Western Political Thought & Political Theory-1

Join Telegram for More Update : - https://t.
me/upsc_pdf
https://t.me/upsc_pdf https://upscpdf.com https://t.me/upsc_pdf

Join Telegram for More Update : - https://t.me/upsc_pdf
CONTENTS
1. PLATO .............................................................................1
Reality is the shadow of Ideas............................................................................................2
PLATO THEORY OF JUSTICE ..............................................................................................2
ARISTOTLE’S EVALUATION OF PLATO ................................................................................7
Criticisms of Plato’s theory of Justice ................................................................................7
Justification of Popper’s Criticism......................................................................................8
Significance of Plato ....................................................................................................... 10
COMMENTS & VIEWS ...................................................................................................... 10
2. Aristotle ........................................................................ 12
POLITICS AS MASTER SCIENCE ....................................................................................... 12
ARISTOTLE ON ROLE AND NATURE OF STATE................................................................... 12
COMMENTARIES ............................................................................................................. 21
3. LIBERALISM ................................................................... 22
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 22
CLASSICAL LIBERALISM.................................................................................................. 22
CLASSICAL LIBERALISM: CRITICAL EVALUATION ............................................................. 26
POSITIVE LIBERALISM /WELFARE STATE ......................................................................... 27
POSITIVE LIBERTY VS NEGATIVE LIBERTY ........................................................................ 29
NEO-LIBERALISM / LIBERTARIANISM ............................................................................... 31
NEO-LIBERALISM / LIBERTARIANISM: VIEWS OF F.A. HAYEK ............................................. 33
SOCIAL LIBERALISM ....................................................................................................... 34
LIBERAL STATE VS AUTHORITARIAN STATE ..................................................................... 35
HOBBES: INFLUENCE OF HISTORY ON HIS VIEWS ............................................................. 38

4. THOMAS HOBBES ........................................................... 38

Application of the method in understandinghuman behaviour ............................................ 40
HOBBES: THE STATE OF NATURE ..................................................................................... 40
HOBBES: NATURE OF SOVEREGNITY ................................................................................ 44
CRITICISMS OF THE LEVIATHAN- VAUGHAN’S VIEWS ....................................................... 46
COMMENTARIES ............................................................................................................. 47
5. JOHN LOCKE .................................................................. 49

LOCKE: FATHER OF LIBERALISM ...................................................................................... 49
LOCKE: SOCIAL CONTRACT ............................................................................................. 51
LOCKE: THEORY OF REVOLUTION .................................................................................... 52
LOCKE: DEFENSE OF PROPERTY RIGHTS .......................................................................... 53
MCPHERSON’S CRITIQUE OF LOCKE ................................................................................ 53
6. JOHN STUART MILL......................................................... 55

MILL: VIEWS ON UTILITARIANISM .................................................................................... 55
NEO-LIBERALISM / LIBERTARIANISM:CONCEPT OF STATE BY NOZICK .............................. 62
JUSTICE AS ENTITLEMENT: ROBERT NOZICK ................................................................... 63
PLURALIST PERSPECTIVE ON STATE................................................................................ 64
MULTICULTURALISM ....................................................................................................... 68
CHALLENGES TO MULTICULTURALISM: AMY GUTMANN ................................................... 71
COMMUNITARIAN CRITIQUE OF LIBERALISM.................................................................... 74

1 PLATO
Plato is one of the earliest and most influential thinkers from the Western Political Thought tradition. He
is considered the first systematic thinker in the Western tradition. He was the most brilliant disciple of
Socrates.
WHO WAS SOCRATES AND WHAT INFLUENCE DID

HE HAVE ON PLATO’S THOUGHTS?
Socrates was an Athenian philosopher who moved from place to place and gathered citizens around him
for discussions on issues like truth and justice. During the democratic rule in Athens, he was suspected of
undermining the authority by motivating the youth to question all sorts of authority. The rulers sentenced
him to death on the grounds that he did not recognize the gods of Athens and had corrupted the young
men.
Plato sought to make Socrates immortal by developing his ideas into a proper and complete philosophy.
Socrates himself did not produce any major writings, it was Plato who wrote many Dialogues including
Republic in which Socrates is the chief spokesperson of his philosophy.
I thank God that I was born Greek and not barbarian, freeman and not slave, man and not woman;
but above all, that I was born in the age of Socrates
The death of his guru had a very deep impact on Plato and he developed a strong dislike for democracy.
He realised that when incompetent people capture power only through the skill of oratory, they will even
murder a knowledgeable person like Socrates to protect their position and status. He became convinced
that democracy should be replaced by rule of the wisest and the best individual/s.
He travelled to far lands like Egypt, Italy and probably India also and the experiences of the ruling system
in these nations confirmed his viewpoint that Rule of “Philosopher Kings” in Athens will be best.
In 387 B.C. Plato got an opportunity to train the king of Syracuse (a kingdom in Greece) and transform
his state into that ideal state. When Plato failed in his efforts to train a tyrant into a philosopher king,
he was imprisoned and enslaved. He was only freed when his friends paid the required price.
This experience led to a transformation in his view which was reflected in Statesman and the Laws.
These books represent his effort to combine his ideal state with the real world. He accepts the
natural weaknesses of man and concedes that ideal state cannot be created on earth and it is very
difficult to find true philosopher kings among humans. He proceeds to create a ‘sub ideal state’ or
‘second best state’ which will be ruled by Laws and not by men. This state although will be inferior
to the ideal state but will be practical and based on rule of Law.
What is the DialecƟcal method and how does it help Plato in creaƟng his theory of
jusƟce?
! The basic objective of Plato’s Republic is discovering the principles of justice. It is even
subtitled as Concerning Justice. It follows the style of dialogue between Socrates and
his pupils who represent various streams of thought. Socrates asks them philosophical
questions and proves their views wrong one by one and finally offers his own answer
which is the main idea behind Plato’s theory of justice
Dr. Piyush Kr. Chaubey www.iasscore.in 1

! Dialectical Method: A dialogue based method introduced by Socrates which does a

thorough examination of the various schools of thought and brings forward their
inconsistencies, contradictions and shortcomings with a view of arriving at a tenable
position. Plato argues that when mutually contradictory ideas clash with each other,
they usually destroy the flawed parts of each other and only truth is left behind. This
method was also adopted by Hegel and Marx.
REALITY IS THE SHADOW OF IDEAS

As per Plato idea is the ultimate or true reality. He is known as Father of Political Philosophy because he gives
primacy to ideas over reality. For him reality is nothing but shadow of ideas. He explains this with allegory of cave.
As per Plato , idea is the essence of everything. Physical manifestation of any thing can change with
time but the idea will always remain permanent and can never be destroyed so idea is the true reality.
The physical world which we experience around us is just a temporary image of it. Considering the
physical world as real just because our senses can experience it is an example of our ignorance.
In the above allegory of cave the people in cave look at the shadows and assume that they are the reality.
Since they are chained to the walls of the cave they are never aware of the reality of the shadows. Once
they are step out of the cave then they can realize that all they had been watching till now were just
shadows.
This understanding that physical world is temporary and the realm of ideas is permanent is specially
crucial for the ruling classes. The rulers need to understand that power, wealth and fame are temporary.
What is permanent is a life of virtue and integrity.
Since Plato established the primacy of idea over matter and philosophy over material aspect of life , he
has been rightly proclaimed as the Father of Political philosophy.
PLATO THEORY OF JUSTICE

WHY DO WE NEED THE STATE & HOW IS IT LINKED WITH IDEA OF JUSTICE?
The state comes into existence due to necessities of human life. The reason people live together in a
state or society is because it enables them to fulfil their needs easily. While animals only seek the means
of survival, human beings seeks the means of good life. Justice is an integral part of the idea of good life
in any society and without it, life cannot be good.
The state comes into existence for the sake of life and continues for the sake of good life.
2 www.iasscore.in Dr. Piyush Kr. Chaubey

Therefore determining what is justice is the central concern of Plato in Republic. The discussion on
the issue takes place between Socrates, Cephalus, Polemarchus, Thrasymachus and Glaucon. Socrates
asks each one of them about the meaning of justice and they respond with different definitions.
Depending on the views expressed in the discussion, few common ideas on justice emerge:
Justice is duty
Justice has virtue and it cannot be used to harm someone
Justice cannot be based on ‘Might is Right’ since it will lead to continuous conflicts and chaos.
Justice should lead to peace harmony and excellence.
Plato in Republic describes how every form of government whether aristocracy, oligarchy or democracy
eventually suffers a crisis due to incompetency, corruption and selfishness of those in power. The
solution lies in selecting the best rulers for the state. He argues that statesmanship is a highly specialized
function and only qualified and morally impeccable people should be chosen for the post of a ruler. Plato
says that people are very careful in choosing their doctor or carpenter but when it comes to choosing the
rulers, they believe the words of any demagogue (leaders who appeal to emotion rather than rationality
of the masses). But how to select the best rulers for the state? This is the question which Plato attempts
to answer by his theory of justice.
What does Plato mean when he says “State is individual writ large”?
State is made of the individuals and therefore it is nothing but a reflection of its citizen’s nature.
“Like man, Like State”. Until we understand the human nature properly, we cannot determine
the functions and needs of human beings and therefore won’t be able to figure who is best
fit to rule over them. Basically in order to create justice at the level of state first we need to
understand the human being first. The state is nothing but a magnification of human nature.
Same principles which provide justice at the level of individual are good enough to provide
justice at the level of state as well.
HOW IS PLATO’S IDEA OF JUSTICE DEPENDENT ON HIS DIVISION OF

SOCIETY INTO THREE CLASSES?
Human behaviour flows from three sources and these are present in all human beings but at different
degrees.
Desire (Appetite)
Emotion or Passion (Spirit)
Knowledge (Reason)
Plato divides the whole society into three classes based on which trait dominates the individual’s
personality.
Trader Class: Some people who have more dominance of Desire in them are attracted towards
material things and productive activities. Such people are fit for trade and industry.
Soldier Class: Some people are more driven by emotions and spirit and attracted to honour, pride
and power. They are fit to work as soldiers and warriors.
Philosopher Class: Some people desire knowledge and reason and are not attracted towards either
wealth or power. They seek the truth and wisdom above anything. Such people should be given
leadership roles and be trained to become philosopher kings.
Once we understand that different people are suited for different jobs depending upon the dominant
trait in their personalities, it provides an idea how to organize the state. Plato argues that for an effective
action or decision to take place, there has to be a desire which should be warmed with emotion but is
guided by knowledge. In an ideal state, the producing class should produce material goods, military class
would protect the state and the philosopher class equipped with both knowledge and reason would rule.
If people who crave material wealth i.e. producer class and those who desire power i.e. soldier class
come to power then the state is doomed. This is because to rule a state you need statesmanship which

is a science as well art. Only a philosopher who has devoted his life in search of knowledge and whose
character is beyond question would be fit to be are ideal king. This person because has both reason and
knowledge will never be tempted by wealth or power but only be motivated by his sense of duty.
THE IDEAL STATE THE IDEAL MAN
KING / REASON
SOLDIER / COURAGE
WORKER / APPETITE
“Until Philosophers are kings, or the kings and princes of this world have the spirit and power
of philosophy, and the political greatness and wisdom meet in one, and those. And those
commoner nature’s who pursue either to the exclusion of the other are competent to stand
aside, ciƟes, mils nerve have restroom their exits Plato the republic
Plato prescribes different duties for different classes and fulfilment of such duties only would result in an
ideal state. Justice results from each class in society doing its appropriate task, doing it well and doing it
only. Both at the level of individual and the state, Reason should dominate other traits like desire or spirit. So
in a just or ideal state, the control of the government should remain in hands of a small group of Philosopher
Kings who are endowed with supreme knowledge and reason, and material production and defence will be the
responsibility of producer class and warrior class respectively.
“In Plato’s perfect state, the industrial forces would produce but not rule, the military forces will
protect but not rule, the forces of knowledge and science and philosophy would be nourished and
protected and they would rule”
Will Durant , The story of Philosophy
Plato also define the virtues or good qualities which should be present to control the traits, both at
the level of the individual and the state. These virtues are needed so that the traits of desire, spirit
or knowledge don’t become uncontrolled and excessive. He called them as Cardinal virtues
which should be present along with the traits in a perfect state:
Temperance: befitting the trader or producer class whose dominant trait is Appetite or Desire
Courage: befitting the soldier whose dominant trait is Emotion
Wisdom: befitting the philosopher class whose dominant trait is knowledge
Justice: befitting the whole state. This will be achieved only when soldier and trader class accept the
rule of philosopher kings and there is perfect harmony in all parts of the state.
In an ideal state the first three cardinal virtues would be promoted by the three different classes but the fourth
cardinal virtue of justice will be a harmonious mixture of all three and will be the foundation of an ideal state.
THEORY OF EDUCATION: HOW DO WE SELECT

WHO IS COMPETENT ENOUGH TO BECOME PHILOSOPHER KING?
His theory of education has two basic rules:
It’s a scheme of Compulsory Education, Everyone has to attend it.
It will provide full equality of opportunity for all citizens, with no discrimination on ground of his birth or
gender. Women and girls will have equal opportunity at all stages.
In this scheme, all the children will be placed in the custody of the state under exactly similar conditions. For

the first ten years, focus will be on physical education and good health. From the 11th year till the 15th year,
music will be added to curriculum to achieve physical toughness with spiritual softness. This will be followed
by gradual introduction of mathematics, history and science. From the age of 16 till 20 all students will be
provided moral education.
At 20 years of age, the students will face the first screening examination. Those who fail in this will go
to join the producer class as peasants, artisans and traders. Those who are successful will be provided
advanced physical, moral and mental training till the age of 30. This will be followed by the second
screening examination. Unsuccessful candidates will be sent to become soldiers in The army and navy,
also known as Auxiliaries.
The few successful candidates will be learning philosophy for The next 5 years. At the age of 35 they will be
assimilated into normal life and will be required to gain practical knowledge and experience in handling day to
day challenges for the next 15 years. Then they will face the final screening and those who succeed in the final
test will become rulers. The students who get rejected at the last stage will join the soldier class.
PLATO’S THREE SOCIAL CLASSES

Social Class Dominant Trait Befitting Virtue
Producer Desire Temperance
Soldier Emotion Courage
Philosopher Knowledge Wisdom
Virtue befitting the State Justice
No law or ordinance is mightier than knowledge-Plato

This statement provides a justification for the rule of Philosopher kings. As per Plato, until
Philosophers are kings, Athens can never become an ideal state. The philosopher king is the
epitome of knowledge, reason and personal sacrifice. He/she has all the powers except That of
changing the system of justice. His decision are final and no law or custom can override it since
any law or custom based on public opinions will never have the same worth as the knowledge
and reason of the highly learned and trained philosopher king. If he/she will be constrained by
ordinary laws a it will be similar to an expert doctor being told to work as per the advice of a
simple book of medicine. Those who are the pinnacle of knowledge and experience cannot and
should not be bound by ordinary rules and procedures.
WHAT WILL STOP THE PHILOSOPHER KINGS FROM BECOMING TYRANTS?

Candidates who have acquired 40 years of training and have succeeded at all the levels of screening process
will be endowed with true knowledge and reason as per Plato. They will have no hunger for power, wealth
or fame. They would not even be willing to become rulers. They will accept the position only after citizens
earnestly request them.
Those who crave power are not fit to receive it because when they achieve power, they will lead to the decline
of the state. Best rulers are those who are reluctant to rule in the first place as per Plato.
WHAT WILL STOP GUARDIANS FROM BECOMING CORRUPT

AFTER THEY ACQUIRE POWER: COMMUNISM OF PROPERTY & WIVES
First of all, who are the guardians? This is a common term used either for the philosophers or the soldiers.
Plato created the scheme of Communism of Property and Wives to prevent corruption in the guardian class.
COMMUNISM OF PROPERTY
Guardians will have minimum goods for their daily usage and that too will have to be shared by all.
No private property will be allowed for this class.
They will live together and eat only from the common kitchen

COMMUNISM OF WIVES
No private families. All guardians whether males or females will be separated from the normal
population.
They will have Group marriages and everyone will be either a common husband or a common wife.
All children born of such marriages will be children of the state and will be separated from the families
and placed in custody of the state for their education and training.
No person will ever be aware of the identity of his parents or his children if he or she belongs to the
guardian class.
No man will be attached to any woman or child and no woman will be attached to any man or child.
No child will have any particular parents. Thus the whole guardian class will have no experience of
familial bonds or any emotional attachment for anybody. Everyone will be devoted only to the state since
the state is the common parent of everyone.
There will be no logic or need in amassing wealth since they can’t use it themselves and there will be
nobody to inherit it after one’s death.
The dual logic of communism of wives and property will ensure that the guardian class is always free from
every possibility of corruption and nepotism.
Plato’s Communism Vs Marx’s Communism

ISSUE Plato’s Communism Marx’s Communism
Who will be impacted? Only the Guardian Class Whole society
Nature of ownership Sharing of Common Wives, Common Ownership of Property

Husbands, Children and Property
Why needed? To end Corruption and Nepotism in End of Exploitation of the

Guardian Class proletariat by the Bourgeoisie
Philosophical Basis Moral Material
Who will acquire final Philosopher King Working Class

authority?
PLATO VS MARX: GENERAL COMPARISION

Role of Idea Ultimate Reality False Consciousness
Nature of Philosopher Plato is idealist Marx is materialist
Basis of Class division Quality of Soul Ownership of Property
No of classes 3 2
Relationship between Can be harmonious Antagonistic in nature

classes
Role of state Source of virtue Source of exploitation
CAN PLATO BE CONSIDERED AS A COMMUNIST?

