestions to the king–
3.7.1 Earning Power– The principle of politics is neither religion nor morality. Its basic
mantra is power. Therefore, the king should make continuous efforts to gain power,
maintain power and expand power. Only by being powerful the ruler can protect the
state from external aggression and maintain peace and order inside the state.
3.7.2 Reason of the State– Machiavelli has also propounded the principle called
‘Conscience of the State’. Its essence means that whatever means is appropriate for
the defence and expansion of the state should be adopted. Defining the ‘conscience of
the state’ in Discourses, Machiavelli wrote, “In making decisions for the security of
the state, justice or injustice, humanity or cruelty, pride or shame should not be taken
into account.” Keeping all these thoughts aside, only one question should be
considered that ‘what path should be adopted to protect the life and liberty of the
motherland’.
3.7.3 The king should use inculcate, inveigle, punishment and dissimilation according
to the need. The king should be a polymath. He should display human qualities in
front of the public, but he should not be a slave of virtues.
4. Machiavelli has mentioned ‘Lion and Fox theory’ for the ruler or king, that is, the ruler
should be as strong as a lion and cunning as a fox.
5. The attention of the ruler should be focused on maintaining the unity, security and
royalty of the state.
6. The ruler should not do the task of punishing himself. He should get this work done by
his officials. The benefit of this would be for the rulers that he would get an opportunity
to put the infamy and slander on the head of the officials.
3.8 Machiavelli’s Statecraft
Machiavelli, considering politics as a matter of power and control, says that it is the art of
earning, preserving and spreading power. He writes in his book The Prince that “The function
of government is to control the subjects in such a way that no one can harm you and there
should be no reason by which they want to harm you.” He said that the highest goal of
politics is public utility, which should be concerned with the safety and welfare of the

55
community and not for the accomplishment of any extra-terrestrial end. That is, the state is an
end in itself. He cannot be hindered by moral bonds. The aim of politics is to establish a
strong government. Machiavelli argues that when there is a lack of virtue in the people, the
king should impart virtue. But when the unity and integrity of the nation is in danger, he
should protect the interest of the nation by keeping all moral ideals aside. He says that the
king should be like a lion in body and like a fox in mind.
3.9 Summary
Machiavelli’s theory is a remarkable contribution in the history of political thought, which
cannot be ignored. The principle of separation of morality and religion from politics and
power propounded by him is being adopted all over the world today. He was the first modern
thinker who envisioned a sovereign, unitary, secular, national and independent existentialist
state. He was also the first modern realist who suggested that the state should survive for
itself and should aim for its own protection and interest. The main function of the government
is to protect the life and property of the citizens, its main idea has been. All his ideas are
based on logic and evidence. That is why he is a name to reckon with in the sphere of
pragmatist or realistic politics. He said that the ruler should adopt all possible means for the
security of the state, even if those means were against religion and morality. He was not
against morality and religion but believed that these should be used for the good of the state.
The reality is that Machiavelli’s ideas of religion and morality are certainly an epoch-making
change.
3.10 Exercises
1. What was Machiavelli’s views on religion?
………………………………………………………………………………………….…
………………………………………………………………………………………….…
………………………………………………………………………………………….…
…………………………………………………………………………………………….
2. Machiavelli was the first political scientist. do you agree
………………………………………………………………………………………….…
………………………………………………………………………………………….…
………………………………………………………………………………………….…
…………………………………………………………………………………………….
3. Machiavelli was the child of his time. Explain
………………………………………………………………………………………….…
………………………………………………………………………………………….…
………………………………………………………………………………………….…
…………………………………………………………………………………………….

56
4. ‘Machiavelli was the child of his times’ whose statement is this?
a. Dunning b. Hobbes c. Marx D- Sabine
5. Which of the following is the book of Machiavelli.
a. Politics b. Republic c. The Prince d- Capital

3.11 References and Suggested Readings

1. Mukherjee, Subrata., & Ramaswamy, Sushila. (2018) A History of Political Thought:
Plato to Marx. PHI Learning Private Limited. Delhi. (2nd Edition)
2. Boucher, David., & Kelly, Poul (Eds.) (2009). Political Thinkers: From Socrates to the
Present. Oxford University Press (2nd Edition)
3. Strauss, Leo., (1995) Thought on Machiavelli. University of Chicago Press.
4. Sabine, G. H., (2019) A History of Political Theory, Oxford University Press. (4th
Edition)
5. Ebenstein, Alan., (1999) Great Political Thinkers, S, Chand $Company Ltd. (6th
Edition)

57
 Unit-4 : Possessive Individualism

(a) Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)

Dr. Nishant Kumar

Structure

 Life Sketch
 Philosophy and Method
 Human Nature
 State of Nature
 Social Contract and the Sovereign
 Hobbes on Liberty
 Hobbes and the Idea of Political Obligation
 Individualism vs. Absolutism Debate
 Practice Questions
 Suggested Readings

Life Sketch
Thomas Hobbes is credited to be one of the most important English philosophers of all times.
He was born in 1588, the year in which the Spanish Armada, sent by Philip II of Spain, who
saw himself as the main defender of the Catholic faith in Europe, was defeated by the
Protestant monarch of England. As a student he did very well to be selected for University of
Oxford for higher studies and stayed there from 1603 to 1608. After his studies he went to
work with the Cavendish family as a teacher of William Cavendish. During his scholarship
he came in close contacts with the Royal Society where he came in methodological disputes
with Henry Boyle. Later he also interacted with the famous philosopher Descartes and all
these exchanges had significant impact on his philosophy. He enjoyed his privileges during
the rule of Charles I who ruled in an autocratic manner due to his differences with
Parliament. After 11 years of struggle, in 1640, Parliament tried to abolish the king’s
discretionary powers. When Charles I attempted to suspend the Parliament in 1642, the Civil
War began. After some reversal the Parliamentary faction won and Charles I was executed in
1649 and Charles II was made king by the Parliament. Hobbes spent around ten years in exile
in Paris due to the Civil war that broke out in England and returned only in 1651 after Charles
II lost power to Cromwell. His most famous work Leviathan was written during his period in
exile.
Hobbes wrote various books which were well reputed, like The Elements of Law in the
1630, De Cive in 1642 and Leviathan in 1651. Living in England in the turbulent times,