As per Professor Maxey, Plato is the first communist. But on close evaluation as above it is very clear that
the similarities between Plato’s and Marxian Communism are very few but the differences are huge. Although,
both thinkers agree that the society is divided into different classes and the institution of private property
promotes corruption and nepotism.

ARISTOTLE’S EVALUATION OF PLATO
ARISTOTLE’S EVALUATION OF PHILOSOPHER KING
Aristotle argued that rule of law is always better than rule of any person irrespective of how knowledgeable he
or she is. He also finds other issues with idea of Philosopher King:
It’s not an easy task to find someone worthy to be a philosopher and a king at Plato is sacrificing
the same time. good for the sake
of best. But best
The Philosopher king can eventually succumb to his/her appetites and passions
is unachievable.
and can act without reason.
If the rule of the
Instead its better to trust laws since they represent the collective wisdom of the philosopher king
many generations of learned men and are more dependable than knowledge is the best, the
and reason of one person. rule of law is best
practicable.
ARISTOTLE’S EVALUATION OF PLATO’S COMMUNISM OF PROPERTY & WIVES
Although Aristotle is the greatest of Plato’s disciples, he is also a very staunch critique of his master:
Private property for Aristotle is not evil and in fact it is a source of motivation. Plato has mistakenly
ignored the good aspects of private property.
Private property provides evidence and recognition to the efforts of a person.
Those who have property have more concern about the stability and order in the political system since
they stand to lose most in scenario of chaos and revolution.
Property leads to possibility of charity.
Aristotle is also critical of his communism of wives since he believes that taking away one’s family is a
worse measure than having family itself.
Man is a social animal, he is not a beast who can live by itself. Plato’s ideas would take us to barbaric
times when each man had to fend for his daily survival.
Family provides emotional stability during times of distress.
If property and family were so wrong, then they would have perished long ago.
CRITICISMS OF PLATO’S THEORY OF JUSTICE

Plato’s justice is based on the principle of ‘one man one job’. It makes one’s life monotonous and deprives
the individual of all round development.
Plato separates the individual into three classes: men of iron, men of silver and men of gold. This
separation is based on the different elements of soul-appetite, spirit and reason. It is illogical to
assume that an individual has only one element of soul. It appears that an average human being has all these
elements in him.
Plato concentrates the political power in the hands of one class. The monopoly of power may easily
degenerate this class and no safeguards against the abuse of power has been provided.
In the same way the economic power is also confined into the hands of the producing class. In this way
in the name of justice Plato creates a system of privilege in the society.
Plato’s conception of justice is moral and not legal. He provides no legal apparatus to resolve the clashes
and crisis if there is any between the members of one class and the other having different obligations
and interests.
Plato’s justice is too subjective and hence cannot be taken as justice at all. It is based on a subjective
notion of spirit. Moreover Plato does not suggest any judicial organization.
Plato’s emphasis is mainly on the duties of the individuals and not on the rights Justice needs equal
emphasis on the system of rights which must be provided and protected. The system which he develops
to effect the reconciliation between the self-interest and public duty is not effective.
It has been urged in certain quarters that Plato’s theory is totalitarian; it leads to the complete subordination of
the individual to the state; it ends by making the state an end in itself at whose alter the individual is required
to sacrifice him.

The members of the third and largest class, namely, the producing class, enjoy no political privileges; they
are simply the cutters of wood and drawers of water for the upper classes. They have to live simply by the
appetitive side of their nature; the spirited and rational elements in them are starved.
SCHOLARLY CRITIQUE OF PLATO

Bertrand Russell calls Plato a totalitarian.
In the words Wayper, ‘they obey the rulers without question so that the desires of the vulgar may be
controlled by the desires and wisdom of the cultivated few’.
Crossman also holds that Plato’s philosophy is ‘the most savage and most profound attack upon
liberal ideas which history can show’. He calls Plato as particularly anti-democratic because he was an
admirer of the military discipline prevailing in is contemporary Sparta, and he wanted to have a similar
discipline in his ideal state.
John Jay Chapman called Plato ‘the prince of Conjurers”.
W. Fite holds the view that Plato had indecisiveness of an adolescent.
R.H.S. Crossman says that Plato was wrong, both for his times and for ours.
KARL POPPER’S ATTACK ON PLATO

Professor Popper launched the bitterest attack on Plato in his book “The open society and its Enemies.”
Vol 1. He says that the political programme of Plato’s is totalitarian because it vests ‘the monopoly
of things like military virtues and training ‘in the ruling class and excludes the producing classes
completely from any participation in political activities.
Popper regards Plato as a totalitarian because the latter identifies ‘justice with the principles of class
rule and class privilege’; because Plato’s principles are that every, class should attend to its own business
is interpreted to mean’ briefly and bluntly’ that the state is just if the ruler rules, if the worker works and
if the slave serves’.
Of all the critics, Popper’s criticism is the most devastating. Plato, to Popper was an enemy of the open
society.
To Popper, Plato’s philosophy and its theories of justice, communism and education are but so many
subtle ways of justifying authoritarianism and totalitarianism. Plato’s philosophy sought to perpetuate
or eternalise the ideal – the ideal of anti-democracy, anti- change and anti-open society.
Condemning Plato’s political programme, Popper says that it is “Far from being morally superior to
totalitarianism, is fundamentally identical with it”.
He says that Plato’s ideal state is a closed system. “Excellent as Plato’s sociological diagnosis was, his
own development proves that the therapy he recommends is worse than the evil he tries to combat”.
JUSTIFICATION OF POPPER’S CRITICISM

Popper finds further justification for his charge in the fact that by Justice Plato does not mean anything similar
to what we generally understand by the term in current parlance. There is no reference in his theory to anything
like,
An equal distribution of the burden of citizenship,
equal treatment of the citizens before the law provided , of course that
the laws themselves neither favour nor disfavour individual citizens or groups or classes
impartiality of courts of justice
an equal share in the advantage which their membership of the state may offer to the citizen
Instead subordinates the individual to the state with the fact that in his scheme the individual has
meaning and significance only in so far as he performs some functions in the state.
The members of the upper two classes are not allowed to enjoy family life; they are denied the
pleasures of the senses. They have to give up all their private interests for the sake of the state.

The members of the producing class are denied all political power, but are given the right to enjoy life and
earn wealth. Every member of the state is thus called upon to live for the state and not for him.
He was no democrat either, he took little note of the producers who always form the great majority
of the population in every state.
DEFENCE OF PLATO AGAINST POPPER’S CRITICISM

If Plato were truly totalitarian, then he would have built a police state; would have made provisions for
secret police; would have suggested severe and harsh punishments; would have provided concentration
camps; would have landed terror. But nowhere do we find Plato saying all this. On the contrary, he pictures
an ideal state whose aim is ethical, whose rulers are guided by a rational plan and who has to have a
particular type of education, a systematic training and a life of dedication and almost of renunciation.
Plato does not regard the individual as an isolated unit whose good may be opposed to and independent
of the society. His individual is a part of a whole; his life acquires value and significance only in relation to
the whole. The rights which he can demand and which society should provide to him are those conditions
of life which enable him to discharge his function as a part of the whole and contribute to its welfare. The
only right in which Plato is interested is the right which enables one to perform one’s duties; It covers
all other rights. This conception does not destroy the individuality of the individual; On the contrary, it
deepens it.
For Plato, justice and injustice are conditions of states of human psyche expressing themselves in the
corresponding conditions of the psyche of the society. Very naturally therefore an enquiry into the just
life of the individual becomes an enquiry into order and disorder in society. Since disorder in society can
destroy the human soul, nothing can be objects of greater concern for the individual, than to see that
the polis or state is ruled by the men with well-ordered souls.
The rulers are not united together by the pursuit of any common interest-economic, dynastic or
personal. There are no class interests which they are expected to promote; their only concern is the
welfare of the polis. Far from enjoying any privileges, they are denied what the common man cherishes
the most-the pleasures of the family and amassing wealth. Whatever else the rule of the philosopher’s
kin may be it is certainly not rule by a privileged class.
In the last place, we may point out that in as much as the fundamental purpose of Plato was to define
an ideal state in which the individual could fulfil himself in the highest sense of the term, he could not
think of subordinating the individual of the state ; This runs counter to his purpose. It should be always
borne in mind that for Plato, the state is not in end in itself; it exists for the perfection of the individual.
Its purpose is the production of noble characters According to Plato, the worth of a state should be
measured by the type of character it produces in its citizens; by the virtue of its rulers, the courage of its
warriors and the temperance of its producers and not by its size, wealth or army.
Can Plato be described as Fascist?

Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian ultra-nationalism, characterized by dictatorial power,
forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy,
which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.
Karl Popper calls Plato as the first Fascist. He says that Plato’s ideal state is a akin to fascist
state. He proclaims Plato as enemy of democracy. For Plato democracy was the role of
ignorant people and anyone could achieve power by chance or skilful oratory. Also similar to
the fascist regime , Plato wants to introduce massive changes in the state instead of adopting
a gradual approach like Aristotle.
Levinson provides a strong defence against Popper’s attack. He says that there is a huge
time and space difference between the Athenian times of Plato and Mussolini’s Italy. The two
theories are not comparable. Also since the ideal state never ever actually existed, how can
one be sure that it would have been totalitarian or fascist necessarily? All Plato wanted was to
provide a life of virtue to the citizens so that they can achieve their true potential.

SIGNIFICANCE OF PLATO
Jowett (Dialogues of Plato) rightly describe Plato as the father of philosophy, politics and literary
idealism.
Professor Maxey: As an analyst of Social and Political institutions and a seeker of the ideal he was the
forerunner and inspirer of most of the anti-materialistic political philosophies, reconstructive political
theories and radical political programs which have appeared in subsequent ages.
Emerson: Plato was philosophy and philosophy, Plato.
Political idealism is Plato’s gift to Western Political philosophy. As an idealist as Plato really was, he was
more interested in future than in the present ; in a model that a state can be than in the actual state; in
the form of the state than in a state that appears at present.
His idealism was grounded in the circumstances of the then city states, his was a movement to change
the Greek of his own times, not for the past as Popper says, but for a future, for a model and that too
through a rational plan. He can be described as an idealist, but not a utopian; a physician and not a life
given a reformer and not a dreamer.
His significance lies in making education as the bedrock on which he structures the whole ideal state.
He was of the opinion that the state could be structured afresh as against Popper’s view of peace meal
social engineering.
Another contribution of him was his radicalism. He innovated novel ideas and integrated them skilfully
in a political scheme.
Some scholars also assume that he is the first feminist since he never differentiated between the two
genders in any aspect of his ideal state and he was the first to argue that women do not suffer from any
disability with respect to politics and statecraft. Although other argue that Plato did not specifically aim
for the Advancement of women, it was a unintended outcome of his theory of justice.
COMMENTS & VIEWS

COMMENTS BY PLATO
“But at last I saw that as far as all states now existing are concerned, they are all badly governed. And so
I said that all the nations of men will never cease from private trouble until either the true and genuine
breed of philosophers shall come to political office or until that of the rulers in the states shall by some
divine ordinance take to the true pursuit of philosophy.” ( Seventh letter)
“Those having no knowledge of mathematics need not enter here.” (Academy).
“I thank god that I was born a Greek, and not Barbarian; a freeman and not a slave, a man and not a
woman; but above all, that I was born in the age of Socrates.”
“Our aim in founding the state was the greatest happiness of the whole, we thought that in a state which
is ordered with a view to the good of the whole we should be most likely to find justice.”
COMMENTS ON PLATO BY SCHOLARS

Professor Maxey: “In Plato, Socrates lived again”.
Professor Maxey: “As an analyst of Social and Political institutions and a seeker of the ideal he was the
forerunner and inspirer of most of the anti-materialistic political philosophies, reconstructive political
theories and radical political programs which have appeared in subsequent ages.”
Ernst Barker: “Plato’s scheme of education brings soul into that environment which in each stage of its
growth is best suited for its development.”
Barker: “The abolition of family life among the guardians is, thus, inevitably a corollary of their renunciation
of private property.”
Barker: "Justice is, for Plato, at once a part of human virtue and the bond which joins men together in the
states. It makes man good and makes him social."

Barker: “Plato’s scheme has many facets and many purposes. It is a scheme of eugenics; it is a scheme
for the emancipation of women; it is a scheme for the nationalisation of the family. It is meant to
secure a better stock, greater freedom for women and for men to develop their highest capacities, a
more complete and living solidarity of the state or at any rate, of the rulers of the state."
Jowett (Dialogues of Plato) rightly describe Plato as the father of philosophy, politics and literary
idealism.
Emerson: Plato was philosophy and philosophy, Plato.
Crossman also holds that Plato’s philosophy is “the most savage and most profound attack upon liberal
ideas which history can show”.
Wayper: “they obey the rulers without question so that the desires of the vulgar may be controlled by the
desires and wisdom of the cultivated few”.
Popper regards Plato as a totalitarian because the latter identifies “justice with the principles of class
rule and class privilege”; because Plato’s principles that every class should attend to its own business
and is interpreted to mean’ briefly and bluntly’ that the state is just if the ruler rules, if the worker works
and if the slave serves’.
Popper: “The Utopian attempt to realise an ideal state, using a blueprint of society as a whole, is one which
demands a strong centralised rule of a few, and which is therefore likely to lead to a dictatorship.”
Dunning: "As private property and family relationships appear to be the chief sources of dissension in
every community, neither is to have recognition in the perfect state."
Sabine: "Justice (for Plato) is a bond which holds a society together."
"Anxiety for one's children", Sabine concludes on behalf of Plato, "is a form of self-seeking more
deceptive than the desire for property.”
Sabine says: "The first is the prohibition of private property, whether houses as land or money, to
the rulers (and auxiliaries) and the provision that they shall live in barracks and have their meals at
a common table. The second is the abolition of a permanent monogamous sexual relation and the
substitution of regulated breeding at the behest of the rulers for the purpose of securing the best
possible offspring".
Whitehead: “The entire Western Political thought is nothing but the footnotes to Plato and Aristotle.”
Karl Popper: “One can be either Platonic or Anti-Platonic but one can never be non-Platonic.”
**********

22 ARISTOTLE
Aristotle is known as father of political science as well as comparative politics. He was one of the greatest
disciples of Plato and the teacher of Alexander the Great. He was brought up in an atmosphere of scientific
outlook at home since his father was a court physician. So he uses a lot of biological and medical analogies
while explaining his point of view. Aristotle shared many views of Plato like:
Both agree that Greek city-states are suffering from anarchy and moral degradation Leaders and public
are both is responsible for this.
Both agree and accept the importance of state. The state is necessary not only for protection of life but
also for continuation of good life.
Education was a vital factor in training good rulers for both thinkers.
POLITICS AS MASTER SCIENCE

Aristotle in his book ‘Politics’ describes the science of politics as the “Master Art” because:
Politics focuses on the determining the ultimate objective or end of human life. All other sciences
including physical sciences are only trying to find ways to achieve those objectives.
Politics helps in determining how to regulate various relationship within the society.
For Aristotle there was a ‘hierarchy of ends’ which showed that all other branches of knowledge
ultimately merge into politics. Politics is concerned with determining as to which sciences and arts
should be taught to various categories of citizens. The final goal of all other sciences and arts like
medicine, military science or economics is concerned with securing good life in different spheres.
Together they represent an idea of good life which represents the end of politics. Therefore all other
sciences are subordinate to the science of politics.
NATURE OF POLITICS DURING THE TIME OF ARISTOTLE

During his era, the number of people actually participating in politics was very small. Only
‘freemen’ had any political rights and could participate in legislative functions. These freemen
were barely a third of the whole population. The rest of the population comprised of slaves and
aliens who had no power or role in the process. Even women although being free citizens, were
not given any role in political process.
ARISTOTLE ON ROLE AND NATURE OF STATE

The state with Aristotle, as with Plato too, began for the satisfaction of basic wants, but as it developed,
it came to perform more elevated aims essential for good life. Aristotle says: “But a state exists for the sake
of a good life, and not for the sake of life only.” The characteristic features of Aristotle’s theory of state are:
The state, for Plato, is a natural organisation, and not an artificial one. Unlike Plato’s ideal state,
Aristotle’s state is not structured or manufactured, not a make, but is a growth growing gradually out
of villages, villages growing out of families, and the families, out of man’s nature, his social instincts.
The state has grown like a tree i.e. in an organic manner.

The state is prior to the individual. It is so in the sense, the whole is prior to the past: “The state
“Aristotle says, “Is by nature clearly prior to the family and the individual, since the whole is of
necessity prior to the past; for example, if the whole body be destroyed, there will be no foot or hand.
‘’The proof that the state is a creation of nature, and prior to the individual,’ he continues is that “the
individual, when isolated, is not self-sufficing; and therefore, he is like a part in relation to the whole.
But he who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must
either be a beast or a god; he is no part of a state.”
What does Aristotle mean when he says “State is prior to Man”?

Historically the state appears after the appearance of man. But if we think logically, the idea of
state will come before that of man, because the idea of ‘complete’ comes before the idea of
‘part’. We cannot think of a body organ like hand or liver without thinking of a complete body
first. If you separate a hand from the body, it’s just a lifeless chunk of meat. Similarly there is
no existence of man outside the state. Being a part of state and taking part in politics is what
makes him man. Otherwise someone who doesn’t need a state for meaningful existence is
either a beast (Subhuman) or a god (Superhuman).
What does he mean when he says “Man is by nature a political animal”?

One might argue that many animals like bees and elephants live in groups or communities and
can be called as social animals. Then how is man any different from them? The animals who
live in well –defined communities are doing so only for the sake of survival. These animals
have no idea of a good life, they only think of extending their life by living in groups. But man
on the other hand, is interested in living a good life and therefore to improve his life chooses to
live in a family, village and finally state. Therefore apart from being a social animal he is also
a “Political” animal.
The state is not only an association or union as Aristotle calls it, but is an association of associations.
The other associations are not as large as is the state; they are specific, and, therefore, limited in their
objective and essence. The state, on the other hand, has general and common purposes, and, therefore,
has larger concerns as compared to any or other associations.
The stale is like a human organism. Aristotle is of the opinion that the state, like the human organism,
has its own parts, i.e. the individuals. Apart from the state, he argues, the individuals have no importance,
and separated from the body, the parts have no life of their own. The interest of the part of the body is
inherent in the interest of the body Likewise, the interest of the individuals is inherent in the interest of
the state.
The state is a self-sufficing institution while the village and the family is not. The self-sufficient state is
higher than the families and the villages-it is their union.
Aristotle’s best practical state is according to Sabine what Plato called second-best state. Aristotle’s
state is the best possible state, the best practicable.
Mcllwain sums up Aristotle’s best possible state, saying: “Aristotle’s best possible
state is simply the one which is neither too rich nor too poor; secure from attack and
devoid of great wealth or wide expansion of trade or territory, homogeneous, virtuous,
defensible, unambitious community, self-sufficient but not aggressive, great but not
large, a tightly independent city devoted to the achievement of the highest possible
measure of culture and virtue, of well-being and true happiness attainable by each
and by all.”
ARISTOTLE’S ON GOVERNMENT & ITS CLASSIFICATION

On the basis of his study of 158 constitutions, Aristotle has given a classification which became a guide
for all the = subsequent philosophers who ventured to classify governments.

For him, the rule of one and for the interest of all is monarchy and its perverted form is tyranny if such
a rule exists for the benefit of the ruler.
The rule of the few and for the interest of all is aristocracy, and its perverted form is oligarchy if such
few rule in their own interest.
The rule of many and for the interest of all is polity, and its perverted form is democracy if such a
ruleexists for those who have the power.
Pure Form Corrupt From

1. Monarchy- with supreme virtue as its guiding Tyranny - representing force selfishness
principle
2. ‘Aritocracy- representing a mixture f virture Oligarch - representing the greed of wealth

and wealth
3. Polity-representing martial and medium Democracy - representing the principle of

virtues, power resting with the middle class equality with power in the hands f the poor
people
Aristotle too refers to the cycle of classification monarchy is followed by tyranny; tyranny, by aristocracy;
aristocracy, by oligarchy; oligarchy, by polity; polity by democracy; and democracy, by monarchy and so goes
on the cycle of classification.
MONARCHY
OUGARCHY TYRANNY
POLITY ARISTOCRACY
DEMOCRACY
Which form f government is best as per Aristotle?

As per him, monarchy represents the rule of Philosopher king and is the best but unfortunately
it is not best practicable. In reality true monarchy never exists and the practical form is always
tyranny. Tyranny for him ironically is the worst form of government. Polity is the rule of neither
the rich and nor the poor but the middle class. Since it represents the golden of many but the
number are less than Democracy. DEMOCRACY FOR ARISTOTLE IS A PERVERTED FORM OF
GOVERNMENT. STUEDENTS ARE ADVISED NOT TO CONFUSE IT WITH THE PESENT NOTION
OF DEMOCRACY.

Democracy is extreme because it is rule of too many which results in rule of ignorance
and poor. Democracy since it is the rule of poor, the rich will always be conspiring
against it.
Aristocracy is god rule of a small group of rich people but in the long run, the poor will become
suspicious themselves.
In case f Polity, since both the rich and poor don’t trust each other, they will be okay with the
rule of Middle class. It will be better than Democracy and Aristocracy both since the poor
suffer from ignorance and rich suffer from Arrogance.
Aristotle’s classification has become out-dated, for it cannot be applied to the existing system. What lie calls the
classification of states is, in fact, the classification of government, for, like all the ancient Greeks, he confuses
between the state and the government.
VIEWS OF ARISTOTLE ON JUSTICE

“It is unjust to treat equals unequally. It is equally unjust to treat unequals, equally”.
When perfected, man is the best of animals, but when separated from law and justice, he is
the worst of all.”
“The good in the sphere of politics is justice, and justice contains what tends to promote the
common interest.”
“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 neighbours.”
ARISTOTLE ON JUSTICE
Aristotle believed that justice is the very essence of the state and that no polity can endure for a long
time unless it is founded on a right scheme of justice. He held the view that justice provides an aim to
the state, and an object to the individual. “
Justice is virtue, but it is more than virtue; it is virtue in action, i.e., virtue in practice. Reason is, for
example, a virtue, but the reasonable/rational conduct is justice; truth is a virtue, but to be truthful is
justice. What makes a virtue justice is the very practice of that virtue. So Aristotle says:
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, it makes the state and political life pure
and healthy. Ross says: “Aristotle begins by recognising two senses of the word. By ‘Just’, we may
mean what is lawful or what is fair and equal”.
“Particular justice is a part of complete/general justice; it is, therefore, a part of complete goodness, its one
aspect. A person seeking particular justice is one who observes laws but does not demand from the
society more than what he deserves.
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. He does not support absolute equality. The idea
of absolute equality in reality is a form of injustice to those who are more talented since they will be
receiving the same treatment as someone who is less talented than them. This feeling of injustice if not
controlled early can lead to revolts and chaos.
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.
Aristotle’s theory of justice is worldly, associated with man’s conduct in practical life, of course with all
ethical values guiding him. But he was unable to co-relate the ethical dimension of justice to its legal

dimension. His distributive justice (rewards in accordance to one’s abilities) is far, far away from the
realities of the political world. It is, indeed, difficult to bring about a balance between the ever increasing
population and’ ever-decreasing opportunities of the state.
ARISTOTLE ON PROPERTY
Aristotle’s views on Property are based on his criticism of Plato’s communism of property. For Aristotle,
property provided psychological satisfaction by fulfilling the human instinct for possession and
ownership. His chief complaint against Plato was that he failed to balance the claims of production and
distribution. Plato’s communism of property, those who produce do not obtain the reward of their efforts,
and those who do not produce (the rulers and the auxiliaries), get all comforts of life. His conclusion,
therefore, is that of property, ultimately, reads to conflicts and clashes...
He was of the opinion that property is necessary for one who produces it and for that matter, necessary
for all; Professor Maxey expresses Aristotle’s voice when he says:
“Man most eat, be clad, have shelter, and in order to do so, must acquire property. The instinct
to do so is as natural and proper Property is necessary.
“Wealth (property) is a store of things, which are necessary or useful for life in the association
of city as household.” -Aristotle
With regard to the ownership of property, Aristotle referred to:
Individual ownership, and individual use, which is, for Aristotle, the most dangerous situation;
Common ownership, and individual use, a situation which can begin with socialism, but would end up in
Capitalism ;it is also not acceptable;
Common ownership and common use, a devise invariably impracticable;
Individual ownership and common use, a device generally possible and equally acceptable.
Aristotle says: “property ought to be generally and in the main private, but common in use.”
But the property has to be acquired by honest means. “Of all the means of acquiring wealth, taking interest is
the most unnatural method”. He was also against amassing property. He says “To acquire too much property
will be as gross an error as to make a hammer too heavy”.
ARISTOTLE ON FAMILY
As against Plato, Aristotle advocated the private family system. According to Aristotle, family is the
primary unit of social life, which not only makes society but keeps it going.
Aristotle believed that family is one institution where an individual is born, is nurtured, gets his identity,
his name and above all attains intellectual development. He asserts that family is the primary school
of social virtue where a child gets lessons of quality such as cooperation, love, tolerance, and sacrifice.
It is not merely a primary association, but is a necessary action of society.
If man is a social animal which Aristotle insists he is, family becomes the extension of man’s nature;
the village, the extension of families; and the state, an extension, and union of families and villages.
A family, Aristotle says, consists of husband, wife, children, slaves and properly. It involves three types
of relationships that of the master and slave, marital (between the husband and wife) and parental
(between the father and the child).
The master, Aristotle held, rules the slave; the husband rules the wife (Aristotle regards women inferior
to man, an incomplete male), and the father rules the son.
With his belief in patriarchy Aristotle wanted to keep, women within the four-walls of the house, good only
for household work and reproduction and nurture of the species. For him, man is the head of the family.
Likewise, Aristotle affirmed that man is superior to woman, wiser than the slave and more experienced
than the children.
ARISTOTLE ON CITIZENSHIP
He only accepts two factors to determine citizenship of any person: Birth and Blood and yet excludes
women, children, old people and slave from citizenship.

Citizenship for him is not simply a status, but instead it is a duty which has to be performed. Therefore
he provides this citizenship to only those who are capable of fulfilling this duty.
Women are inferior to men and since they are occupied with household work, they are denied citizenship
rights.
Old people and children because of their age are unable to fulfil the duties of citizenship.
Slaves lack reason, which is necessary to participate in the legislative functions of state.
Only a Natural Born Adult male with property of his own can claim citizenship.
He bases his theory on Participation. Only those should be provided citizenship who can actually
participate and contribute to the law making process.
ARISTOTLE ON SLAVERY
Who are the Masters/Rulers?
Those who have reason and courage meaning those who have ability to take a decision and
strength to stand by the consequences of the decision.
Who are the Slaves?

Those who lack capacity to take decision. They also lack courage to stand by the consequences
of the decision.
Justification of Utility of Slavery

t is useful of economic system because those who are physically strong can work for
longer duration.
It is useful also for political system, only those who have reason and courage are taking
the decision.
It is useful for the master because master will get time to participate in civic affairs and
fulfil his civic duties.
It is useful for the slave also as he cannot take decisions for himself so anyway he
will be requiring the master who will take decisions for him
Aristotle justifies slavery, which in fact, was the order of the day. He writes:
“For that some should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary, but expedient; from
the hour of their birth, same are marked out for subjection, others for rule.”
So Foster rightly says: “In fact, Aristotle justifies slavery on grounds of expediency”.
According to Barker: “Aristotle’s conception of slavery is more a justification of a necessity than a
deduction from disinterested observation of facts.”
Maxey is clearer than others in expressing Aristotle’s justification of slavery: “Some persons, remarks
Aristotle, think slavery is unjust and contrary to nature, but he is of the opinion that it is quite in accord
with the laws of nature and the principles of justice. Many persons, he asserts, are intended by nature to
be slaves; from the hours of their birth they are marked for subjection.
Not that they are necessarily inferior in strength of body or mind, but they are of a servile (submissive)
nature, and so are better off when they are ruled by other man. They lack the quality of soul that
distinguishes the freeman and master.... Consequently it is just that they should be held as property and
used as other property is used, as means of maintaining life.”
What distinguishes a master or freeman from a slave?
Aristotle makes the point: “Nature would like to distinguish between the bodies of freeman and slaves,
making the one (slave) strong, Servile and labour, the other (freeman) upright, and although useless for such
services (as labour), useful for political life, in the arts both of war and peace.”

Slavery is not only natural, it is necessary as well. It is natural, Aristotle argued, because nature does not
admit equality; it is necessary, he continues, because if the master needs a slave so that he is able to
enjoy a free life, the slave also needs a master so that he is able to attain the ‘ virtues of freeman only in
the company of freemen.
A slave, according to Aristotle, is not a human being. He is sub-human, incomplete, and a barbarian.
He belonged to the master. But Aristotle rejected inhumane treatment of slaves, and advocated their
emancipation as a reward for their good behaviour.
He anticipated a time when there would be no slavery when the spinning wheel will move of its own,
when machine will replace the human worker and this is what precisely happened. Slavery ended with
the coming of the industrial revolution.
ARISTOTLE 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. In Aristotle’s views,
political change is a revolution; big or small, total or partial. So to sum up Aristotle’s meaning of revolution, one
may say revolution implies:
A change in the set of rulers;
A change, political in nature:
A palace revolution;
Political instability or political transformation;
A change followed by violence, destruction and bloodshed.
CAUSES OF REVOLUTION
Professor Maxey identifies the general causes of revolutions as stated by Aristotle in his
Politics. ‘They are
that universal passion for privilege and entitlement which causes men to resent and rebel
against condition which (unfairly in their opinion) place other men above or on a level
with them in rank or wealth;
The overreaching disrespect or greed of rulers or ruling classes which causes men to
react against them
The possession by one or more individuals of power such as to excite fears in others.
The efforts of men guilty of wrong doing to incite a revolution as a smokescreen to
conceal their own misdeed or of men freeing the aggression of others to start a revolution
in order to overcome their enemies
The disproportionate increase of any part of the state (territorial, social, economic or
otherwise) , causing other parts to resort to violence to offset this new dominance
Rivalries and quarrels among people of different races.
Family feuds and quarrels
Struggle for office and political between rival classes, political factions and parties.
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.
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 forcibly resist and
provide the emergence of oligarchy.

The cause 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 benefitting becomes smaller
or when disparity between the rich and poor becomes wider, revolution is caused. Monarchy, Kingship
and tyranny are bad forms of constitution to begin with and are very prone to dissensions.
MEANS TO AVOID REVOLUTION

Prof Maxey describes methods to avoid revolution as suggested by Aristotle:
Always maintaining the spirit and respect for Law since disobedience creeps in
unnoticed and eventually controls the state.
Never mistreat any classes of people excluded from the government , but to give due
recognition to the leaders among them
Always keep patriotism at high levels.
The state should invent terrors and bring distant dangers near, in order that the citizens
may always be on their guard and never relax their attention.
Counteract on the discontent among the public that arises from inequality of position
by creating conditions which prevent the magistrates from misusing their position.
This can be done by limiting their tenure in office and regulating the distribution of
honours so that no one person or group of persons will become disproportionately
powerful.
Adaptation of education as per the form of the government. The young must be
trained in the spirit of the constitution and disciplined to social habits consonant with
maintenance of the constitution.
EVALUATION OF HIS THEORY OF REVOLUTION

He has given a very narrow meaning of revolution. A political change only, forgetting that revolution is
always a comprehensive social change in the fabric of the whole system.
He also has a negative role for the revolution, i.e. brings with its destruction, violence and bloodshed,
without recognising the fact that revolutions as Marx has said are locomotives of history, and violence
only a non-significant attending characteristic of that wholesome change.
With Aristotle, revolutions should be kept away, making him the status- quoist of his time.
ARISTOTLE VS MARX ON REVOLUTION

ARISTOTLE MARX
Approach Conservative, Wants to prevent Radical, Actively supports it

it
Nature Any change is revolution even A complete upheaval of the social,
small economic and political order,
overthrowing of the propertied
classes
Cause Sense of Injustice and discontent Sense of Injustice and exploitation
among those who are ruled among proletariat (workers)
Impact Political chaos and instability The State slowly withers away and
Communism is established