58
Hobbes’s first published an English translation of Thucydides’s History of the Peloponnesian
War in 1628. Hobbes also wrote two tracts: Human Nature, or, the Fundamental Elements of
Policie and De Corpore Politico, or, The Elements of Law, Moral and Politick although he
published them, together, only in 1650. In these writings, Hobbes stressed the need for
absolute sovereignty. He spent the next 11 years in exile, returning to England only in 1651.
During these years of exile, he wrote De Cive, in Latin, in 1642, which he published in 1651
in English as Philosophical Rudiments concerning Government and Society. During his
participation in Royalist circle, he began teaching mathematics to the future king Charles II,
who was also in exile in Paris. It was during these years that Hobbes produced the
masterpiece, which was the last book of his political theory series, Leviathan, which he
published in 1651. In spite of reiterating the argument for absolute sovereignty, Leviathan
(for reasons we will go into later) so offended the Royalist lobby that they might have killed
Hobbes had he not returned to England in 1651 and sought the protection of the revolutionary
government. Having offended Parliamentarians, the Royalists and the religious establishment,
Hobbes led a precarious existence in England. The political work that he wrote next,
Behemoth, his version of the English Civil War, was refused permission for publication, and
only came out posthumously.
His meetings with the mathematicians Mersenne and Gassendi, and with Descartes and
Galileo in Europe, as well as his discussions with Francis Bacon in England, had convinced
him of the rightness of his turn away from scholasticism. Hobbes wanted to construct a
theory of politics based on scientific method. The science that attracted him most was
geometry, and he saw himself as proving theorems about politics in Leviathan. If virtue was
the dominant idea of classical and medieval Western political philosophy, then liberty can be
said to be clarion call of modern political philosophy. Hobbes marks a sharper break from
earlier political thought, because he not only foregrounds liberty, but also makes the idea of
moral goodness dependent on liberty, instead of other way around.
Philosophy and Method
Hobbes method is often referred to “methodological individualism” or “scientific
individualism” or “scientific materialism”. He begins his philosophy with the individual.
Hobbes introduced materialism in philosophy under the influence of the 17th century
scientific development. His philosophy begins with a materialistic view of the world. Because
of this strictly materialistic view of life, Hobbes naturally discards the philosophy of
Descartes, which is based on a separation of mind and matter. For in his view, mind also is a
matter. He argued that everything in the world was composed of matter. After taking
everything of the world as matter, Hobbes proceeds to argue that matter is in continuous
motion. In the same vein, Hobbes argues that “when a body is once in motion, it moveth,
unless something else hinder [sic] it, eternally”. Man also is matter and hence, in motion. In
the light of this argument, Hobbes points out that the matter of the world in motion awakens
the sense organs of man that cause further motions within him which are his sensations. This
is how Hobbes develops his philosophy of materialism along with his theory of motion,

59
thanks to the influence of Galileo. Hobbes believed that there were two kinds of motion
inherently attached to human beings: vital motions, like the circulation of blood or, the
beating of one’s pulse, and voluntary motions. Voluntary motions or ‘endeavour’, as Hobbes
calls them, are basically of two kinds: either towards an object or away from an object. He
strongly held a negative view about human nature asserting that Human beings were full of
appetites and aversions, and their aim in life was only to satisfy their desires marked by greed
and self-interest.
Being constituted by matter, man is also governed by the rules of cause-effect. That is,
whenever he does something, some consequences follow. So, when his motion goes forward
towards something in his favor it is called a desire. On the contrary, when this motion goes
against something, it is man’s aversion. This is how Hobbes develops his moral principle
based on the determination of good and bad. At the same time, the fact that man is
consistently in motion, he chases desires after desires. Even when one desire is satisfied, he
continues to be in motion to achieve or satisfy other desires and this movement ends only in
death. Also, man in order to satisfy his desires, uses his reason, so for Hobbes, reason is also
a slave of desires.
Human Nature
In order to develop his political philosophy, Hobbes analyses human nature first. He argues
that man consistently worked to satisfy his desires. If he succeeds in achieving what he
desired he called it pleasure and good, and if he failed, he called it pain or evil. In order to
achieve the desired goals, human beings use their power and continue to multiply their power
(both physical and mental) to assure that he is able to achieve what he desires. So, according
to Hobbes life was a “perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceasath only in
death”. He imagined an essentially negative picture of human nature which is selfish and
governed by desires. On this basis he differentiated man from other natural creatures like
bees, who stayed in common bonds. Man, on the other hand does not stay in society for its
own sake but because it profited them.
The fact that man’s desires are limitless, and resources limited, often his desires and
interests come in conflict with other individuals. This leads to competition, rivalry, perpetual
insecurity and physical conflict. Hobbes also believes that when power of different
individuals is compared (both intellectual and physical power together), they are almost
same. He says “nature hath made men so equal, in the faculties of body, and mind; as that
when all is reckoned together, the difference between man, and man; is not considerable”.
This makes situation worse, because in the context of constant struggle including physical
conflict, no man is sure of his survival. So there is a mutual fear of death and concern for
self-preservation that also forms an important part of his character.
State of Nature
After developing an understanding about human nature, Hobbes proceeded to imagine of a
time in society where there was no state or sovereign. This is termed by social contractualists
60
like Hobbes as “the state of nature”. According to Hobbes, it was a state of chaos, lies and
insincerity where all individuals were aiming to serve personal interests driven by desires.
Hence there was no idea of rights or justice in this state of being. He imagined the state of
nature to be such a stage of society where there could be no place for industry primarily
because “the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently, no culture of the earth; no
navigation; nor use of commodities that may be imported by sea; …… no account of time; no
arts; no letters; no society.”
Limitations of resources along with mutually overlapping interests made it a state of
constant warfare. According to Hobbes, the reasons for this conflict were three-competition,
mutual distrust and desire for glory: “The first makes man invade for gain; the second, for
safety; and the third for reputation”. This fierce competition among the people, according to
Hobbes, resulted in a state of perpetual war or, as Hobbes said, “A condition of war of every
one against every one”. In this deadly state of things, all the positive steps of man were
inactivated. As a result, in the midst of “this crisis of civilization”, human life became
“solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”. So, there was uncertainty and constant threat to self
preservation.
As a result, reason guides them to find a way out of the state of nature, and this was only
possible through the creation of a sovereign. Notwithstanding the situation in state of nature,
men continued their loyalty to the laws of nature. To Hobbes, it may be noted, law of nature
is synonymous with reason. According to him, law of nature or reason instructs man to avoid
those things which are harmful for his life, take away from him the means of self-
preservation and lead him to dismiss whatever is the best way to protect himself. There are
passages in Leviathan, which present the laws of nature being a product of rational judgment,
as rules which guide humans to achieve what one desired. Hobbes lists as many as 19 laws of
nature, with some of the important ones being the following: The first law of nature guides
men “to seek Peace, and to follow it”. According to the second law of nature, “a man be
willing, when others are so too, as far-forth, as for Peace, and defence of himself he shall
think it necessary, to lay down his right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty
against other men, as he would allow other men against himself”. The third law suggested
men to “perform their covenants made”; ninth law commanded that “every man
acknowledged the other four is equal by Nature”, and the seventeenth said that “no men be
allowed to be charged in his own case”. If we look at the content of these laws of nature, we
can see how Hobbes would argue that human reason in the form of the laws of nature,
persuaded human beings that it was better for them to exit the state of nature because in a
perpetual threat to their lives and well-being the chances for them to achieve what they
desired was grim.
Social Contract and the Sovereign
In the post-Renaissance Europe, Hobbes was the first political theorist to introduce the idea
of social contract. Prior to Hobbes, it may be noted, only two political theorists discussed
about the origin of the state. One was Aristotle and the other was Bodin, but they dealt with
61
this question completely from different angles. Aristotle enquired into the origin of the state
in the perspective of his teleological philosophy. Bodin, on the contrary, was led by his
method to a theory of the origin of the state. As he believed in the historical method, he felt
that to determine the nature of the state it is necessary to go story behind, and so he presented
a theory of the origin of the state. To comprehend the nature of the state, Hobbes goes back to
its cause, that is, attempts an analysis of the origin of the state.
After setting the ideational perspective of social contract, Hobbes showed how men who
lived in the state of nature agreed and reached to a contract. According to him, when the felt
insecure in the state of war, they realized that the only way to have safety and security was to
identify a common power which would be much stronger than their combined power.
Furthermore, the only way for men living in the state of nature to institute this common
power, which may be constituted by one person or a group or person is, to surrender by way
of a contract to this common power all their right and power, their will power and power of
judgment, that is, whatever they own and possess. In this way, Hobbes contended, the state of
nature ultimately came to an end and in its place emerged a political order with a sovereign
power at its top. Speaking about the mutual promise Hobbes said: “I authorise and give up
my Right of Governing myself, to this Man, or to this Assembly of men, on this condition,
that you give up your Right to him, and Authorise all his Actions in like manner. This done,
the Multitude so united in one Person, is called a Commonwealth, in Latin Civitas”.
Here is another way in which Hobbes talks of social contract: “A Commonwealth is said
to be Instituted, when a Multitude of men do Agree, and Covenant, every one, with every one,
that to whatsoever Man, or Assembly of Men, shall be given by the major part, the Right to
Present the Person of them all, (that is to say, to be their Representative); every one, as well
he that Voted for it, as he that Voted against it, shall Authorise all the Actions and Judgments,
of that Man, or assembly of men, in the same manner, as if they were his own, to the end, to
live peaceably amongst themselves, and be protected against other men”.
The contract hence reached produced the civil society and the political authority
simultaneously. Hobbes mentions some important characteristics of the contract by means of
which a sovereign power came into existence. These also define the nature and scope of
sovereign’s powers according to Hobbes.
 First, according to him, the contract made by the people to exit the war-torn state of
nature was made by them amongst themselves. Naturally, this contract was binding on
them. But the common sovereign power that emerged out of it had no obligation
whatsoever to go by the terms of the contract as it was not made with him. Hence, the
sovereign had a responsibility to ensure peace and protection for the people. But in
case of his failure to discharge this responsibility, nothing could be done against him,
that is, people had no right to rise against him on the ground of breach of contract as
he was not a party to the contract.