ARISTOTLE IN COMPARISION TO HIS MASTER PLATO

The onset of western political thought starts with the ideological discourse between Plato and Aristotle
regarding the conception of State. The founding arguments and statements in a comparative perspective by
Andrew Hacker provide a justification for calling Plato as father of political Idealism and Aristotle as a father
of political Philosophy:
They each had ideas of how to improve existing societies during their individual lifetimes. The
main focus of Plato is a perfect society. He creates a blueprint for a utopian society, in his book
The Republic, out of his disdain for the tension of political life. This blueprint was a sketch of a
society in which the problems he thought were present in his society would be eased. Plato sought
to cure the afflictions of both human society and human personality. Essentially what Plato wants
to achieve is a perfect society. Aristotle, unlike Plato, is not concerned with perfecting society.
He just wants to improve on the existing one. Rather than produce a blueprint for the perfect
society, Aristotle suggested, in his work, The Politics that the society itself should reach for the
best possible system that could be attained. Therefore while the main objective of the former is
establishment of an ideal state while the latter prefers sustaining the actual depending upon the
political realities of the prevailing times.
Plato relied on the deductive approach, while Aristotle is an example of an inductive approach. Utopia
is a solution in abstract, a solution that has no concrete problem. There is no solid evidence that all
societies are in need of such drastic reformation as Plato suggests. Aristotle discovers that the best
possible has already been obtained. All that can be done is to try to improve on the existing one.
Plato’s utopia consists of three distinct, non-hereditary class systems. The Guardians consist of
non-ruling Guardians and ruling Guardians. The non-rulers are a higher level of civil servants and
the ruling is the society’s policy makers. Auxiliaries are soldiers and minor civil servants. Finally the
Workers are composed of farmers and artisans, most commonly unskilled labourers. The Guardians
are to be wise and good rulers. It is important that the rulers who emerge must be a class of
craftsmen who are public-spirited in temperament and skilled in the arts of government areas. The
guardians are to be placed in a position in which they are absolute rulers. They are supposed to be
the select few who know what is best for society. Aristotle disagrees with the idea of one class
holding discontinuing political power. The failure to allow circulation between classes excludes
those men who may be ambitious, and wise, but are not in the right class of society to hold any type
of political power. Aristotle looks upon this ruling class system as an ill-conceived political structure.
He quotes “It is a further objection that he deprives his Guardians even of happiness, maintaining
that happiness of the whole state which should be the object of legislation,” ultimately he is saying
that Guardians sacrifice their happiness for power and control. Guardians who lead such a strict life
will also think it necessary to impose the same strict lifestyle on the society it governs.
Aristotle puts a high value on moderation there is so much of Plato’s utopia that is undefined and it
is carried to extremes that no human being could ever fulfil its requirements. Aristotle believes that
Plato is underestimating the qualitative change in human character and personality that would have
to take place in order to achieve his utopia. Plato chose to tell the reader of his Republic how men
would act and what their attitudes would be in a perfect society. Aristotle tries to use real men in the
real world in an experimental fashion to foresee how and in which ways they can be improved.
ARISTOTLE: EVALUATION AND SIGNIFICANCE

Aristotle is rightly regarded as the father of Political Science’, as by his meticulous and painstaking
research of political institutions and behaviour he provided the first framework of studying politics
empirically and scientifically. His classification of constitutions provided the first major thrust for studying
comparative politics. The primacy of the political was most forcefully argued when he commented that
man by nature is a political animal.
His most lasting importance was in his advocacy of the rule of law rather than personalised rule by
the wisest and the best. The entire edifice of modern civilisation is based on respect for constitutional
provisions and well-defined laws. The origin of both is with Aristotle. In this sense being a less ambitious
but more a practical realist than Plato, Aristotle’s practical prescriptions have been more lasting and
more influential than the radical and provocative ideas of Plato

It is because of such extraordinary acumen that Aristotle’s influence on the subsequent political
philosophers is without a parallel in the history of political theory. His views about the state and
particularly the nature of the state have not been challenged. All those who ventured to classify slate
start from Aristotle. His views on revolution were the last words on the subject until Marx came to
analyse it differently.
COMMENTARIES
BY ARISTOTLE
Man by nature is a political animal.
When perfected, man is the best of animals, but when separated from law and justice, he is the worst of all.
The good in the sphere of politics is justice, and justice contains what tends to promote the common interest.
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 neighbours.
Wealth (property) is a store of things, which are necessary or useful for life in the association of city as
household.
Property ought to be generally and in the main private, but common in use.
Of all the means of acquiring wealth, taking interest is the most unnatural method
To acquire too much property will be as gross an error as to make a hammer too heavy
But a state exists for the sake of a good life, and not for the sake of life only.
The state is by nature clearly prior to the family and the individual, since the whole is of necessity prior
to the past; for example, if the whole body be destroyed, there will be no foot or hand.
The proof that the state is a creation of nature, and prior to the individual, the individual, when isolated,
is not self-sufficing; and therefore, he is like a part in relation to the whole. But he who is unable to live
in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must either be a beast or a god; lie is
no part of a state.”
“Man most eat, be clad, have shelter, and in order to do so, must acquire property. The instinct to do so
is as natural and proper Property is necessary.
“For that some should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary, but expedient; from the hour
of their birth, same are marked out for subjection, others for rule.”
BY SCHOLARS
Coleridge: Everyone is born either a Platonist or an Aristotelian
Maxey: All who believe in the new worlds for old are the disciples of Plato; all those who believe in old
worlds made new by the tedious and toilsome use of science are disciples of Aristotle.
Barker comments that Aristotle’s methodology is scientific; his work is systematic, his writings are
analytical.
Ross: “Aristotle begins by recognising two senses of the word. By ‘Just’, we may mean what is lawful or
what is fair and equal”.
Foster: “In fact, Aristotle justifies slavery on grounds of expediency”.
Barker: “Aristotle’s conception of slavery is more a justification of a necessity than a deduction from
disinterested observation of facts.”
Gettel: “Politics is not a systematic study of political philosophy, but rather is treatise on the art of
government. In it, Aristotle analyses the evils that were prevalent in the Greek cities and the defects in
the political systems and gives practical suggestions as to the best way to avoid threatening dangers.”
**********

3
LIBERALISM
INTRODUCTION
Liberalism is the dominant ideology of the present-day Western world.
The history of England, Western Europe and America for the last 300 years is closely associated with
the evolution and development of liberal thought.
Liberalism was the product of Renaissance and Reformation in Europe.
It reflects the economic, social and political aspirations of the capitalist class.
It was born both as a cause and consequence of the end of feudal order in England mainly and Europe
in general.
The main demand of liberalism is freedom- freedom from every authority which is capable of acting
unpredictably and arbitrarily plus freedom of the individual to develop all of his potentialities as a
human being who can act with reason.
To achieve the liberty of the individual and to challenge the authority of the state, liberalism demanded
liberty in every field of life: intellectual, social, religious, cultural, political and most importantly
economic etc.
The first thing to note about liberalism is that it is a dynamic concept and its meaning has been
continuously changing as per the changing socio-economic circumstances of the state and society.
Broadly three major streams can be identified :
Classical Liberalism
Positive Liberalism or Welfare state Theory
Neo-liberalism or Libertarianism
CLASSICAL LIBERALISM
CLASSICAL LIBERALISM: ORIGIN AND HISTORY
The social structure of the middle ages was based on the hereditary principle of feudalism. The particular
feature of which was that everybody had a master above him: the peasant had the landlord, the landlord
had the feudal lord, the feudal lord had the king, the king had the Pope, and the Pope had Christ above
him.
The Reformation Movement broke the authority of the church. The revival of commerce and the creation
of new forms wealth began to challenge the dominance of the nobility and the demand for political and
social reforms that would improve their status and their business, freedom from restrictions such as
taxes that constituted barriers to free trade.
The rise and growth of towns and of a new social class, revival of literature and art, birth of modern
science and philosophy and the rise of large centralized states created a new age.
The medieval ages were based on the privileges of a few in which individual liberty, rights, equality etc.
were totally absent. The birth of the modern period starts with the protest against this absolute and
privileged authority, a kind of protest which was prevalent in all spheres of life and which challenged all
the restrictions and emphasized the autonomy of the individual, his liberty and his rationality.

‘The protest expressed itself in the form of secularism against religious fundamentalism, free market
capitalism in the field of economics, a government based upon consent in the field of politics, and
individualism and humanism in the field of sociology.
Classical Liberalism is called by different names like negative liberalism, individualistic

liberalism, laissez faire liberalism, free market liberalism, integral liberalism, original
liberalism etc.
Prominent Thinkers of the tradition: Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Adam Smith, Malthus,
Ricardo, Bentham, James Mill, J.S. Mill, Herbert Spencer, William Senior and Thomas Paine.
CLASSICAL LIBERALISM: BASIC FEATURES

Classical Liberalism is associated with those progressive ideas which accompanied the gradual
breakdown of traditional social hierarchies. It was opposed to what was traditional and feudal and
friendly to the new emerging social order of bourgeois society.
In opposition to the world dominated by monarchy, aristocracy and Christianity, liberalism opposed the
arbitrary powers of the kings and privileges of the nobility based upon birth.
It favoured an open meritocracy where every energetic individual could rise to respectability and
success.
Liberalism believed in a contractual and competitive society and a free market economic order.
It favoured free thinking, rationalism and speculative mode of thought.
It considered man as selfish, egoistic, alienated but at the same time rational.
It believes that external restraints on individual should be minimal.
CLASSICAL LIBERALISM: MAJOR BELIEFS

John Hallowell has pinpointed the following characteristics of classical liberalism
Abelief in the absolute value of human personality and spiritual equality of the individual;
A belief in the autonomy of the individual will;
A belief in the essential rationality and goodness of man;
A belief in certain inalienable rights of the individual, particularly , the rights of life, liberty and property
and these rights are not dependent on the mercy of the state.
That state comes into existence by mutual consent for the purpose of protection of rights;
That the relationship between the state and the individual is a contractual one;
Individual freedom in all spheres of life – political, economic, social, intellectual and religious,
The government that governs the least is the best.
CLASSICAL LIBERALISM: IDEA OF LIBERTY

At the core of classical liberalism was the liberty of the individual - liberty from every form of authority
which acts arbitrarily and unpredictably, and liberty in all spheres of human Life.
But what is important to note is that liberty here was viewed as a negative thing i.e. Liberty as absence
of restraints. Only the individual knows what is best for him.
For the development of his personality, he requires freedoms from arbitrary authorities which act against his
will. It was liberty both from the society and from the state. It was ‘liberty from’ and not “liberty to’.
The purpose of law was not to take away liberty, but to regulate it. Law and liberty were considered
contradictory to each other.

HOW DO SCHOLARS DEFINE LIBERTY?

Hobbes describes it as the ‘silence of laws’.
Berlin defines it as ‘absence of coercion’.
Milton Friedman defines it as ‘absence of coercion of man by state, society or his
fellowmen’.
Flew defines it as ‘absence of social and legal constraints’.
According to Nozick, it is a natural right to ‘self-ownership’.
CLASSICAL LIBERALISM: VIEW ON SOCIETY

Since the individual was taken as a unit and the single human being as a natural unit, classical liberalism
viewed society not as a natural, but an artificial institution.
It was seen as being composed of atom like autonomous individuals with wills and interests peculiar to
themselves.
Society was an artificial institution meant to serve certain interests of the individuals. It was an aggregate
of individuals, a collection, a crowd where each was pursuing his own self-interest.
Hobbes compared society with a sack of corn. They are associate, yet separate.
Bentham also viewed society as a fictitious body, with no interest of its own, apart from the interests of
members composing it.
Macpherson has termed this view of society as a ‘free market society’, a meeting place of self-interested
individuals, a society based upon free will, competition and contract.
A good society was that which guaranteed the liberty of the individual to maximize the self-interest and
its freedom of action.
Society was a means or tool with individual “as an end; it had no necessary unity, no separate interest
and existence of its own apart from the individual interests. It was a free or open society.
CLASSICAL LIBERALISM: ADAM SMITH’S VIEWS

Smith discovered that by seeking one’s own interest, one promotes by some mysterious process the
welfare of all. There is no conflict between the individual self-interest and social welfare.
‘Every man as long as he does not violate the laws of justice, ought to be left perfectly free to
pursue his own interests in his own way and to bring both his industry and capital into competition
with those of any other man or order of men’.
- Adam Smith
Accordingly, Smith restricted the activities of the state to the bare minimum such as security of life, limb
and property of the individual and some public works.
He restricts the functions of the state to
Protect the society from violence and invasion
Protect each member of society from injustice and oppression of every other member
To erect and maintain certain public works and certain public works and certain public institutions in
which the individual may not be interested because it would be unprofitable.
CLASSICAL LIBERALISM: ROLE OF PROPERTY & MARKET

The individual right to private property was central to the economic theory of classical Liberalism i.e. the
right to freely own or dispose of; to buy or sell, to hire labour and make profit, Free trade, free contract,

competition, free economy, free market and market society, natural right to private property were the
hallmarks of this theory.
It believed that if the individual is left alone to follow his own enlightened self-interest, economic
prosperity would result.
The perfect institution for the exchange of goods and services was the market. Market relations abolished
the traditional constraints on freedom ‘to raise and invest capital, to fund loan and earn interest, sell property
and reap profit, hire and fire labour’.
The state was not suited to the management of economic affairs. As Adam Smith wrote ‘no two
characters seem more inconsistent than those of trader and sovereign (government)’.
Similarly, Bentham also believed in the self-regulating uncontrolled economy in which the state had
virtually no role to play.
CLASSICAL LIBERALISM: ROLE OF STATE

The only basis of civil society which early classical liberalism could conceive was contract or an agreement
between the individual and the state. The contract theory had three inter-related elements:
the state is not created by God, but is the creation of man
it is not a natural institution, but an artificial institution and
The basis of the state and political obligation is the consent of the individuals.
Classical liberalism did not regard the state as a natural, necessity arising out of man’s needs, but as an
artificial institution based upon the egoistic nature of man.
The state comes into existence by mutual consent for the sole purpose of preserving and protecting the
rights of the individual and the relationship between the state and the individual is a contractual one.
When the terms of the contract are violated, individuals not only have the right, but also the responsibility
to revolt and establish a new government.
Through the notion of consent, liberalism tried to safeguard the rights and liberties of the people and
check the arbitrariness of the rulers.
Consent was also made a precondition of the state, because liberalism believed that the authority of the
state was a restraint upon individual freedom and it should be checked as far as possible.
CLASSICAL LIBERALISM: STATE AS A NECESSARY EVIL

Classical liberalism saw the state in purely negative terms. It was termed as necessary evil.
It was necessary because only it could provide law, order , security of life and property, but it was an
evil because it was an enemy of human liberty.
Liberalism considered the rights and liberties of the individual as sacred, and any increase in the functions
of the state was seen as a decrease in the liberty of the individual.
The liberal slogan was ‘ that the government is the best which governs the least’.
FAMOUS QUOTES ON ROLE OF STATE

William Senior said ‘ the essential business of the government is to afford defense, to
protect the community against foreign and domestic violence and fraud.’
Bentham reduced the task of the government to security and freedom.
Thomas Paine said ‘ while society in any state is a blessing, government even in its best
state is but a necessary evil.
Herbert Spencer advocated the doctrine of survival of the fittest and pleaded that the
state should have a minimum role in the socio-economic sphere.

CLASSICAL LIBERALISM: CRITICAL EVALUATION

WRONG VIEW OF MAN AND SOCIETY
The liberal view of man and society has also been criticized. Although the liberal view of human nature
has changed in the twentieth century, nevertheless, it considers man as egoistic, lonely, separate from
the society, possessive and concerned with the fulfilment of his selfish interests.
Consequently, the society was also seen as an aggregate of individuals, an artificial institution with no
organic unity of its own. In other words, society is more than a jungle where animals roam in the disguise
of men.
The socialist ideology completely rejected this notion of man and society. It argued that man is
dependent upon others not only for material needs, but also for cultural and spiritual needs. Socialism
viewed man as a social, cooperative being and held the view that the nature of man cannot be studied
apart from the society in which he lives.
For example, Owen called it unethical, Box termed it unnatural, Marx called it animal like; Mao called it
poison, Morris called it hell.
PHILOSOPHY OF THE CAPITALIST CLASS

Notwithstanding the highly flexible character of the principles of liberalism, it cannot be denied that it
remained the philosophy of the capitalist class and continues to retain its 'bourgeois' character.
Liberalism has been the firm ideology of one class inside one age - the urban entrepreneurial middle
class which later on became the industrialist capitalist class.
It has been the economic philosophy of capitalism and its basic purpose has been the maintenance of
socio-political arrangements necessary for capitalist economic relations.
Critics point out that its welfare measures have been incidental to its fundamental purpose of protecting
and promoting the interest of the capitalist class.
According to Laski, liberalism has always seen the poor, as if they became poor because of their own
mistakes.
Classical liberalism always underplayed the fact that property also brings with it the power to rule over
men and things. Although it gives the right to property at a universal level, yet at a practical level, the right
is enjoyed only by a minority.
The attitude of liberalism towards the poor, trade union activities, education, health, housing, social
security is witness to the fact that in the ultimate analysis, all questions are related to profit.
The whole economy is geared to the production for profit for the owners of the means of production,
however, regulated and controlled the economy may be by the state.
NEGATIVE CONCEPT OF STATE

The criticism commonly passed on this kind of liberalism was that it neglected institutions and their
historical growth.
It worked with a falsely schematic conception of human nature and motives.
Its weakness as a political philosophy was that its theory of government was almost wholly negative at
a time when it was becoming inevitable that the government should assume a larger responsibility for
general welfare.
That early political economy was full of contradictions was well explained by Karl Marx, who turned its
arguments to a quite different purpose.
Karl Marx said that it was equally true that the interests of the capitalists were antagonistic to that of
the working class because whatever share of the product went to profit was drawn from the wages of
the workers
In fact, negative liberalism provided Marx with a ready picture of the exploitation of labour. Liberal

economists thought that the system they were describing was natural, whereas Marx explained that it
was rooted in history and ascribed the exploitation to the capitalist system.
Similarly, Laski also said later on: 'the purpose of capitalism was to free the owners of the means
of production from all those constraints which hampered the complete economic exploitation'. Its
concepts of human nature, society, social harmony economy and state began to be challenged by the
mid-nineteenth century, as a result of which it changed to welfare liberalism.
POSITIVE LIBERALISM /WELFARE STATE

POSITIVE LIBERALISM: ORIGINS
The role or the functions of the liberal state changed drastically. The changes were perceptible during the
eighties and nineties of the nineteenth century. There are several causes to these changes:
Due to the industrial revolution that occurred in the second half of the eighteenth century unparalleled
growth took place in various sectors, some of which were setting up of new industries, amount of
commodities produced, development in the transport sector, foreign trade etc. Manufacturers garnered
profit which was unconceivable in earlier periods.
Workers migrated from village homes and to crowded cities for jobs and all of a sudden the supply
market of the workers increased significantly.
The demand for the employees at the initial stages of industrial development was upward moving and
there was no problem of joblessness. But later on the demand for labour declined causing the fall in
wage rate.
Huge gap between demand and supply was fully exploited by the capitalists. They paid less wages to
the employees and the latter were forced to accept the terms and conditions set by the capitalists. The
scope of employment decreased enormously. The capitalists had already established their stronghold
in various sectors of government.
The greater part of the population was effectively underprivileged of benefits and was subject to abject
poverty, diseases etc. All the industrialised countries of Europe were the victims of industrial revolution.
But the greatest victim perhaps was London. The industrial revolution in Europe seemed as a curse and
this brought about a gloom in the minds of many people and particularly the idealist thinkers.
The Role of the State was reassessed during that time. Green and many theorists started to think
over the issue seriously. They wanted to save the “underfed denizen of a London Yard” and to take
measures against moral deprivation. They thought that stern steps would be taken to solve the issues
of poverty, miseries, and diseases, and to check the downward movement of ethics. Without moral
development, society cannot develop. Green believed that all these could be done through the bold
leadership of the state.
Sabine stated that “Accordingly for Green, politics was essentially an agency for creating social conditions
that make moral development possible”. Green asserted that the state has a positive role to play in the
development of society and the term development includes both moral and physical conditions. The
state can never be a stranded onlooker of all incidents that were happening in its presence. If the state
fails to do it, it will lose its reliability as a state. T. H. Green restructured the role of the state and also
the concept of liberalism.
In the end of the nineteenth century, the liberal state was challenged with crisis of existence and crisis of
trustworthiness. Different external and internal forces in Europe were about to challenge the very foundation
of several liberal states of Europe. Predominantly, Marxism challenged the policies of liberal state.
The European states were involved among themselves in continuous wars or armed struggle which
posed menace to the liberal state. Under such circumstances, the passionate protectors of liberal state
were keen to effect a compromise between liberal and “anti-liberal” forces. Anti-liberal in the sense that
there arose a strong urge to give more power to the state so that it can fight poverty, inequalities and
diseases.
But most of the liberal theorists where unwilling to make the state leviathan. It was impossible for many
to think of abandoning the liberal philosophy and the same persons thought that the state should do
something. This finally resulted in a reformulation of liberal state.

POSITIVE LIBERALISM/WELFARE STATE:

JUSTIFICATION BY GREEN AND LASKI
An important justification for the Welfare state was that it enhances liberty. In fact, the welfare state was
the natural corollary of the reinterpretation of liberty from being something negative to being something
positive.
Its intellectual roots are found in T.H. Green and continued Bosanquet, Richie, Hobhouse and Laski.
In his famous essay ‘Liberal legislation and freedom of contract’, Green defined liberty as ‘freedom as
something to be so highly prized, we mean a positive power or capacity of doing something worth doing
or enjoying and that too , something that we do or enjoy in common with the others.’
The function of the liberal state should be to support the existence of a free society. He reached the
conclusion that the function of the state can be nothing else, but of maintaining the conditions of life in
which morality is possible.
The state is to help man in realizing the ideal of self-realization as a member of society by removing
external hindrances. Its main function is to create the external conditions in which there will be the
fewest possible impediments in the way of everyman doing his best for himself.
Stated in these terms, the state was made a welfare state, this is nothing less than liberating the
human capacity for self-determination.
If illiteracy, ignorance, poverty, drinking and insanitation are removed, the liberty of the individual
personality is enhanced. On these grounds, Green advocated state intervention for the full development
of the individual personality in and through the society.
By insisting that it is the function of the state to remove all obstacles to good life and to provide
conditions in which freedom could be pursued, Green laid the foundation of the 20th century welfare
state.
The First World War, socialist revolution in Russia, rise of Fascism and the world economic depression
created a favourable environment for the welfare state which was reflected d in the writings of Laski,
Keynes and Galbraith.
For e.g. Laski talked of liberty as ‘the power of adding something to common life , a contribution
which can be made if (a) there are certain specific conditions that, enable the individual to make the
contribution , and (b) that institutions are not in his way as a hindrance.
The former can be guaranteed by the state thorough the provisions of rights and the latter, through
regulative legislation. In other words, the state was considered a source and condition of liberty.
POSITIVE LIBERALISM: JUSTIFICATION FOR WELFARE STATE.

Positive liberalism as it evolved during the latter half of the 19th and the first half of the 20th centuries could
be justified on the following grounds:
Although it continued to retain faith in the autonomy, rights and liberty of the individual, now it believed
that in man is a part of the social whole and the liberties could be secured only so long as they could
be reconciled with the social good.
Society was considered 'a potential harmonious and ordered structure in which all social classes work for
the common good'. Society has its own interest, it' has ethical and moral dimensions and the individual
good cannot be achieved without social good.
liberty, like justice and equality, is not an empty social ideal, but derives its specific content from a
particular social and historical milieu in which it has to be understood. Liberty in the society implied
adjustment of mutual claims that are made possible through a system or rights which are both restraints
and liberties.
Liberty was not merely the absence of restraints, but conditions necessary for free and full development
of the self which a state, true to its own moral purpose must ensure. ‘Liberty through compulsion' though
a paradox was justified as practically valid. Only on this ground it justified social and welfare legislation,
also, liberty implied equality. Equality provided the basis through which liberty comes to acquire a
positive meaning. Liberty and equality are complementary.

Equality is not only equality before law or mere equality of opportunity or of being treated as a human
being, but also economic equality commensurable with political liberty - a modification through state
action of the excessive disparities of wealth and of opportunity that follow.
positive liberalism believed in regulated capitalist economy, in the overall interest of society. The state
could check the individual capitalist, through economic and social reforms, the conditions of the working
class could be improved; poverty, illiteracy, unemployment and exploitation could be checked. The gap
between the rich and the poor could be bridged through the positive action of the state.
at the political level, positive liberalism depended upon the proposition that the sense of public good
or general welfare is an effective motive of politics. The state is an instrument for the development
of human personality through welfare measures. The state has a positive character and is capable of
performing socially useful functions.
The institutional arrangements for achieving the good of the individual and the society are democracy,
representative government, constitutionalism, parliamentary methods, universal franchise, and party
organization.
The liberal government is one which protects the rights of the individual as well as of the community.
The state is to coordinate different interests and classes in society. It does not belong to a particular
class, but to the society as a whole.
POSITIVE LIBERTY VS NEGATIVE LIBERTY

NEGATIVE LIBERTY
There are two types of freedom. The first type of freedom like freedom of speech and worship come
under the negative liberty. Negative liberty focus on limited role of the state, how it does not hinder the
individual in pursuing his self-appointed goals.
“The negative conception of liberty flourished at a time when individuals were struggling to be free from
the unnecessary restraints of arbitrary government and when individual choice determined the allocation
of resources. The main political axiom of the negative liberty doctrine was that everyone knows his own
interest best and that the state should not decide his ends and purposes” Norman P.Barry
The state was not allowed to impose its own conception of ‘good’ on the individuals in their mutual
dealings.
The idea of negative liberty led to the doctrine of Laissez faire that is freedom from government
interference in economic affairs.
The state was viewed as a negative state, a necessary evil which was required not to interfere with the
natural liberty of men, but only to maintain their liberty by protecting their person and property from the
onslaught of other individuals.
Most of the advocates of negative liberty favoured a minimal state such as Adam Smith, Jeremy
Bentham , James Mill, Henry Sigwick and Herbert Spencer.
POSITIVE LIBERTY
First and biggest advocate: John Stuart Mill ( STUDENTS WILL READ ABOUT HIM SEPERATELY AS A
THINKER ALONGWITH BENTHAM)
The second type of freedom is positive liberty which includes freedom from fear and want. This requires
the state to play an active and positive role. The state is expected to remove certain impediments in the
way of the individual in exercising his freedom.
It is also essential to remember that these two types of freedom, namely negative liberty and positive liberty
are not opposed to each other. In fact, they are complimentary, they are two sides of the same coin.
However some contemporary liberal thinker known as exponents of Libertarianism have attempted to
re-emphasize on negative liberty like Isaiah Berlin, F.A. Hayek, Milton Friedman and Robert Nozick.

DEFENCE OF NEGATIVE LIBERTY: HOBBES AND BERLIN

The classic defence of negative liberty remains Isaiah Berlin’s ‘Two Concepts of Liberty’, first published
in 1958. Berlin defined ‘being free’ as “not being interfered with by others. The wider the area of non-
interference, the wider my freedom.”
This definition is a throwback to Hobbes’ presentation of liberty in the Leviathan as the absence of
‘external impediments’. For Hobbes, “a free man, is he, that in those things, which he by his strength
and wit he is able to do, is not hindered to do what he has a will to.”
In Hobbes’ view, these hindrances included the laws of the sovereign, framed after civil society had
been created by the social contract, since liberty depended on the ‘silence of the law’.
The absence of civil laws in the state of nature should have translated into more freedom for its denizens,
but in its very absence, every individual acted as an external impediment to another’s freedom of action.
By his laws the sovereign ensured that his citizens were free from interference from one another.
It is good to keep in mind here how Hobbes, one of the earliest advocates of negative liberty, saw no
contradiction between the ‘needful’ laws of an absolute sovereign and his subjects’ liberty. To judge
whether an individual was free, it was irrelevant to check whether she had any say in the laws under
which she lived. The absolute sovereign alone made the laws. What was crucial was whether the
sovereign left as large an area of her life as possible unregulated by his laws.
Berlin makes the same point: liberty in its negative sense “is principally concerned with the area of
control, not with its source...there is no necessary connection between individual liberty and democratic
rule. The answer to the question ‘Who governs me?’ is logically distinct from the question ‘How far
does government interfere with me?”
In explaining the concept of liberty, Hobbes distinguished between freedom and ability. Most exponents
of negative liberty echo this distinction between power or ability and liberty. What they disagree about
is when a certain condition is to be characterised as a lack of ability and when as a lack of liberty.
Not being able to fly because of a lack of wings is, in the case of human beings, a clear case of the
lack of an ability, and not of being unfree. But what about the case of a man who is too poor to afford
“something on which there is no legal ban - a loaf of bread, a journey round the world.”
Berlin argues that given a social theory in which this poverty is the result of “other human beings having
made arrangements” whereby some men lack material resources while others enjoy an abundance of
them, the poor man should be described not as being unable to buy bread, but as being unfree to do
so: “The criterion of oppression is the part that I believe to be played by other human beings, directly or
indirectly, with or without the intention of doing so, in frustrating my wishes.”
This is certainly a far cry from the work of Hillel Steiner, according to whom, only physical barriers
intentionally placed on someone’s action can allow that person to claim that she is not free. We see
then that there is a wide range in the understanding of what is to count as impediments/obstacles to
action, even among the advocates of negative liberty.
Another classical defence of negative liberty was John Stuart Mill’s 1859 essay, On Liberty. Here is
Mill’s position in brief: “...the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively,
in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection...the only purpose for
which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is
to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant...The only
part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In
the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute.”
Insisting that there is a line, however faint, between self-regarding and other regarding action, Mill argued
that the principle of liberty brooked no interference with the sphere of one’s self- regarding action.
Discussing three specific areas - of thought and its oral and written expression, of taste and pursuits,
and of combination or association with other individuals - Mill claimed that except to prevent ‘direct
material harm’ to others, society had no other justification for interfering with the liberty of the individual
in these areas. “No society in which these liberties are not, on the whole, respected, is free, whatever
may be its form of government, and none is completely free in which they do not exist absolute and
unqualified.”

NEO-LIBERALISM / LIBERTARIANISM
NEO-LIBERALISM / LIBERTARIANISM: ORIGINS
With the rise of liberalism a theory of welfare state in the twentieth century, its functions
increased manifold. It was during this transformation that the state acquired its present all pervasive
form.
However, the fight for classical liberalism was not given up. After the Second World War. An important
contribution to the theory of liberalism was made by theorists whose allegiance lay with early classical
liberalism.
This new movement which became popular in the USA and England in the 1960s is known by the name,
Libertarianism.
The libertarian movement received large scale academic attention with the appearance in 1974 of a book
Anarchy, State and Utopia by the Harvard philosopher Robert Nozick. It influenced the Thatcher/
Reagan administrations of the 1980s.
Etymologically, libertarianism means free will or free advocacy of liberty. It is the most radical form
of individualism and advocates pure capitalist economy, as the surest expression and defence of’
individuality.
In political theory, it answers once again the fundamental question i.e. what are the legitimate functions
of the state- in a radical way. Holding the liberty of the individual as sacrosanct. Libertarianism asserts
that welfare measures can lead to a collectivist state.
NEO-LIBERALISM / LIBERTARIANISM: BASIC ASSUMPTIONS

Individualism: Libertarianism sees the individual as the basic unit of social analysis. Only individuals
make choices and are responsible for their actions. It emphasizes the dignity of the individual which
entails both rights and responsibility.
Individual Rights: Because individuals are moral agents, they have a right to be secure in their life,
liberty and property. These rights are not granted by the government or by the society, they are inherent
in the nature of human beings. It is intuitively right that individuals enjoy the security of such rights, the
burden of explanation should lie with those who would take rights away.
Spontaneous Order: A great degree of order in society is necessary for individuals to survive and flourish.
The great insight of libertarian social analysis is that order in society arises spontaneously, out of the
action of thousands of individuals who coordinate their action with those of others, in order to achieve
their purposes. The most important institutions of human society such as language, law, money and
markets-all have developed spontaneously, without central direction. Civil society is another example of
spontaneous order, the associations within the civil society are formed for a purpose, but civil society
itself is not an organization and does not have a purpose of its own.
Free Markets: To survive and to flourish, individuals need to engage in economic activity, the right to
property entails the right to exchange property by mutual agreements. Free markets are the economic
system of free individuals and they are necessary to create wealth. Libertarians believe that people will be
both free and more prosperous, if government intervention in peoples' economic choices is minimized.
Minimal state: to protect rights, individuals form governments. But government is a dangerous institution.
Libertarians have a great antipathy to concentrated power. They want to divide and limit power and
that means especially, to limit the government generally through a written constitution enumerating and
limiting the power that the people delegate to government. Limited government is the basic political
implication of libertarianism. The state should be limited to the narrow function of protection against
force, theft, fraud, enforcement of contract etc. Any more extensive will violates a person's right not to
be forced to do certain things and as such would be unjustified.
Natural Harmony of Interests: Libertarians believe that there is a natural harmony of interests among
peaceful productive people in a just society. one person's individual plans- which may involve getting a
job, starting a business, buying a house etc. - may conflict with the plans of others, so the market makes
many of us change our plans. But we all prosper from the operation of the free market, and there are
no necessary conflicts between Farmers and merchants, manufacturers and importers. Only when a

government begins to hand out rewards on the basis of political pressure, do we find ourselves involved
in group conflicts; pushed to organize and contend with other groups for a piece of political power.
Peace: Libertarians have always battled the age-old scourge of war. 'They understood that war brought
death and destruction on a grand scale, disrupted family and economic life and put more power in the
hands of the ruling class- which might explain why the rulers did not always share the popular sentiment
for peace. Freemen and women, of course have often had to defend their own societies against foreign
threats, but throughout history, war has usually been the common enemy of peaceful productive people
on all sides of the conflicts.
In short, libertarianism contains the standard framework of modern thought i.e. individualism, private
property, capitalism, equality before law and minimal state. However, it applies these principles fully
and consistently far more so than most modem thinkers and certainly more so than any modern
government.
NEO-LIBERALISM / LIBERTARIANISM: CONCEPT OF STATE BY NOZICK

A powerful definition of the libertarian view of the minimal state has been developed by Robert Nozick
in his book Anarchy, State and Utopia. Nozick talks about the state in the context of individual rights.
Following the tradition of John Locke, Nozick speaks of prior and inalienable rights of the individual
possessed independent of society.
He says that rights are the property of the individual and are so strong and far reaching that they raise a
number of basic questions such as: what, if anything, the state may do? How much room do individual
rights leave for the state? What is the nature of the state? What are its legitimate functions and what
is its justification?
The state, according to Nozick, should be a minimal state, limited to the narrow functions of protection
against force, theft, fraud, enforcement of contract and so on.
Any more extensive state will violate the person’s right not to be forced to do certain things and as
such would be unjustified. ‘The minimal state is inspiring as well as right’. What is important is that
the state must not use its coercive apparatus for the purpose of getting some citizen to aid others, and
prohibit activities of people for their own good or protection.
Since Nozick strongly believes in the rights of the individuals, he seriously considers the anarchist
claim that the monopoly of use of force by the state may violate the individual’s right and hence, the
state is immoral. Against this claim, Nozick argues that the state will arise from anarchy even though
no one intends this. Individuals in the state of nature would find it in their interest to allow a ‘dominant
protective agency’ to emerge which would have de facto monopoly of force and could constitute a
state like entity. The formation of such an entity, if done in an appropriate way, may violate no one’s
rights, i.e. if it does not go beyond its legitimate power of protection, justice and defence.
Justifying the minimal state, he categorically asserts that liberty must get absolute precedence over
equality. He opposed the policies of progressive taxation and positive discrimination and asserts that
realization of liberty should not be inhibited by the policies of the government in providing public health
care, education or minimum standard of living. He argued that those who own wealth may voluntarily
adopt some redistribution. He is against any redistribution of property by the state because it may
transgress the liberty of those who have property.
For Nozick, the state is no more than a night watchman, protecting the inviolable rights of the citizens.
He asserts that the welfare notion which advocates that it is the society which allocates resources is
not only wrong, but illegitimate because there is no such thing as ‘ society’ except in the minimal sense
of being an aggregate of the individuals. ‘There are only people with their own individual lives’ and
society is no more than the sum of its individual components.
State intervention means appropriation of both ‘one’s resources and one’s self’. And ‘seizing the
results of someone’s labour is equivalent to seizing hours from him and directing him to carry on
various activities. Thus welfare state is a threat to liberty and independence of the individuals because
individual is the sole owner of himself and his talent.
The libertarian philosophy apart from Nozick has been propounded by a number of scholars like Hayek,
Friedman, Karl Popper, I. Berlin, Rothbard, and Ayn Rand.