62
  Second, Hobbes continued, even if people were disgruntled with the functioning of
the sovereign, they had no right to abrogate the contract and make a new contract
replacing the sovereign by a new one. For as they voluntarily instituted the sovereign
by means of a contract they consented to, every action of the sovereign would be
treated as their own action. The sovereign, therefore, could not do any wrong or
injustice to them, because an individual would never like to commit any wrong or do
any injustice to himself.
 Third, on the same ground, the subjects had no right to kill the sovereign or give him
any punishment. For that would amount to killing or giving punishment to
themselves.
 Fourth, the sovereign alone had the right to judge what conditions or opinions were
detrimental and what were conducive to maintaining peace.
 Fifth, the sovereign would frame the rules “whereby every man may know what
goods he may enjoy, and what actions he may do, without being molested by any of
his fellow-subjects”.
 Sixth, the sovereign alone had, in the words of Hobbes, “the right of judicature, that is
to say, of hearing and deciding all controversies which may arise concerning law,
either civil or natural, or concerning fact”. This meant that the sovereign would enjoy
all judicial powers.
 Similarly, the sovereign only would be the legislative authority. He would be the
maker of all laws. Such laws are his command which be written or even oral. Since he
is the maker of laws, none, except himself, may abrogate these laws. On the same
ground, he is not subject to such laws. Furthermore, according to Hobbes the
sovereign is armed with extreme coercive power.
The sovereign had fundamental role in society. He was duty bound to govern the society in
order to protect civil society from disruptions. For this purpose, the sovereign was well within
its right to restrict freedom of expression, earmark artificial religion and ban its practice,
censor literature that is harmful for society, limit or seize subjects’ property, pronounce war
on other nations or engage in peace deals, resolving disputes through its role as judicature,
appoint ministers, magistrates, counsellors and other officers. Further he had complete
authority to distribute awards, honors and privileges as well as confer punishments. But most
important was the duty of the sovereign to protect the people and provide a sense of security
and for this it was also expected to subvert rebellions. For these functions and Hobbes laid
down seven injunctions:
 Firstly, Hobbes claimed that the people had a patriotic commitment to status quo as
social changes have a tendency to spill beyond control.
 Second, he suggested that populist leaders acting as demagogues must be resisted.
 Third, masses should have respect and faith on established government.

63
  Fourth, Hobbes suggested the need for proper socialization and civic education.
 Fifth, the citizens must be disciplined and for this, proper values needed to be
inculcated at home.
 Sixth, people should be taught about law and order, and not to use violence or seek
private revenge against persons who indulge in dishonor or violation of his property.
Rather they must have faith in the sovereign to serve them justice.
 Seventh, Hobbes had deep faith in universities as centers that would help in educating
and training the future citizens in the right spirit under the guidance from the
Leviathan as only proper training in right spirit and attitude could inculcate
appropriate behavior among citizens.
It can be summed up that according to the social contract theory, the state is not a natural
institution, but one created to fulfill the needs of society. Sovereign hence created was the
legitimate authority to exercise power. The contract could not be revoked because if done,
men will return to the state of nature. Further, the rights of the sovereign guaranteed by
contract were inseparable, undivided and inalienable. So sovereign rises as the all powerful
whose powers are unquestionable.
Hobbes on Liberty
By defining liberty as the “absence of external impediments to motion”, Hobbes became the
progenitor of what Berlin later called the negative theory of freedom. “A Free Man, is he, that
in those things, which by his strength and wit he is able to do, is not hindered to do what he
has a will to”, he opined. In this definition, it is clear that Hobbes is distinguishing between
liberty and power. For Hobbes, the only things one is not free to do, are those things which
the sovereign has expressly forbidden by its laws. Liberty, then, is the silence of the laws.
Just as the absence of power does not necessarily mean absence of freedom, similarly, for
Hobbes, the presence of fear does not make one devoid of freedom, either. Hobbes is making
this same point when he argues that in ways of establishing a commonwealth-by institution or
by acquisition-the subjects must be said to have consented to the rule of the sovereign of their
own free will. A commonwealth is instituted when individuals voluntarily come together in a
social contract. A commonwealth is established by acquisition, however, when it is
conquered by a new sovereign. Even in this case, if the subjects choose to stay in the
commonwealth, and obey the new laws out of fear, they are to be taken as having consented
to the new sovereign.
Hobbes and the Idea of Political Obligation
According to many theorists, the basis of the long-term stability of any government is the
obligation its people feel to obey its laws. What kind of theory of political obligation did
Hobbes espouse, is an extremely controversial subject. There are several positions on this.
There is what is called the traditional interpretation of Hobbes, associated with Watkins and
Nagel, according to which Leviathan has no notion of moral obligation at all. When Hobbes