JUSTICE AS ENTITLEMENT: ROBERT NOZICK

Robert Nozick, in his book Anarchy, State, and Utopia, questioned the basic assumptions of the distributive
theory of Justice of Rawls. As a counter theory, he gives an unpatterened theory of entitlement. He gives the
three principles which some have called the three theories of entitlement. The three principles of entitlement
are:
Principle of just acquisition
Principle of just transfer
Principle of rectification
The three principles of just entitlement are:
1. Just acquisition of holdings: “A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of justice
in acquisition is entitled to that holding." Anything acquired with one’s own effort belongs to him.
2. Just transfer of holdings: “A person who acquires a holding, in accordance with the principle of justice
in transfer, from someone else entitled to the, holding, is entitled to the holding." it gives the holder the
right to transfer the holdings as per his own voluntary decision and that makes it just transfer. Thus
theft, dupe, fraud or even taxation become unjust because all these are involuntary. On the other hand,
the transactions, barter and contracts where transfer takes place based on one’s voluntary agreement
amounts to just transfer.
3. Rectification of injustice: “No one is entitled to a holding except by (repeated) applications of 1 and 2."
The first-two principles question the assumption of Rawls that the resources need to be distributed on the
bases of two principles which men have agreed upon in the original position behind the veil of ignorance.
According to Nozick, only that can be distributed, which has not followed the just principle and the just holdings
are entitlement of the person, therefore, cannot be put into the common kitty for distribution. The principle to
be followed in redistribution is based on the history of entitlement, only when distribution is unjust the principle
of redistribution apply. Robert Nozick’s theory of justice has come under attack by the egalitarians.
CRITICAL ESTIMATE OF NOZICK’S VIEWS

A feature of the modern state is that it has recognized a range of individual rights which were not
recognized by ancient Greek or medieval society. Rights are socially and historically constituted. In fact,
the right which Nozick defends are actually those rights which were historically specific to the market
and were defined and constituted in the context of capitalist relations. They were neither natural nor
prior to the state.
Secondly, if the resource allocation is to be done by the market it cannot be equal because in a capitalist
society, the market also privileges some groups over others within the system of production and
exchange. Hence the idea of a free and sovereign individual choosing what to do with his resources is
a myth.
Nozick’s account of the minimum state fails because it contains no theory of taxation. For this
reason, other libertarian scholars insist that taxation be according to general rules, uniformly applied.
For example, Hayek and Friedman have argued that only a system of proportional taxation is fully
consistent with the libertarian requirements.
Proportional taxation would prevent the imposition of redistributive taxation on wealthy and unpopular
minorities and would thereby remove a major area of arbitrariness from public policy. They advocate
that the taxation policy be governed by general rules so that governments are prevented in their service
activities from curbing economic freedom in subtle and covert ways.
NEO-LIBERALISM / LIBERTARIANISM: VIEWS OF F.A. HAYEK

A man possess liberty or freedom when he is not subject to coercion by the arbitrary will of another.
This is the essence of individual freedom which should not be confused with any other meaning of
freedom.

Hayek contrasts individual freedom with other meanings of freedom such as political or inner freedom.
He argues that a non-democratic order may be permissive and a democratic order may be restrictive.
Political freedom is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition of individual freedom.
He identifies freedom as ‘freedom from the constraints of the state’. He argues that the state should
positively promote competition and should undertake non-coercive service functions, as the market
mechanism does not provide for all needs.
The state should ensure minimum income to each individual or family, but he should not make market
itself an instrument of distributive justice.
Hayek’s argument against equality: Equality is based on two premises. In the first place, he assumes
that liberty consists in ‘absence of coercion’ in the sphere of individual activity by other individuals or
the state.
Secondly, he observes that individuals differ in their talents and skills and their equality before the
law is bound to create inequality in their actual position in terms of their material status. Hence any
attempt to create material equality among different individuals is bound to involve ‘coercion’ which
would deprive them of their freedom.
He was considered as Father of Neo-Liberalism.
He was very critical of centralised planning and believed that market can best allocate resources and
utilize them.
He said that ‘ Social justice is a mirage’. It cannot be achieved. In the name of welfare , state has
introduced progressive taxation. The state is taking away money from productive sections but it never
reaches the targeted sections. Progressive taxation is bonded labour.
He says that poverty is simply bad luck and if a person is poor , it is not the fault of the state. To
eliminate poverty, coercion and taxation of rich is not justified.
NEO-LIBERALISM / LIBERTARIANISM:
VIEWS OF FRIEDMAN & ROTHBARD
Friedman argues that freedom is not needed by market, rather market is needed for freedom. In countries
where there was no capitalism, there no chance for people to enjoy freedom.
Rothbard compared politicians and bureaucrats as gangsters and thieves and central bank as legislative
fraud.
SOCIAL LIBERALISM
Social liberalism is a political idea. Liberalism should address Social justice is part of this belief.
Social liberalism is different from classical liberalism: it thinks the state should address economic and
social issues. Examples of problems the state might work on include unemployment, health care, and
education. For example, there was no state support for general education in Britain before about 1870.
Support for poor people came from private charities, and the church.
A commitment to a fair distribution of wealth and power, led gradually (over about a century) to support
for public services as ways of fairly distributing wealth. Democracy improved by increasing the franchise
(the right to vote) to all adults. Some countries which did not have democracy now do have it.
According to social liberalism, the government should also expand civil rights. Under social liberalism,
the good of the community is viewed as harmonious with the freedom of the individual. Many parts of
the capitalist world have used social liberal policies, especially after World War II.
John Rawls’s published a book called “A Theory of Justice” in 1971, he suggested that ‘new liberalism’
is focused upon developing a theory of social justice. This idea of liberalism leads to issues of sharing,
equality and fairness in social and political circumstances. It is controversial because of it attacks
neoliberalism.

Social liberal ideas and parties tend to be considered centrist or centre-left.
LIBERAL STATE VS AUTHORITARIAN STATE

A liberal state can easily be identified from an authoritarian or totalitarian state and this is because of certain
exclusive features of such a state are as under:
A liberal state always accepts a liberal approach towards the rights of citizens. The most vital
precondition of individual’s development is granting of rights and privileges to all individuals justifiably.
If any inequality or discrimination is to be followed that must be for the general interest of the body
politic and to the least disadvantage of anybody. By resorting to this system, the authority of the liberal
state will be in a position to ensure the progress of the individuals. In defined term, liberalism implies
what is granted in the forms of rights and privileges to one shall also be granted to others.
Liberal state presumes the existence of many groups and organisations and the typical feature of a
liberal state is that they are involved in cooperation and conflict among themselves. These groups are
termed in various ways such as “power elite” “ruling elite” etc. There are also many interest groups.
Under normal and nonviolent conditions, liberal state does not normally intend to impose restrictions
upon their activities. In an authoritarian state, the predominance of such a situation cannot be imagined.
Plurality of ideas and organisations is a prohibited thing in such a state.
The liberal state upholds a neutrality among all these groups. Since diversity of groups and organisations
and cohabitation among them are the distinguishing features of a liberal state, any conflict of interests
can also be regarded as foreseeable consequence. The liberal state maintains utmost neutrality.
This is the claim of the votaries of a liberal state. The liberal state generally does not favour any
particular class or elite group in the case of conflict. Though the state maintains neutrality the state
is quite aware of clash of interests between classes and groups. As a provider of check and stability
in the political system, the state espouses reforms so that disruption cannot occur. A liberal state can
sensibly be called a reformist state. Through frequent reforms a liberal state brings about changes in the
political system.
Vital feature of a liberal state is that it is accountable to the people which means that all its activities,
decisions and policies are to be accepted by the body politic. The consent and accountability is the
matching ideas related with the liberal state. It means that the decision of the state is not final even
though it is for the general welfare of the community. It is because what is welfare and what is not, is to
be decided for whom it is meant. There is no scope of imposing anything upon the individuals against
their will.
Liberal state is never a one-idea state. It embraces diversity of ideas, views and existence of numerous
groups and parties. This finally indicates a competition among them. Competition involved seizure
of political power through constitutional means, legal procedure and democratic ways, competition
in views and philosophies. It is believed that the truth will emerge only from this struggle of words
and ideas. That is why, in a liberal state, such a competition is always encouraged. J. S. Mill strongly
supported for the competition among the different shades of views and ideas.
A liberal state always have numerous political parties. In any liberal state, there are number of
philosophies of political parties and they struggle to capture power. Here lies a major difference
between a liberal state and authoritarian state. A liberal state is occasionally called a pluralist state
because of the plurality of ideas and organisations.
A competitive party system is a very important aspect of a liberal state. One party captures power,
while the other party or parties sit in the opposition and in this way, the change in power takes place
which does not normally occur in dictatorial state. It has been upheld by a critic that modern parties
are mass organisations with extra-parliamentary structure.
Separation of power is major feature of liberal state. A liberal state means limited state and it again
infers the three organs of the state, will discharge this function keeping themselves within the
confinement decided by law and constitution. When this is applied, no organ of the government will
interfere with the functions and jurisdiction of another organ. But the separation of powers need not be
the only requirement of being liberal. For example, Britain is a liberal state but the separation of powers
has been unsuccessful to be an integral part of state mechanism. But some forms of separation of
power must exist in all liberal states.

A liberal state does not sanction the supremacy of a particular philosophy, various opinions or ideologies
work and exist side by side. It is a state of multiple ideas, ideals ideologies and views and all of them
use opportunities and atmosphere for work. In a non-liberal state, such a situation is unimaginable. In
authoritarian governments, the state-sponsored dogma dominates over all other philosophies. Both
fascism and communism fall in this category. The citizens are free to select any one idea or ideology
and application of force is non-existent.
In all liberal states, there are mainly two centres of power, one is economic and the other is political. But
economic power-centre controls the political power. Marx highlights this aspect of liberal state. After
appraising history, he understood that the owners of the sources of production and the controllers of
distribution in all possible means control the political power for the continuance of the interest of the
capitalist class. They control parties, pressure groups, send their own persons to represent people, the
legislatures enact laws to protect the interests of the dominant class.
There is no fixed form of liberal state.
LIBERALISM AS AN AMORPHOUS IDEOLOGY

Both as a doctrine and as a movement, liberalism is an amorphous ideology. Liberalism is commonly
used by everyone: who talk in public for every divergent and contradictory purpose. As Bottomore
writes ‘one can remain liberal and be for, and the other remain liberal and be against, a vast range of
contradictory political propositions’. People from all walks of life and more from ‘antagonistic ‘classes,
all speak in terms of liberalism, defending their interest and making their demands.
Similarly, Bullock and Shock write that no student of modern political philosophy would reasonably
deny the name of liberal to any of the men represented in this connection, yet each of them, Fox
and Bentham, Richard Cobden and Lloyd George Russell, Macaulay and Acton, Herbert Spencer
and T.H. Green, Gladstone, Mill and Keynes held views widely different In some respect from those
of others. And these differences are differences not only of policies and programmes-those are
more easily explained, but also of principle, for example of the role of state, the vexed question of
Laissez faire.
This means that as a political policy, liberalism is without a coherent policy, that its goals have been
made as formal and abstract as to provide no clear moral standard, that in terms genuine conflict
of interests, classes, parties ad ideals can no longer be stated clearly. Used virtually by all, it lacks
political, moral and intellectual clarity. This very lack of clarity is exploited by all interest. It calls its
indecision as open-mindedness, its absence of moral criterion as tolerance, and formality of criteria as
‘broadly speaking’.
CONTRIBUTION OF LIBERALISM
During the past 400 years, liberalism has given many humanistic and democratic ideas and almost all
the issues of modern western philosophy have been connected with liberalism in one way or the other.
It has been the mainstream of western socio-economic and political philosophy.
Liberalism has given progressive slogans like liberty, equality, fraternity, natural and inalienable rights
of man, democracy, development of human personality etc. and it has vigorously fought against the
orthodoxies represented by monarchy, papacy and the feudal socio-economic order.
In the beginning, as the philosophy of the revolutionary bourgeoisie class, liberalism guided many
revolutionary struggles, against the feudal order. Its economic philosophy played an important role in
the industrial development of the west, its social philosophy helped in the establishment of an open
market society, its political philosophy paved the way for liberal democracy, its ethical philosophy led
to the triumph of individualism, and it’s promoted secularism in in all walks of social life.
Classical liberalism freed the individual from traditional authorities and the state, and maintained that
political power is the trust of the people. However, during the latter half of the 19th century, a number
of contradictions began to emerge in the face of Marxist challenge and gradually, classical liberalism
was replaced by welfare (or positive) liberalism.
But we continue to need liberalism, though it may not be enough. The drift towards authoritarianism and
the decay in civil liberties, the increase in police powers and the curtailment of rights are developments

underlying the fragility of liberal achievements even in its traditional heartlands and make a firm
commitment to the best of liberal values and institutions all the more necessary.
STUDENTS SHOULD NOTE THAT DETAILED VIEWS OF MILL,BENTHAM, RAWLS, AMARTYA
SEN AND MCPHERSON ON LIBERTY/FREEDOM HAVE BEEN COVERED SEPERATELY.
SCHOLARLY COMMENTS ON DEFINITION OF LIBERALISM

Alblaster: ‘liberalism should be seen not as a fixed and absolute term, as a collection of
unchanging moral and political values but as a specific historical movement of ideas in
the modern era that began with Renaissance and Reformation. It has undergone many
changes and requires a historical rather than a static type of analysis.’
Laski: ‘it (Liberalism) is not easy to’ describe, much less to define, for it is hardly less a
habit of mind than a body of doctrine’.
Hacker: ‘Liberalism has become so common a term in the vocabulary of politics that it is
a brave man who will try to give it a precise definition. It is a view of the individual, of the
state, and of the relations between them’.
Grimes: ‘liberalism is not a static creed or dogma, for dogmatism provides its own restraints
‘is rather a tentative attitude towards social problems which stresses the role of reason
and human ingenuity... liberalism looks ahead with a flexible approach, seeking to make
future better for more people, as conservatism looks back, aiming mainly to preserve
the attainment of the past. ‘It represents a system of ideas that aim at the realization of
the pluralist society, favouring diversity of politics, economics, religion and other cultural
life. It seeks in its simplest sense to advance the freedom of man. it seeks to increase
individuality of man by increasing his area of choice and decision.
Richard Wellheim: ‘liberalism is the belief in the value of liberty of the individual’.
Sartori: ‘‘very simply, liberalism is the theory and practice of individual liberty, juridical,
defence and the constitutional state’.
Bullock and Silock emphasize the belief in freedom and conscience as the twin foundations
of liberalism.
Laski: ‘liberalism implies a passion for liberty; and that the passion may be compelling. it
requires a power to be tolerant; even sceptical about opinion and tendencies you hold to
be dangerous which is one of the rarest human qualities’.
Hallowell: ‘the embodiment of the demand for freedom in every sphere of life- intellectual,
social, religious, political and economic’.
Schapiro talks of liberalism as an attitude of life sceptical, experimental, rational and
free.
Koerner: ‘liberalism begins and ends with the ideals of individual freedom, individual human
rights and individual human happiness. These remain central to the creed whatever may
be the economic and political arrangements of liberal democracy society’.
Heater: ‘liberty is the quintessence of liberalism. For the liberal, it is tile individual who
counts, not society at large or segment of it, for only by placing priority on the rights of
the individual can freedom be ensured’.
**********

4 THOMAS HOBBES
HOBBES: INFLUENCE OF HISTORY ON HIS VIEWS

He was a mid 17th century philosopher who is considered one of the greatest political philosophers. Even
Karl Marx acknowledged that Hobbes is the father of us all.
His life covers one of the most exciting periods of English history- the period of English Revolution.
He was fifteen years old when James I ascended the throne and made a serious attempt to revive
absolute monarchy by advocating the theory of Divine right of kings and ignoring Parliament. This
led to a general dissatisfaction in the country; the ground for the conflict between the king and the
Parliament was well prepared.This conflict started in 1642 and continued till 1688 when constitutional
monarchy was established under William of Orange and his wife, Mary.
Hobbes was a witness to this whole exciting drama which exercised profound influence on his thought
and led him to lay stress on the necessity of a strong and stable government as the prime condition of
civilized and progressive life on the part of the subjects.
Later he became tutor to the heir of William Cavendish who later on became the Earl of Devonshire.
This connection with the Cavendish family lasted for most of his life and brought him into the contact
with the leading figures of the period like Bacon, Descartes and Galileo.
Like most of the 17th century thinkers Hobbes came under the spell Geometry, and thought of applying
its method not only in the explanation of natural phenomena but also in the sphere of psychology and
politics. He was thus drawn into the great movement of thought known as “the new philosophy ‘with
which the names of great men like Descartes and Galileo were associated.
When the civil war broke out in England Hobbes got alarmed, fled from England and sought safety in
France where he remained for eleven years. It was as an exiled person he wrote his greatest work, the
Leviathan, which was published in 1651.
As the contents of Leviathan became known, he fell into disfavor with both the royalists and the
parliamentarians. Hobbes did not support either the theory of the Divine right of kings and the principle
of legitimacy which constituted the main line of the defense of the royalists, or the theory of popular
representation which was advocated by the parliamentarians.
With the restoration of monarchy in 1660 he was again received at the royal court. But this royal favor
did not continue for long. For reasons of convenience the King put a sort of ban upon his political In
work and he spend the last two decades of his life in retirement writing treatises on physics , history
law and classical literature.
The views expressed in his two major works , The Cive and Society, and Leviathan were in favour of
the idea of monarchial government , but he did not endorse the prevalent theory of divine rights of king
given by Robert Filmer to justify the absolute authority of the king .