64
writes that contracts have no standing in the state of nature because there is no one to enforce
their being followed, he is accepting that contracts are obeyed only when there is fear of
punishment, that is, for prudential reasons and not because one feels obliged because one has
entered into a contract.
Opposed to this idea is the position that is popularly called the Taylor-Warrender thesis.
According to this idea, Hobbes certainly had a theory of moral obligation, but the basis of this
obligation was not only the fact that individuals had agreed to a covenant. It was asserted that
Hobbes treated the laws of nature not only as a product of rational pragmatic judgment, but
also as set of commands from God. What obliged citizens to obey the laws of the state
therefore was not the promise to each other to obey the sovereign, but rather, the laws of
nature which commands us to keep our covenants. All the laws of nature have an obligatory
force. So, individuals do not just obey the laws of the state out of fear; they consider it their
duty to obey them, deriving this duty, according to Warrender, from the commands of God.
According to these scholars, Hobbes is able to sustain the position of the sovereign on the
basis of a theory of political obligation, after all.
One can list the following basis of political obligation in the theory of Hobbes:
 First, there was a punitive aspect attached with non-obedience, that is individuals
disobeyed, they could be punished.
 Second, other than fear of punishment, there was also a moral consideration attached
with the honouring of contract because the first three laws of nature instructed each
individual to follow and obey the contract provided all others did the same. In fact, it
is also the stated duty of the Leviathan to ensure that all parties respected the terms of
the contract.
 Third, there was also a political reason inherent to the obedience. Each citizen had
duly consented voluntarily in producing the sovereign and authorized it with all its
powers to act on their behalf as their savior. So it was only politically prudent to
respect the covenant.
 Last, Hobbes also presented a religious argument. He opined that there was no
difference between law of nature and the civil law. Consequently, both were to be
obeyed, as laws of nature were in a way presented as commands of God for building a
peaceful and prosperous society.
There has been a lot of disagreement and debate among scholars about the nature of political
obligation reflected in Hobbes’s political philosophy particularly with respect to the social
contract. For example, Leo Strauss in his book The Political philosophy of Hobbes opines
that Hobbes’s idea of political obligation was primarily physical. He asserts that the
sovereign being all powerful deserved the respect and had the capacity to force obedience. In
case any subject refused the sovereign also enjoyed the right to punish as his authority is
legitimate and enforceable.

65
 A.E. Taylor in his famous article The Ethical Doctrine of Hobbes takes a very different
position. He claimed that in the reason for obeying the sovereign, unlike the more popular
belief in the prudential obligation, lay a more ethical aspect. He places a deontological
understanding to the subject by arguing that political obligation was not linked to human
psychology but rather flowed from the principles of natural laws that he advocated. These
laws became the guiding force for obedience and maxims guiding human behavior under the
social contract.
Warrender in his book The Political Philosophy of Hobbes reiterates a similar position.
He claimed that Hobbes’ political obligation is not dependent on human psychology, but
rather on the natural laws which Hobbes covertly also presents as the will or command of
God. Warrender held that in Hobbes theory we find motive and obligation, and each needs to
be understood and treated separately. The system of motive ended with the principle of self-
preservation being achieved when the escape from state of nature was achieved through the
social contract. However, obligation or continued obedience has a logic of its own. It was
based on the obligation to obey the natural law as it was natural law that guided humans to
peace, but more importantly they are also command of God that needs obedience at all cost.
Michael Oakeshot refuted that Hobbes’ obligation was primarily based on individual
self-interest. In a way, he also disagrees with Leo Strauss. Contrarily, he proposes a different
interpretation whereby he looks at Hobbes’s political philosophy as proposing a mixed form
of obligation consisting of physical, rational and moral obligations. He claimed that moral
obligation was based on obedience to the will of sovereign, not because it served their self-
interest, but because the citizens had voluntarily agreed for the contract. There was also
physical obligation as the sovereign was the legitimate controller of supreme power conferred
upon him by the covenant and could use his authority to impose obedience, failing which
they could face punishment. Last, there was also rational obligation which was based on
rational judgment of individual as he desired peace and order because their security is of
foremost importance as it was the sole reason for which they agreed to submit all their rights
and liberties (other than right to self-preservation) for the contract.
C. B. Macpherson contended that Hobbes’s view of human nature was based on a
reductive understanding of man’s behavior, which assumed it in the context of materialistic
bourgeoisie society which was guided by the market forces and reflected the version of
human individual that Hobbes was advocating. He claimed that this vision was not
universally valid and hence the claim of obligation reflected essentially selfish motives of the
individuals and was governed essentially by self-interest.
Pitkin proposes the idea of ‘hypothetical consent’ and claimed that rational beings based
on their rational judgment wished to avoid the state of nature in order to do away anarchy and
perpetual war. Following the laws of nature was a rational choice that citizens chose for their
self-preservation and everything else followed from this basic understanding. Therefore,
according to Pitkin this desire for self-preservation is the guiding force behind all forms of
obligation and any rational citizen would follow these principles.
66
Individualism vs. Absolutism Debate
Another important debate regarding Hobbes’s political philosophy was whether he was an
individualist or absolutist. Individualism assigns primacy to individual human beings and
views any other aspect of political institutions as only flowing from the needs and choices of
individuals in society. On the other hand, absolutism was a system of government in which a
ruler’s power is not subject to constitutional framework and presents the sovereign as all
powerful. Some scholars have claimed that in Hobbes’s political philosophy we can find
simultaneous presence of the individualist as well as absolutist understanding of the state.
John Dunn, for example, argued that although Hobbes’s premise was individualistic and
liberal, his conclusions tilted towards absolutism and reflected traces of centralization of
power. Based on this Dunn concludes that Hobbes’s philosophy contained both liberal and
illiberal features. It was liberal because society was conceived to contain free and equal
beings. These individuals were governed by their choices and desires and acted accordingly.
They are pictured as egoistic and selfish but are under no external compulsion for their
choices. The illiberal aspect in his theory emanates from the fact Hobbes held that in order to
free themselves from the vagaries of state of nature, these free individuals would agree to a
contract that would seriously limit all their liberties and rights, thereby producing a sovereign
who could provide them security and prevent anarchy. The rule of this absolute sovereign has
been legitimized by Hobbes by constructing various basis of political obligations, and at the
same time not allowing any check and balance to his power. Such a sovereign it is believed
have tyrannical tendencies and smelt of arbitrariness in absence of any effective provision for
right to protest.ne.
Sabine claimed that absolutism in Hobbes in no way sidelined the importance or
centrality of; it only created effective mechanism for self-preservation by developing an
organic community and eliminating the conditions of anarchy and perpetual war of all against
all. Social contract that created the sovereign state was only meant to make life better and in
absence of security and protection of life, there was no possibility that the individual could
enjoy its rights and liberties or develop its individualism in any constructive way. But at the
same time, Sabine maintained that Hobbes’s individuals being selfish and egoistic might not
enjoy the rule by the sovereign as there is always a threat that in the interest of the collective,
individual desires are crushed and suppressed.
On the other hand, scholars like Wolin claimed that Hobbes reflected the image of an
unadulterated individualist, so much so, that he is ready to accept extreme authority in order
to protect individualism. Wolin views the sovereign only as a byproduct of Hobbes’s
commitments to protect and promote individuality and so cannot be charged of advocating
absolutism.
But why Hobbes advocated an absolutely powerful state?
As Bertrand Russell rightly says, “Hobbes...was obsessed by the fear of anarchy”. He felt
that this anarchy would do severe harm to the people. Second, it may be said, in order to
67
show how man’s life would be at stake in the absence of a powerful state, Hobbes in the
context of his portrayal of the state of nature produced his theory of state. Third, it is to be
noted that Hobbes in his theory mainly focused not on the state but on the sovereign of the
state. Among his predecessors, Bodin was the first thinker to lay emphasis on the concept of
sovereignty. He showed that without sovereignty, the state is non-existent. But he was unable
to adduce sufficient and convincing arguments to prove that the sovereignty of the state has
limitless powers.
In his defense, Hobbes states that his commonwealth is an absolute but minimal state.
There might not be any unjust laws-since justice is defined by law, and law is the command
of the sovereign-but Hobbes does distinguish between good and bad laws. In answering own
question, “what is a good law?”, Hobbes writes that “the use of Law is not to bind the People
from all Voluntary actions; but to direct and keep them in such a motion, as not to hurt
themselves by their own impetuous desires, rashness, or indiscretion, as Hedges are set, not to
stop travelers but to keep them in the way”. Good laws, according to him, are those which do
not interfere too much with the life of the citizens, for instance, in their economic dealings
with one another, in how they educate their children, the institution of the family, etc.
The fact that there is no consensus regarding Hobbes position on individualism, as the
end he arrived at was a leviathan, which was an image of sovereign close to an absolutist,
therefore Hobbes is not considered to be father of liberalism and rather it is John Locke who
has been assigned this title.
Practice Questions

 Explain Hobbes’s views on human nature and state of nature and its relevance in his
theory of state.
………………………………………………………………………………………….…
……………………………………………………………………………………….……
…………………………………………………………………………………….………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
 What according to Hobbes, are the main characteristics of the Sovereign created through
the social contract?
………………………………………………………………………………………….…
……………………………………………………………………………………….……
…………………………………………………………………………………….………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
 Discuss the idea of Political obligation in Hobbes’s social contract theory.
………………………………………………………………………………………….…
……………………………………………………………………………………….……
…………………………………………………………………………………….………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
68
 Was Hobbes an absolutist or an individualist? Explain.
………………………………………………………………………………………….…
……………………………………………………………………………………….……
…………………………………………………………………………………….………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
Suggested Readings
 Baumgold, D. (2009) ‘Hobbes’, in D. Boucher and P. Kelly (eds) Political Thinkers:
From Socrates to the Present. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 189-206.
 Macpherson, C. (1962). The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism: Hobbes to
Locke. Oxford University Press, Ontario, pp. 194-214.
 Mukhopadhyay, A. K. (1988). Western political thought: from Plato to Marx. K. P.
Bagchi & company: Calcutta.
 Nelson, Brian R. (1996). Western Political thought: from Socrates to the age of ideology.
Waveland press Inc: Illinois.
 McClelland, J. S. (1996) .A history of western political thought. Routledge: London.

69
 (b) John Locke (1632-1704)
Dr. Nishant Kumar

Structure
 Life Sketch
 Locke on Human Understanding/ Empiricism
 Locke’s Political Ideas and Critique of Filmer
 The State of Nature
 Locke as Natural Right Theorist and his Views on Private Property
 Locke as Father of Liberalism
 On Toleration
 Practice Questions
 Suggested Readings

Life Sketch
John Locke was born in 1632 in England. While Locke was growing up he was witness to the
English Civil War and by the time he was a young man it was already over. However, the
struggles and contestations for supremacy and control between the Monarchy and the
Parliament continued. After finishing school, in 1652, Locke joint Christ Church College at
the University of Oxford, where he also began to teach after getting his degree. The young
Locke, surprisingly, was rather conservative. His early Two Tracts of Government shows him
to be a supporter of absolute monarchy, and of religious uniformity. Extreme position on
political absolutism changed in Essay on Toleration (1667), written one year after locks
association with Shaftesbury. Locke’s major work were all written and published rather late
in his life. He is well known for Essays Concerning Human Understanding (1690), Two
Treaties of Government (1690), and Four Letters Concerning Toleration, of which Second
Letter on Toleration (1690) is most famous. He is widely recognized as one of the most
seminal English philosophers of the Enlightenment age and one among the first of British
empiricists following the footsteps of Francis Bacon, but he is most widely known among
students and scholars of Political Science as the “Father of Liberalism”.
Locke on Human Understanding/ Empiricism
Locke’s philosophy, like that of Plato, centered around epistemology. He takes his cue from
materialist philosophy of Hobbes. Locke extends Hobbesian materialism to his epistemology
or, to put it differently, the question he put begins with in his Essays Concerning Human
Understanding is how man knows the material world. According to Locke, every subject,

70
logic and mathematics may be known only through material experience. That is why he is
also classified as an empiricist.
To him, the mind of man is a tabula rasa, that is, like a clean slate where there is no idea,
in fact nothing. How, then, does it receive knowledge? Locke answers, only through
experience. He argues that there is no apriori knowledge. If there were innate knowledge,
there should have been some agreements on basic principles among men. But men disagree
even on most basic moral knowledge and even accept moral laws after a lot of reasoning. So,
he argues, men are born devoid of any ideas. There is no innate knowledge and it is only
gather ideas based on experience.
Ideas may be simple or complex. Like atoms combine to develop complex physical
objects, ideas too combine to form greater ideas or complex ideas. Simple ideas on the other
hand develop through experience. In other words, all knowledge is the result of experience.
This experience, Locke continues, may be earned through two means-one is sensation and the
other, perception or reflection. Sensation tells us about things and processes in external world
through sight hearing, touch, smell and taste. Reflections, on the other hand, tell us about the
operations of our minds like thinking, willing, believing, doubting etc. The sensations which
reach the mind through sense organs by the stroke of the external world, when united in the
mind, give birth to ideas, and it is these ideas that generate knowledge. Simple ideas may be
of four types- single sense ideas like sound, sight; ideas like shape and size that emanate from
a simultaneous activity of more than one sense like sight and touch etc; ideas that come by
reflection like perception; and those that come from combination of sensation and reflection
like pleasure and pain, existence etc. Hence, as the external material world is the source of
knowledge, mind has no active role in producing knowledge.
There is a difference between two types of simple ideas that we receive from sensation-
those we receive and that resembles their cause out in the world, while others that do not.
First is ideas of primary qualities- texture, size, shape, motion. Then those that do not
resemble their cause are ideas of secondary qualities– colour, sound, taste, odour. The main
difference is of explanation. When we feel a book is square, we mean that something in world
can explain that, in this case a shape. But when a sensation of blue comes, the cause is not
blueness as it is not present in outside world. So, secondary qualities do not have real basis in
world. Therefore, secondary qualities depend on primary qualities. Like when we see almond,
we say it is wheatish, oily, white etc. In the primary qualities, mind’s role is rather passive
and in second active. Primary qualities therefore are independent of our perception of them,
whereas the secondary properties are related to those characteristic features that appear in the
mind of perceiver instantly during the moment of perception.
So, according to Locke, we receive the knowledge about objective world via simple
sensations that are produced in us by the object which give rise to simple and complex ideas.
It gives information about both primary and secondary qualities. As secondary qualities are
not actually properties of object, they are not fixed and stable therefore serious inquiry should
confine itself to primary qualities. But these primary qualities are qualities of “physical
71
substance” therefore ideas are caused by physical substance. What we know immediately are
ideas alone and have no way to know whether these ideas do or do not resemble things. What
we are sure about are ideas or clusters of qualities. Ideas cannot subsist by themselves.
Substance is that which is capable of producing simple ideas- a support in which the primary
qualities are inherent. On the question about substance, however, Locke maintained that
though he knew it existed, but what it was he did not know.
Locke held that Knowledge was something that our mind was able to perceive by
drawing out reasonable connections, between two or more ideas of similar or different nature
and content. So, it was human ideas that produced knowledge and therefore it could not go
beyond the scope of ideas. As these human ideas were further limited and determined by our
experiences, our knowledge was further compromised. Therefore, we could only perceive a
part of knowledge. Locke enlists four types of agreement or disagreements that could be
perceived by our reason in order to produce knowledge: a) identity (example: “the color blue
is blue”) and diversity (example: “the color blue is not yellow”); b) relation (example: “the
idea of two triangles being equal or their relatively comparable sizes”); c) coexistence
(example: “the idea that iron is susceptible to magnet”); d) existence does not belong in mind
but are developed through ideas (example: the idea of Self and that of God). Consequently,
based on this he presents three levels of knowledge. First was “intuition”- the knowledge that
we get through immediate perception of the agreement or disagreement and the relationship
the moment ideas are perceived and understood (example: “existence of self”);
“demonstration”- knowledge that required some proof and was based on human reasoning
(example: “existence of God”); and “sensitive knowledge”- that which is based on existence
of an external world and its sensory experience. Of these, Locke maintained, sensitive
knowledge was most temporary.
Whatever logical difficulties are detected in Locke’s epistemological theory the fact
remains that by virtue of his philosophy of empiricism highlighting the experience of man
achieved through sense organs. Locke made a historic philosophical contribution as by it he
set a new trend in European philosophy. Thus, in the post-Renaissance Europe, Locke was
the first exponent of an empiricist political philosophy. It may also be mentioned that Locke’s
empiricism is a clear sign of the influences of the 17th-century science on his mindset.
Locke’s Political Ideas and Critique of Filmer
The key point of his empiricist philosophy is that nothing of this world is incomprehensible
or transcendental. His attitude to the state is exactly the same. He thinks that the state is such
an institution the nature and characteristic of which may be known only in the light of
concrete experience. Hence, to trace its root it is totally unnecessary to rely on any
supernatural or celestial faith. In fact, he gives this message in the first part of his Two
Treatises. This book of Locke is divided into two parts. The first part is titled as An Essay
Concerning Certain False Principles and the title of the second part is An Essay Concerning
the True Original Extent and End of Civil Government. In the first part Locke did what as an