Robert Filmer’s Divine Right Theory of Kings

The divine right of kings, divine right, or God’s mandate is a political and religious doctrine
of royal and political legitimacy. It asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority,
deriving the right to rule directly from the will of God. The king is thus not subject to the will of
his people, the aristocracy, or any other estate of the realm. It implies that only God can judge
an unjust king and that any attempt to depose, dethrone or restrict his powers runs contrary
to the will of God and may constitute a disrespectful act. It is often expressed in the phrase
“by the Grace of God”, attached to the titles of a reigning monarch.
ABSOLUTISM
Absolutism, the political doctrine and practice of unlimited centralized authority and absolute
sovereignty, as vested especially in a monarch or dictator. The essence of an absolutist
system is that the ruling power is not subject to regularized challenge or check by any other
agency, be it judicial, legislative, religious, economic, or electoral. Absolutism has existed in
various forms in all parts of the world, including in Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler and in the
Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin
INDIVIDUALISM
Individualism is the moral stance, political philosophy, ideology, or social outlook that
emphasizes the moral worth of the individual. Individualists promote the exercise of one’s goals
and desires and so value independence and self-reliance and advocate that interests of the
individual should achieve precedence over the state or a social group, while opposing external
interference upon one’s own interests by society or institutions such as the government.
Individualism is often defined in contrast to totalitarianism, collectivism, and more corporate
social forms.
LIBERALISM
Liberalism: a principle of politics which considers liberty or freedom of the individual as the
most important value or objective. It mainly focuses on freedom from external restraints by
state or society.
HOBBES: FROM INDIVIDUALISM TO ABSOLUTISM

Hobbes does not invoke the divine right theory to justify the sovereignty of the king. Instead he wants individual
consent to be the basis of absolute sovereignty of the king. Therefore he starts with emphasis on the individual
and is one of the very first proponents of individualism. But he could not balance the needs of individual liberty
with that of absolute sovereignty. He ends up creating a absolutist state. He failed to create a conclusive
theory of liberalism.
WHY DOES HOBBES GIVE SO MUCH IMPORTANCE TO A STRONG & ABSOLUTIST STATE?
He was born in troubled times. The war in England between the Catholic and Protestants alongwith war of
Royalists (Those who supported the absolute monarchy) vs Parliamentarians had created a situation of chaos
and insecurity of life for everyone. Violence and fear of death had become a daily part of life. Hobbes was born
in such times and therefore remarked:
FEAR AND I WERE BORN TWINS & WERE EVER THEREAFTER INSEPARABLE
Creation of order in daily life and preservation of life of the individual itself became the major concerns of
Hobbes. In his opinion only a strong government can protect the citizens in such terrible times. His experiences
of childhood shaped the direction of his thought and his interactions with the leading scientific figures like
Descartes and Galileo influenced his method of inquiry.

HOBBES: THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

He tries to base his theory on the scientific method. He was greatly influenced by Galileo and took deep
inspiration from his Resolutive Compositive Method.
According to this method, one comes to understand a given object of inquiry by intellectually “resolving” it
into its constituent parts and then subsequently “composing” it back into a whole. This process is analogous
to taking apart a watch and putting it back together again to find out what makes it tick. Hobbes used the
method of resolution and composition in his science of politics.
APPLICATION OF THE METHOD IN UNDERSTANDING

HUMAN BEHAVIOUR
If we have understand the complex nature of politics, we have to understand human behaviour first. But
human behaviour in turn is controlled by human mind. As per the scientific theory, everything in the world
is made up of particles. And the human mind is also made of particles which are in a constant state of
motion.
Now human behaviour is basically of two types- either we love doing something or we want to avoid
it. Therefore the two major emotions in our mind are inclination and aversion. These emotions are
generated in human mind because of the movement of particles in response to external conditions.
Since man always either wants to increase his pleasure or decrease his pain, he can be described as
utilitarian being i.e. one who tries to find utility in everything. He only thinks for himself and is incapable
of understanding the pleasure and pain of others. Since he cannot understand the movement of
particles in the brain of others therefore he is unable to develop an understanding of the emotions of
others.
For hobbes all individuals are the same in terms of their innate behaviour. Every individual will always try
to maximize their pleasure and his selfish motives and interests make him blind towards the interests
of others.
HOBBES: THE STATE OF NATURE

Hobbes rejects the Aristotelian views that ‘Man is by nature a political animal’ or view of Thomas Aquinas that
‘man is by nature a social animal’. He believes that men tend to behave like wild animals in a weak state. In
order to understand how and why the state came into existence, one needs to understand what existed before
the state. Hobbes calls this imaginary situation or time as ‘State of Nature’. In the state of nature, people
behaved as per their intrinsic nature since there was no external control on their behaviour either by state or
society.
He is like a king who believes that all creation was meant to do his bidding and his acts reflect
his belief. Thus he is imperious and proud; and all objects which seem to get in the way of his
appetite for power are ruthlessly crushed.
But this condition of unchecked and untamed wild behaviour soon comes to end. People soon realize that there
are other people also who are behaving in the same wild manner and these people are equal to themselves.
In the state of nature everyone is almost equal. If some are stronger than others, then others are cleverer than
them. Hobbes calls this state of equality as ‘Natural Equality’. It implies that if today one person is able to kill
another, then he himself can be killed next day.
The idea is very similar to Kautilya’s description of Maatsyanyaya in Arthashastra. This is a situation where
every fish is always in danger of being swallowed by another bigger fish. All men are potential enemies
of each other; nobody knows what the other will do. With the mounting tension between them, each man
eventually tends to break the tension by attacking each other. Thus the state of nature turns into a state of
war of everyone against everyone. In such a situation, life of man is “Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”.
No arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death;
and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short
There is no scope for progress or civilization. Everyone is free to amass whatever resources they can and there
is no law or body to protect the weak from the strong. Everywhere there is law of jungle. There is no morality,

religion, consciousness or obligation. These things can only exist when there is some order in the society.
The state of nature is a state of limited resources and unlimited desires. Everyone wants to accumulate as
much resources as he or she can. Man’s desire for pleasure has no limits. Also everyone wants to protect
their possessions from others. The man in the state of nature is therefore individualistic, materialistic and
utilitarian.
Now to extent one’s pleasure or to preserve one’s life and resources, there is a need for power. Life eventually
turns into an endless struggle for power. This struggle ends only when a person dies. The state of nature is
a state of war of everyone against everyone.
Hobbes proceeds by saying that the only thing natural in the state of nature is that everyone wants to preserve
his or her life. In order to protect their life, men are compelled to give up this state of nature and establish
laws and government. The so called contract among men is formed only because of everyone’s concern and
need to save themselves from a violent death in the state of nature.
STUDENTS NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS JUST AN IMAGINARY SITUATION WHICH
HOBBES IS USING TO PROVE HIS POINT. IN HISTORY, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT ANY
SUCH STATE OF NATURE EVER EXISTED.
WHY HOBBES DOES GIVES SO MUCH IMPORTANCE TO POWER?

(IMPORTANT SECTION FOR IR THEORY: CLASSICAL REALISM)
Competition for goods of life become a struggle for Power, because without power once
cannot retain what one has acquired. But it is in the very nature of power that it must be
continually augmented to save it from dissipation. One cannot retain power without acquiring
more power.
Thus it turns out to be a struggle for power after power which ceases only in death. Sense of
insecurity, fear, vain-glory and pride aggravate this tragic condition.
Hobbes Says: ‘In the state of nature, We find three principle causes of quarrel. First,
competition; second, diffidence; third, glory. The first, makes men invade for gain; the second
for safety; and the third, for reputation’.
Simon Weil elaborates on this ,” Thus there is , in the very essence of power, a fundamental
contradiction that prevents it from ever existing in the true sense of the word ; those who
are called the masters , ceaselessly compelled to reinforce their power for fear of seeing it
snatched away from them, are forever seeking a dominion impossible to attain.
Power is the central feature of Hobbes’s system of ideas.
Oakeshott says: Man is a complex of power; desire is the desire for power, pride is the illusion
about power, honor opinion about power, life the unremitting exercise of power and death the
absolute loss of power.
The combined effect of the factors enumerated above is that the state of nature is a war of
every man against every man in which the life of man is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”.
In this state there can be no morality, justice, industry, and civilization. In this state, however,
there is a right of nature, natural right of every man to everything, even to one another’s life.
HOBBES: THE SOCIAL CONTRACT

The state or civil society is created through a contract or mutual agreement among the men. This contract is
known as ‘Social contract’ and it empowers a man or a group of men who will represent the supreme authority
over the society. There is only one contract which results in men leaving the state of nature and creation of
society and state (Sovereign). Although there is hardly any limit on the powers of Sovereign, but ultimately it
comes into creation with the consent of people.
The major features of the contract are:
There is a single contract which created the sovereign, therefore the sovereign is not a part of the
contract. The sovereign is born due to the contract, therefore he is not a party to it.

Every person is part of the contract, no one is out of it. If anyone is left out, then that person will continue
to enjoy his/her sovereignty. This cannot happen since in one state, there cannot be two sovereign
powers. So the contract includes everyone who once was a part of state of nature.
Under this contract, every man gives up his natural rights and powers to a common sovereign who would
‘keep them in awe’ and give them security of life. Men entered into the social contract to set up a ruler
as if every man should say to every man, “I authorize and give up my right of governing myself to this
man, or to this assembly of men on this condition that thou give up thy right to him, and authorize all
his actions in like manner.”
The natural rights are surrendered to the sovereign under the contract once for all. The contract cannot
be revoked or withdrawn. The reason for this is that if men are allowed to reverse the contract and revive
the natural rights, then they can go back to state of nature. The state of nature is filled with violence,
death and insecurity. Even if few decide to go back to the state of nature, it will put the life of everyone
in danger. Therefore it is not allowed. In the social contract of Hobbes, there is no scope for revolt and
rebellion.
Also a single contract has created both the society and state, a reversal or withdrawal of the contract
will mean end of not only the state but of the society as well. Therefore in order to protect the society
from chaos, Hobbes makes the sovereign as absolute, indivisible and inalienable. There is no limit on the
political obligation enjoyed by the sovereign.
The sovereign or Leviathan has absolute powers over the individual. For Hobbes sovereignty is an
undeniable fact of political life; whenever there is civil or political society, sovereignty must exist. In
its absence everyone will have the liberty to do as he pleases, and the entire purpose for which the
commonwealth is set up will be lost. Because according to Hobbes, ‘Covenants without the sword, are but
words, and of strength to secure a man at all’.
The major features of the sovereignty which Leviathan or the Sovereign enjoys are:
Sovereign according to Hobbesian definition essentially lies in the power of determining on the behalf
of the entire community what should be done to maintain peace and order to promote their welfare. All
men apart from the sovereign become its subjects.
The second fundamental attribute of sovereignty is its absoluteness. The power of the sovereign is to
make laws is not limited by any human authority, superior or inferior. There is no rival or co-ordinate
authority in the commonwealth beside the sovereign.
It has ultimate power and unfettered discretion and is the source of the laws and also their sole
interpreter; he cannot therefore be subject to them.
The laws of nature, according to Hobbes, are not laws in the strict sense of term; they are mere counsels
of reason and have no compulsive force.
The law of God also does not constitute any check upon him for he is the sole interpreter.
Individual conscience also cannot be pleaded against him, because law is the public conscience by
which man has agreed to be guided.
All of the above leads us to third important feature of Sovereignty. In the state of nature there can be no
distinction between right and wrong, just and unjust, moral and immoral and no property rights. These
distinctions first come into existence with the establishment of civil society and the setting up of the
sovereign authority. Whatever is in conformity with the laws made by the sovereign is just and right;
whatever is contrary to them is unjust and wrong. Also the sovereign creates those conditions under
which alone moral distinctions acquire significance and importance. Morality can exist only in a civil
society. But since the sovereign is making the distinction between moral and immoral, the sovereign
himself is above any sort of morality.
The sovereign is also the creator of the property. What people have in the state of nature are mere
possessions which confer no ownership. Legal property rights with their protection by society come
into existence only with the establishment of sovereign authority. Since property is the creation if the
sovereign, he can take it away whenever he likes in the interest of the same. Taxation does not require
the consent of the people.
In the fourth place, it may be said that the sovereign is the source of justice and has the power to make
and declare war. He has supreme command of the militia, and determines what doctrines and opinions

are to be permitted and what disallowed. By making the sovereign the source of justice and describing
the judges as lions under the throne, Hobbes concentrates full executive, legislative and judicial power
in the sovereign.
In the fifth place attention maybe is drawn to the indivisibility, inseparability and incommunicability
of sovereignty. The sovereign authority cannot dissociate itself of any attribute of sovereignty without
destroying it, nor can it share its exercise with the others. The aim of a civil war cannot therefore be to
place any restrictions upon its exercise or to share in it; its aim is to determine who shall possess and
exercise it.
Hobbes theory of social contract would appear flawless only if a perfect and infallible person or
assembly could be found and established as a sovereign. But how can imperfect mortals justify
the exercise of such universal and absolute authority in the real world? Hobbes clearly evades this
fundamental question.
IMPLICATIONS OF THE CONTRACT

State is a means and not an End: The state is an indispensable means for contribution to the security
and welfare of men but it is not an expression of the inherent social nature of man, it is not a natural
growth as Aristotle taught, but an artificial device made by man to satisfy a specific need. It is a means
to an end, and not and end in itself. Hobbes was thus a perfect individualist.
Sovereignty of State and its Utilitarian basis: Hobbes invests the State with unlimited sovereignty
and makes it obligatory on the part of the citizens to render unconditional obedience to its laws. He
finds in the services it renders towards making life comfortable and worth living the sole justification
for obedience to and respect for its authority. Obedience to it yields better return than disobedience.
Hobbes theory is wholly destructive of the respect and reverence for the Royal authority. The cold
hearted rationalism of Hobbes reduces the state “to a utility, good for what it does, merely the servant
of private security”.
State is based on Reason: The ground of obedience to the authority of the state is the rational
apprehension that the goal of self-preservation is better served through it than through its opposite.
Although the ultimate sanction behind the laws of the state is its coercive authority yet Hobbes asserts
that the wise man obeys them, not out of the fear of punishment, but because of the conviction that the
sovereign authority represents all the individuals, he included. The basic contention of Hobbes is that
the state is a rational deduction from the right of the man to preserve him.
Coercive authority of the State: Men are anti-social in nature: the state is necessary to keep them in
awe and direct their actions to the common benefit. The usefulness of law depends on the extent to
which the state has the power to enforce it. Another reason also for the supreme coercive authority of
the state is need to make the existence of the state perpetual and irrevocable. The problem for Hobbes
is to how make it so, because, though the state is the demand of reason, complete submission to its
coercive authority is contrary to man’s nature. The only way to achieve this purpose is to keep the king
or ruler who is the beneficiary of the contract outside it and make him all powerful. “Covenants without
the sword are but words”.
Supremacy of the Majority: Minority has no right to object to the choice of the majority in the selection of
the sovereign power. By becoming a part of the commonwealth it tacitly accepts the will of the majority.
If it does not do so, it remains outside the commonwealth and can be justly destroyed by it. It is implied in
this line of argument that for Hobbes there can be no distinction between state and society, or between
state and government. What transforms the people living in the state of nature into a civil society is the
existence of a tangible government to which all the people surrender their natural rights.
People have no right to resist: People have no right to disobey or resist the authority of the state, or do
anything which clashes with his sovereign will. Nothing done or left undone by him can be a valid ground
for rebelling against him and setting up a new ruler in his place. The reason is that the sovereign is no
party to the contract which is a covenant of each member of the multitude with all by which all of them
surrender their natural rights to sovereign who gives up nothing and retains all his rights. The sovereign
cannot be properly accused of doing any injustice to his subjects, for injustice consists in violating the terms
of an agreement with any of the subjects. The contract thus gives no rights to the subject against the
sovereign; it rather binds them to complete obedience to him.