72
empiricist he subjected to severest criticism the theory of divine rights justified in the
Patriarcha of Sir Robert Filmer, one of his contemporaries.
Filmer very much endeared himself to King Charles I who conferred on him the honour
of Knighthood. Naturally, he viewed the royal power as omnipotent above all control and
inhibition. At the time, he mooted that man’s desire for freedom is unholy. To justify all this,
he wrote his Patriarcha which was published in 1680. Here, he shows that the only source of
the authority of the state is divine will. This God-gifted right to absolute authority in the
process descended to the successors of Adam and later, in course of this process, the king
earned the right to sovereign authority, that is, God, the father endowed his son Adam with
his son with sovereign power which was derived, by succession by the sons of Adam.
In the first part of his Two Treatises, Locke launches strongest attack against this
theoretical position of Filmer. He cannot bear with Filmer’s observation that human desire for
freedom is unfair and unjust as, we shall see later, to him liberty is the most valuable natural
right of man. Locke discards Filmer’s theory of divine rights. According to Locke, father’s
authority over his children is just ephemeral, and this authority may never be imposed on the
life and property of children. Locke argues, there is no plausible means to identify the
successors of Adam. Furthermore, if they somehow be singled out, then, Locke asks, will
other kings surrender to this successor all their power? On the basis of these criticisms
against Filmer, Locke arrives at the conclusion that neither divine will, nor inheritance may in
any way establish the validity of political power. Locke firmly held that paternal authority is
not the same kind, nor can it be justified on the same grounds, as political authority. He
defined political power as being made up of three forms of power. The power “to make laws
both to preserve and to regulate the lives, activities and possessions of subject (or, legislative
power)”; the power “to use the force of the community to execute these laws with penalties of
death and lesser penalties (or, executive power)”; and the power “to wage wars to preserve
the community, including colonies and subjects abroad, against other state (or, federative
power)”. Like Hobbes, he too thinks that behind the state, there is no supernatural mystery
and unearthliness; it is very much open to assessment with the yardstick of reason. Also, like
Hobbes he began his theory of the state with the ideas of state of nature and social contract.
The State of Nature
Like Hobbes, Locke also held that in order to understand correctly the nature of the sovereign
state and its political power including how it evolved, it was imperative to know first the state
of nature, which was the state of society before the institution of state was established. The
Lockean state of nature is a state of freedom and equality. Human nature, according to him is
peace-loving, friendly and calm. The equality he finds in nature denotes that in nature,
everyone is equally free. Everyone is equally free to “order their action” and to exercise
“(political) power and jurisdiction”. These free individuals were equal and followed the laws
of nature. Further they also had the power to execute and implement the laws of nature in the
state of nature. Further, he perceived the state of nature as peaceful one with well-meaning
citizens who share strong bond among themselves. Locke writes that though the state of
73
nature was “a State of Liberty, yet it is not a State of License...The State of Nature has a Law
of Nature to govern it which obliges everyone.” Locke also added that although people
enjoyed fullest liberty in the state of nature, they cannot do whatever they like to do in the
name of liberty. For instance, man in the state of nature cannot destroy himself nor can he do
any harm to others. This is because state of nature was under the control of law of nature
which was the other name of reason to which every man living in the state of nature is
subjected. The diktat of the law of nature was that although free and equal, none may act
arbitrarily and can jeopardize one’s or other life, health, freedom and property. This law of
nature governing the state of nature naturally ensured peace and protection to all. However,
according to Locke, the right of enforcing this law of nature vested in everyone. Thus, in
Locke’s state of nature, everyone took upon himself the law of nature governing the state of
nature, that is, everyone took on their hands the right of interpreting and enforcing the law of
nature. He also held the right to judge cases of violation of the law of nature and reserved to
himself the right of giving punishment for this violation. But according to Locke, it was
unfair and unjust for a person to be a judge of his own wrong. This was how, according to
Locke, there came about much inconvenience in the state of nature.
Social contract and origin of state
To get out of this inconvenience, Locke continued, the inhabitants in the state of nature
voluntarily made a contract among themselves by means of which they created a civil society
and invested it with the sovereign power of making laws and also implementing them. They
parted with only the right of making and implementing law and also the right of giving
punishment. The rest of the rights they kept with themselves, particularly their natural right to
life, liberty and property. Then, after the contract was made, according to Locke, not by any
further contract but only by a fiduciary trust, the sovereign civil society laid all its power at
the hands of a government at the centre of which was legislature. It was, thus, that the
legislature came into existence. About the framework of government, Locke was of the
opinion that the legislature and the executive must work separated from each other. This, he
believed, was the best way for preventing the misuse of the power of government. However,
the executive must work subordinated to the legislature.
The nature of sovereign state and its scope
About the structure of the government Locke maintained there was firstly the legislatives,
which he called “the supreme power commonwealth”. Secondly, there were “the executive”,
which included the judicial power. The legislature did not always need to be in session, but
the same was not true about executive. They were expected to be continuously in action. The
third power that Locke mentioned was what he called “the federative”, the power that made
foedera or treaties. This was primarily concerned with State’s foreign or external relations to
ensure peace internationally and avoid foreign aggression.
The first and most important characteristic of the state, according to Locke, was that
unlike Hobbes’s state it existed for the people who formed it and not the other way round.

74
The state, in fact, is perceived as a machine which was created for the good of the citizens
and was accountable to them. It was created to serve them and ensure good life for them and
must function accordingly. Locke further insisted that all States are a product of consent and
this consent, derived from the people, forms the basis of its authority. Therefore, the state is
limited and its powers subject to the acknowledgment of the people. For Locke, a true state is
one whose duties and powers are well defined through the constitution, which is nothing but a
modern form of contract agreed upon by all citizens. Therefore, he can also be seen as an
advocate of a constitutional state in which all citizens recognize the laws and consent to abide
by it.
Yet another important feature of Locke’s views on state is that he perceived it as limited
and not absolute as in in case of Hobbes. The state is limited because it derived its powers
from the people and is also dependent on it as it is merely projected as a product of “fiduciary
trust”. Further, civil laws, for Locke, were merely the restatement of Natural Law in detail
and by authorized legislation. Civil Law, he held, added nothing to our knowledge of right
and wrong. All it added is immediate punishment for wrongdoing and greater detail than
Natural Law will give us. So, the task of the legislature, that is, government was not to make
laws but rather to find them out because, he believed, laws were very much in existence in
the state of nature and, hence to search them out and give them an organized shape was the
task of the government. Viewed from this angle, in Locke’s theory, laws were seen as prior to
the state.
Another important aspect of Locke’s political theory is its emphasis on the rights of man,
particularly the rights to life, liberty and property (estate). In Locke’s views, these three rights
were the natural rights of man as he enjoyed these rights even in the state of nature. Hence,
the main objective of civil society and the state was to guard these important natural rights.
The State, therefore existed to ensure the good of the people; should be based on consent and
faith reposed upon it; should be limited in authority and constitutional in nature and scope. If
it was not for the people’s good, or did not fulfil other necessary conditions, people in general
had every right to protest and even legitimately overthrow it.
Limits to the power of state
John Locke shows that the power of the government is limited in various ways.
 First, this power is meant to protect the individual and cannot harm them.
 Second, this power may not be exercised arbitrarily; it may be exercised only
according to law.
 Third, even if the power of the legislature, that is, the government is supreme, it
cannot arbitrarily take away the property of the people as one of the main objectives
of its creation is the protection of property.

75
  Fourthly, according to Locke, the power to legislate has been delegated to the state by
the people, and therefore it cannot be delegated to anyone as this power resides solely
with the people who have consented to trust the state for this function.
Locke, in his political theory, also dealt with the question whether the subjects have a right to
resist or revolt against the authority of the state. His point was that the purpose of the state
was to ensure public welfare. This purpose is served only when the state gives protection to
the people and never interferes with their “right to life, liberty and property”. If the
government violates this condition, that is, if it fails or is unwilling to leave undisturbed the
subjects’ “right to life, liberty and property”, the latter, on the ground of violating the
conditions of the fiduciary trust, may exercise their right of resistance against the
government, or in Locke’s view the legislature, and replace the government by a new one. He
held that people by exercising their right of resistance may replace the government, but they
cannot change the society they brought into being by virtue of their contract. Thus, whenever
a government is replaced, the society remains unchanged.
Locke as Natural Right Theorist and his Views on Private Property
Locke drew upon the idea of natural law tradition stretched to St. Aquinas to Hugo Grotius.
His theory presented natural right as effective right being more meaningful and more specific.
He argued that God had endowed individual human beings with certain natural rights. He
thought there was a natural obligation to respect these rights and he also uses it to set up
limited government whose main duty was to protect the most important and inalienable of the
natural rights i.e. “right to life, liberty and property”. Right to life included sustenance and
means of preservation; right to freedom included the freedom from arbitrary will of others,
including state; and right to property included the right to exclude others from his property
and the right to use, enjoy, consume and exchange it. These rights were presented as
inalienable and incommunicable, so it cannot be given up in the formation of social contract.
Rather, Locke has claimed that one of the primary functions of the state is to protect these
natural rights and if it failed, it would be seen as a breach of fiduciary trust of the people.
On the question of property, Locke’s first proposition was that God had given to
mankind earth and its resources. However, he pointed out that although it was given to
mankind in common, God also made each man the sole owner of all property in his own
person. An individual’s own body and the capabilities that flowed from the physical and
mental being, for instance, the capability to labour, belong to each individual alone. Since this
was the case, therefore, when an individual mixed his labour with the common natural
resource, for instance when he plugged an Apple from a tree, the natural resource became his,
that is it becomes a form of private property.
Locke stated clearly, that in the state of nature there are also certain limitations on the
right of private property. Apart from the limitation that only that property could be acquired
which resulted from one’s own labour, there was also the condition that one must acquire
only that much property that one could use, and thereby did not spoil or waste. The third

76
limitation, Locke stated, was that one must “leave as much as good” for others. When it came
to acquiring land, for instance, Locke seemed to argue that one was not allowed to acquire all
the fertile land while leaving only fallow land for others. The second and third limitations
were interrelated since his strictures against waste were designed to ensure that sufficient
property- particularly land- was left for the use of others. However, the invention and
introduction of money as means of exchange drastically affected both of these limitations
placed by Locke on the private acquisition of property. In the first place, money allowed men
to acquire far more property than was sufficient for their immediate use. Second, it enabled
them to store wealth in a non-perishable form, thereby avoiding the problem of waste.
Based on this understanding of property he justified English colonialism in America.
American Indians roamed around without enclosing or settling on their land. So, it was free,
empty, vacant and wild. Also, American Indians wild savages and devoid of capacity to rise
unaided to civilized beings. As a result, there was no commerce, no wealth, no property.
Locke differentiated between two forms of colonialism: “conquest by sword” by Spain;
“conquest by commerce” by English. He considered the “conquest by commerce” or English
colonialism as justified.
Locke as Father of Liberalism
The greatest contribution of Locke as a political theorist is that he, for the first time, laid the
foundation of liberalism. Indeed, all the recognized characteristics of liberalism may be
noticed in his theory.
 For instance, he maintained a clear distinction between society and the state. He has
shown that society is born by virtue of a contract voluntarily made by the people.
After society, thus, comes into being, people by means of a fiduciary trust invest the
state with the power of governance. This shows that Locke is fully aware of the
distinction between society and the state. Furthermore, he argues that by virtue of
their right of resistance, people may replace the government, but not the society.
 Second, Locke does not concede absolute power to the state. It is limited for its main
purpose is to ensure public good, and this objective draws a line of boundary around
the state which it cannot override. Besides, the duty of the state is to protect the
individual’s natural “right to life, liberty and property”.
 Third, like a true liberal, Locke lays much importance on the individual’s freedom
and rights. According to him, these freedom and rights are inherent in man, which
need no recognition by the state.
 Fourth, in order to provide a conclusive proof to the effect that the state is not all-
powerful, Locke, in his theory, has given the individual the right of resistance against
the state.
 Fifth, Locke is clearly of the opinion that consent of members of civil society is
essential for justification of the authority of the state.
77
  Sixth, through constitutionalism, Locke also introduces a modern form of consent
seeking that remains relevant for democracies. The powers and functions of the state
being well defined constitutions prevent any form of arbitrariness and act as a check
and balance. In true sense for Locke the real sovereignty lay with the “fiduciary trust”
of the people represented through the constitution. It is not surprising therefore that
some scholars even consider John Locke as the “father of Constitutional Liberalism”.
Locke has been accused of being a ‘bourgeoisie’ thinker by commentators such as C. B.
Macpherson. Macpherson in his book The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism
accused Locke of setting up government, the main purpose of which was the protection of
private property. He argued that Locke’s insistence on property as a natural right and his
claim that the purpose of government was the protection and preservation of property,
pigeonholed him as the bourgeoisie thinker. Macpherson emphasized Locke for bourgeois
refusal to allow the state to regulate inequalities of property ownership, and use this to cast
doubt on Locke’s democratic credentials. He calls Locke a theorist of ‘Possessive
Individualism’. However, Macpherson’s claims have been contested by scholar like James
Tully who in his book A Discourse on Property: John Locke and his Adversaries pointed out
that the Locke clearly states- as we saw at the beginning of our discussion- that the purpose
of government was to serve the public good. Tully cited the example of taxation to argue his
case and held that although taxation was an explicit form of infringement into one’s private
property, Locke quite clearly allowed taxation for the general good as long as the taxes were
approved by a majority vote. Therefore, the charges on Locke about being an extreme
advocate of bourgeoisie interests through a defense of private property was unjustified.
John Locke, through his defense of private property and promotion of individualism
became a ready reference and inspirer for a generation of liberal thinkers. These included the
Liberatarians or Neo-liberals like Robert Nozick, Hayek and Friedman among others.
On Toleration
Locke’s Letter Concerning Toleration was published in 1689. It is considered as one of the
most influential works on the subject in 17th century and also guided the future debates in
Europe regarding toleration, secularism and multiculturalism. This work is often cited as a
case for separation between state and religion, or what we popularly call the basic tenets of
western secularism. Locke in this piece brings forth various arguments justifying the limits to
state power in the domain of religious beliefs and practices. He argued that as there were
inherent limitations of human knowledge, we might not be ever in a position to determine
what true religion was. The same was true for those holding political power, and therefore
any attempt to enforce the view of the state upon others was unjustified. Instead, citizens
should be allowed to think freely and pursue beliefs as best as they could. He strongly
believed that enforcement of religious conformity or advocacy of any particular belief system
was neither the job of the state nor within the scope of its capacity. Therefore, he endorsed
the idea of toleration and firmly held that state should refrain from interference in religious
subjects. He opined that acceptance of religion was an internal and subjective act based on
78
individual’s personal beliefs, therefore enforcement of a particular religious view by the
government was both impossible and futile. It was both beyond its expertise as it was
designed to control people’s actions and also beyond the scope of work it was expected to
perform as it was created for other purposes like maintaining law and order and protecting
citizens’ life, liberty and estate. He therefore held that any government or its agencies seeking
to interfere with the freedom to religious belief and practice was wrong. Firstly, it was
straying from its proper role of protecting strictly secular human goods and interests;
secondly, that regime was absurdly and improperly intervening in the personal relationship
between the individual and his/her God. Any attempt by a political ruler or government to
impose religious conformity would constitute a breach of people’s trust and would sow the
seeds for political revolution. Locke believed that presence of several religious beliefs
actually prevented confrontation. Confrontation actually began when the state attempted to
restrict different denominations from freely practicing because individual’s religious duty and
forms of worship shall be decided by him, not under coercion. But state had the duty to
interfere and restrain when even the sincerest of beliefs encroached upon the rights of others.
At the same time, Locke was very clear that the principles of toleration were not
universally valid and there were certain limitations that must be placed to prevent threats that
could cause disruptions in society. For example, he believed that those who were not tolerant
should not be tolerated, like those who try to impose their own religious views upon others.
Further, he also opined that those religious groups who posed a threat to political stability and
safety of the public could not be tolerated. In the context of seventeenth century England, he
placed the Roman Catholics in this category as they had allegiance to the Pope, and therefore
Locke claimed that they could never be loyal to England as they did not recognize or respect
the sovereignty of English law. Similarly, he held that even atheists could not be tolerated
because as they did not believe in religious values and teachings, they would not fear the
threats of rewards or punishments in the afterlife. As a result, there was no certainty that
atheists would not indulge in anti-social acts or would be loyal to the contractual obligation.
Some scholars like John Dunn and James Tully have maintained that the theme of
toleration and the concern for religious freedom was in fact the central theme of Locke’s
overall political philosophy. They claim that even his rights-based conception of liberty had
firm theological foundation because natural law itself was for him an expression of God’s
will. Jeremy Waldron in his book God, Locke and Equality observes that Locke’s political
thought was grounded deeply in Protestant theology and believes that it is this that lays the
foundation for a theory of equality of all humans in the philosophy of Locke. Scholars like
Maurice Cranston also claim that Locke’s views on toleration had very limited utility as it
was primarily presented to the Christian readers a Christian case for religious toleration.
Contemporary interpreters of Locke like Susan Mendus in her book Toleration and the Limits
of Liberalism claim that in the context of Reformation in 17th century England and Europe,
Locke’s work on toleration is significant because he tries to develop “principled moral
reasons” for tolerating other beliefs as against looking for toleration as a burden to be

79
followed in absence of any alternatives or as a basis for brokered peace in society. So, his
contribution is prescient to the modern debates regarding secularism and multiculturalism.
Practice Questions
 Do you think it is fair to consider John Locke as the ‘Father of Liberal Individualism’?
Comment.
………………………………………………………………………………………..……
…………………………………………………………………………………..…………
……………………………………………………………………………..………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………….
 Discuss the social contract theory of Locke. How is it different from Hobbes?
………………………………………………………………………………………..……
…………………………………………………………………………………..…………
……………………………………………………………………………..………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………….
 Critically analyze natural rights theory of Locke.
………………………………………………………………………………………..……
…………………………………………………………………………………..…………
……………………………………………………………………………..………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………….
 Analyze Locke’s views on Tolerance. Do you think it is relevant in contemporary times?
………………………………………………………………………………………..……
…………………………………………………………………………………..…………
……………………………………………………………………………..………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………….

Suggested Readings

 Waldron, J. (2009). ‘John Locke’, in D. Boucher and P. Kelly, (eds) Political Thinkers:
From Socrates to the Present. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 207-224.
 Macpherson, C. (1962). The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism: Hobbes to
Locke. Oxford University Press, Ontario, pp. 194-214.
 Mukhopadhyay, A. K. (1988). Western political thought: from Plato to Marx. K. P.
Bagchi & company: Calcutta.
 Nelson, Brian R. (1996). Western Political thought: from Socrates to the age of ideology.
Waveland press Inc: Illinois.
 McClelland, J. S. (1996) .A history of western political thought. Routledge: London.

80