Exception to the above: Hobbes conceded that a subject has the right to disobey the sovereign if the
latter commands him “to kill, wound or maim him; or not to resist those that assault him or to abstain
him from the use of food, air, medicine, or any other thing without which he cannot live”. Men make
a covenant to set up superior ruler only in order to preserve them; therefore they cannot be expected
to give the ruler the right to take away their lives. Secondly, since the goal of obedience is protection,
the obligation to obey remains only so long as the sovereign has the power to protect the subjects; it
disappears when the sovereign power loses the capacity to defend them.
HOBBES: NATURE OF SOVEREGNITY

The nature of Hobbesian sovereignty is absolute and Hobbes is considered as a proponent of absolutism.
He portrays the state as Leviathan.
THE LEVIATHAN: The Leviathan is a Biblical sea monster, a mythical creature referred to in sections of the
Old Testament, and while a popular metaphor in both Judaism and Christianity, the creature nonetheless is
viewed differently in each religion. The creature can either be seen as a metaphor for the sheer size and power
of God’s creative abilities, or a demonic beast. (IMAGE COURTESY: DREAMS OF ANIMALS)
It is famously remarked that “ While Jean Bodin was standing on the gate of Modernity, it was Hobbes
who jumped inside”. Bodin is credited with the definition of sovereignty that is “ Supreme power over
citizens and subjects, unrestrained by law.” He attempted to develop a complete theory of sovereignty
but he accepted certain limitations which prevented it from becoming an absolute power. In case of
Hobbes , the sovereignty was absolute and there were no limitations on it.
Hobbes relieved sovereignty completely from the disabilities which Bodin has inconsistently left
standing. - George H Sabine
For Hobbes if the force of contract is weak, then the contract is of no use. Mere words are of no use in
the contract unless they are accompanied by force to implement them. He famously remarks:
The bonds of words are too weak to bridle men’s ambition, avarice, anger and other passions,
without the fear of some coercive power.
Covenants, without the sword, are but words, and of no strength to secure a man at all.
- Leviathan
The state must possess the power to crush all those forces which can threaten the life of the individual.
He must have complete powers of punishment against all those who disobey its command. The fear
of punishment in the minds of individuals is necessary to make them law abiding. Sovereignty can only
exist when the state enjoys absolute power.

HOBBES : POLITICAL OBLIGATION

Hobbes’s concept of moral obligation starts from the assumption that humans have a fundamental obligation
to follow the laws of nature and all obligations start from nature. His reasoning for this is premised upon the
beliefs of natural law; that the moral standards or reasoning that govern behaviour can be drawn from eternal
truths regarding human nature and the world.
Hobbes believes that the morals derived from natural law, however, do not permit individuals to challenge the
laws of the sovereign; law of the commonwealth supersedes natural law, and obeying the laws of nature does
not make you exempt from disobeying those of the government.
Hobbes’s concept of moral obligation thus intertwines with the concept of political obligation. This underpins
much of Hobbes’s political philosophy, stating that humans have a political obligation or ‘duty’ to prevent the
creation of a state of nature.
Humans have a political obligation to obey a sovereign power, and once they have renounced part of their
natural rights to this power (theory of sovereignty), they have a duty to uphold the ‘social contract’ they have
entered into.
HOBBES: THEORY OF LAWS

Hobbes discussed the idea of positive law and natural law. Law is nothing but the command of the sovereign.
He prefers positive law of the sovereign over natural law. But first we need to understand what is natural law
and positive law?
Natural Law: A set of rules of good conduct which exist independently of the customs and
traditions. These laws can be discovered by own conscience, moral intuition and reasoning.
For e.g. Not harming any innocent, not taking anyone’s life etc.
Positive Law: A law which has been clearly and directly created by the government i.e. enacted
by the legislatures and accepted by the judiciary. Everyone who lives in the area of control of
government has to follow the laws and violation of such laws will result in punishment. For
e.g. IPC,CRPC etc.
Now Hobbes favours Positive law over traditional law or natural law because positive law is definite and it
can actually be enforced by the state. That is why he believes that the true law is nothing but command of the
sovereign and covenants without swords are nothing but words.
In state of nature, natural law is followed but for everyone to follow natural law, one needs to use his/her moral
conscience or reason. But everyone cannot do this. Most of us only use reason or conscience to the extent
where it can fulfil our desires, but never to control our desires. This lack of control on desires leads to conflict
and state of war against everyone. Therefore relying only on Natural law would be a mistake. Positive law has
a force of its own since it has been created by the state. Therefore it is preferred by Hobbes.
HOBBES: THEORY OF RIGHTS

There are no limitations on the individual in the state of nature. Everyone is completely free to do whatever he
or she desires. But the problem arises from the fact that although this freedom is available to every person, in
reality it is only enjoyed by those who are powerful. In the state of nature, there are no rights in reality but only
powers. Those who are weak have no rights. Imagine a forest, does the deer have the same right as a lion?
The only right which Hobbes allows to exist against the state is the Right to life or Right to Self Preservation.
This right is fundamental and supreme. Once the state comes into existence, all other rights are under the
control of the state but this right survives. The state cannot take away anyone’s life in an arbitrary or unfair
manner. If it does so, then the individual has the freedom to disobey the state and rebel against it. This is the
only condition of rebellion against the state ( only when it fails to protect your life or attempts to end it in a
unfair manner). In all other conditions, one has to follow the dictates of the sovereign. There is no choice for
him/her in any other matter.

HOBBES AND BERLIN: VIEWS ON LIBERTY

The classic defence of negative liberty remains Isaiah Berlin’s ‘Two Concepts of Liberty’, first published in
1958. Berlin defined ‘being free’ as “not being interfered with by others. The wider the area of non-interference,
the wider my freedom.”
This definition is a throwback to Hobbes’ presentation of liberty in the Leviathan as the absence of ‘external
impediments’. For Hobbes, “a free man, is he, that in those things, which he by his strength and wit he is able
to do, is not hindered to do what he has a will to.”
In Hobbes’ view, these hindrances included the laws of the sovereign, framed after civil society had been
created by the social contract, since liberty depended on the ‘silence of the law’. The absence of civil laws
in the state of nature should have translated into more freedom for its citizens, but in its very absence, every
individual acted as an external obstacle to another’s freedom of action. By his laws the sovereign ensured that
his citizens were free from interference from one another.
It is good to keep in mind here how Hobbes, one of the earliest advocates of negative liberty, saw no
contradiction between the ‘needful’ laws of an absolute sovereign and his subjects’ liberty. To judge whether
an individual was free, it was irrelevant to check whether she had any say in the laws under which she lived. The
absolute sovereign alone made the laws. What was crucial was whether the sovereign left as large an area of
her life as possible unregulated by his laws.
Berlin makes the same point: liberty in its negative sense “is principally concerned with the area of control,
not with its source...there is no necessary connection between individual liberty and democratic rule. The
answer to the question ‘Who governs me?’ is logically distinct from the question ‘How far does government
interfere with me?”
In explaining the concept of liberty, Hobbes distinguished between freedom and ability.Most exponents of
negative liberty echo this distinction between power or ability and liberty. What they disagree about is when
a certain condition is to be characterised as a lack of ability and when as a lack of liberty. Not being able to
fly because of a lack of wings is, in the case of human beings, a clear case of the lack of an ability, and not of
being unfree. But what about the case of a man who is too poor to afford “something on which there is no legal
ban - a loaf of bread, a journey round the world.”
Berlin argues that given a social theory in which this poverty is the result of “other human beings having made
arrangements” whereby some men lack material resources while others enjoy an abundance of them, the poor
man should be described not as being unable to buy bread, but as being unfree to do so.
HOBBES : SIGNIFICANCE AS A THINKER

He was a utilitarian and materialist thinker.
He was the greatest of individualist and the greatest of absolutist as well.
First thinker of the social contract tradition.
First thinker to propound the idea of Right to life.
First thinker to provide a complete theory of soveregnity.
CRITICISMS OF THE LEVIATHAN- VAUGHAN’S VIEWS

He rejects the theory as ‘pernicious and impossible’. It is condemned as pernicious (WICKED) in so far
as it leads to despotism, pure and simple, and gives the subjects no defense against oppressive and
tyrannical rule, and reduces “the whole herd to slavery”.
It may be rejected as impossible, because according to it ‘the sole bond of union between the members
of the Leviathan is a common terror, the fear of relapsing into the state of nature. Between one member
and another there is no bond at all. The only cement provided is that which binds each of them, singly
and separately, by sheer terror of the tyrant who stands above them all.’
It has to be admitted that in system of Hobbes the ties which binds members of the commonwealth
together is subjection to the sovereign authority which itself ultimately rests on force ( command over
the state militia).

It must also be conceded that the entire trend of his political philosophy is towards absolutism; the
Leviathan was written with the purpose of justifying and defending absolute rule as the only remedy for
civil wars which were ruining England.
DEFENCE OF HOBBES AGAINST VAUGHAN’S CRITIQUE

It would be however be wrong to infer from this that there is and can be no liberty under the leviathan.
There is liberty but only such can be enjoyed under the protection of laws. The Leviathan has no passion
for undue interference.
According to Hobbes, the laws do not bar the people from doing voluntary action; their aim is ‘ 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 right way”.
All that the sovereign can legitimately demand is the conformity of men’s behavior to his laws. Intellect
and conscience are beyond his reach.
At the same time, it is necessary to remind ourselves that the sovereign ultimately derives all his powers
and authority from the people, they transfer to him all the their natural rights, therefore Hobbes thus
bases government virtually on the consent of the people; through the fiction of the contract and idea
of the corporation Hobbes may be said unwittingly to express the idea of self-government, though in a very
clumsy manner
CRITICAL ESTIMATE OF HOBBES

On one extreme is the view of C.E. Vaughan that so far as the vital development of political thought is
concerned Leviathan has remained , and deserve to remain , without influence and without fruit ; ‘ A
fantastic hybrid , incapable of propagating its kind’.
On the other extreme is the view of Sabine that Hobbes ‘is probably the greatest writer on political
philosophy that the English speaking people have produced.’
The line of reasoning adopted by Professor Vaughan would be fatal to Hobbes’s theory if it is assumed
that Hobbes believed in the historicity and actual existence of the state of nature. But such an
assumption is not necessary.
The purpose of Hobbes is not to describe the origin of state in time; he is interested in analyzing
its nature and proving its validity. To argue that men never lived in a state of nature, and that if they
ever lived in such a state, they could have never formed themselves into a civil society in the manner
prescribed by Hobbes, is altogether irrelevant. Denial of the reality of the state of nature and of the
reality of the contract does not prove Hobbes’s analysis of state and its sovereign wrong.
Hobbes was not only a materialist; he was also a rationalist. His clear cut rationalism shocked political
thought out of the obscurities into which it was involved during those days.
By identifying the law of nature with the dictates of reason and giving to the sovereign the right of
interpreting the law of god he compelled his assailants to meet him in the arena of fact and reason, and
thereby did much to inspire a revival of the scientific attitude towards political speculation.
COMMENTARIES
BY HOBBES
So that in the nature of man we find it here principle causes of quarrel. First competition, secondly
diffidence, thirdly glory.
Pleasure is a continual progress of the desire from one subject to another; the attaining of the former,
being still but the way to the latter.
There shall be a war of every man against every man”. There is “continual fear, and the danger of violent
death, and the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”
He defines the laws of nature (also known as theorems of Peace) as “A law of nature is a precept or
general rule, found out by reason, by which a man is forbidden to do, that which is destructive of his life

or taketh away the means of preserving the same; and to omit that by which he thinketh it may be best
preserved”.
According to Hobbes fear is no less a basis of obligation than free consent. In fact, covenants without
the sword are mere words and “of no strength to secure a man at all”.
“The bonds of words are too weak to bridle man’s ambition, avarice, anger and other passions, without
the fear of some coercive power.”’
The “obligation of the subject to the sovereign, is understood to last as long, and no longer, than the
power lasts, by which he is able to protect them.”
“For the right which men have by nature to protect themselves, when none else can protect them, can by
no covenant be relinquished.”
‘ 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 right way
BY OTHER THINKERS
Sir Frederick Pollock: The formula of the greatest good of the greatest number was made as a hook to
be put in the nostrils of Leviathan so that it could be tamed and harnessed to the chariot of utility.
Sabine: Hobbes was probably the greatest writer on political philosophy that the English speaking people
have produced.
Sabine: Hobbes was in fact the first of the great modern philosophers who attempted to bring political
theory into the intimate relationship with a thoroughly modern system of thought and he strove to make
this system broad enough to account, on scientific principles, for all the facts of nature, including human
behavior both in its individual and social aspects.
Sabine: The aspiration for more justice and right seemed to him (Hobbes) merely an intellectual
confusion. Hatred of tyranny seemed mere dislike of a particular exercise of power, and enthusiasm for
liberty seemed either sentimental vaporing or outright hypocrisy.
Micheal Oakshott: The Leviathan is the greatest, perhaps the sole, masterpiece of political philosophy
in the English language.
Oakeshott : Man is a complex of power; desire is the desire for power, pride is the illusion about power, honor
opinion about power, life the unremitting exercise of power and death the absolute loss of power.
Oakshott and Gauthier : His political doctrine has greater affinities with the liberalism of the 20th century
than his authoritarian theory would initially suggest.
Macpherson: Hobbes’s theory is seen to reflect the political ideology of the incipient capitalist market
society characterized by the doctrine of ‘possessive individualism’ and the ethic of cut throat competition
and self-aggrandizement.
Karl Marx: Hobbes was the father of us all.
Vaughan: “upon these Commandments reinforced by the purely natural cravings to escape from the
force and fraud of his neighbors, hang all the subsequent actions of man as a political animal.”
Vaughan: ‘the sole bond of union between the members of the Leviathan is a common terror, the fear
of relapsing into the state of nature. Between one member and another there is no bond at all. The only
cement provided is that which binds each of them, singly and separately, by sheer terror of the tyrant
who stands above them all.
Simon Weil: Thus there is , in the very essence of power, a fundamental contradiction that prevents
it from ever existing in the true sense of the word ; those who are called the masters , ceaselessly
compelled to reinforce their power for fear of seeing it snatched away from them, are forever seeking a
dominion impossible to attain.
David Gauthier: “authorization, rather than covenant, is the dominant metaphor in Hobbes’ political
thought, and that authorization is a much more adequate and illuminating metaphor for the formulation
and discussion of political relationship”.
**********

5 JOHN LOCKE
Locke was 17th century English philosopher who is famously regarded as the ‘Father of liberalism’. His
thinking was majorly influenced by Rene Descartes and Robert Boyle. His major works include:
Two Treatise of Civil Government
An Essay Concerning Human Understanding
Thoughts on Education
A letter concerning Toleration
He is considered a scholar of possessive individualism and also a scholar of the capitalist class. He in his
works provides a strong defence of natural rights and especially right to property.
LOCKE: FATHER OF LIBERALISM

He believed that man by nature was a rational creature and had capacity to use reason and intellect.
He places human reasoning much higher than historical knowledge.
He was a great advocate of the natural rights theory.
He was the greatest defender of right to property, in fact he believed the right to property contained in
itself all other individual rights.
His conception of state was based on an idea of contract among the individuals and not on divine
origin of state.
He also believed that even the civil society is an artificial institution created by man for his own
convenience.
He also recognizes the right to resistance against political authority.
His views have been most widely adopted in the US constitution.
WHAT IS POSSESSIVE INDIVIDUALISM?

This was term given by C.B. McPherson. It means that the individual is the sole owner of his
body and capacity and he or she owes nothing to the society. As long as he doesn’t harm
anyone, he is completely free to use his body or capacity for the satisfaction of his personal
wants.
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NATURAL RIGHTS & LEGAL RIGHTS?

Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular
culture or government, and so are universal and inalienable (they cannot be repealed
or restrained by human laws). Legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by a given
legal system (they can be modified, repealed, and restrained by human laws).Now natural
rights can exist before the formation of state and these rights can only be discovered by the
application of human reasoning.
Locke is one of the greatest defenders of the three natural rights which Right to life, liberty
and property.

LOCKE: CRITIQUE OF FILMER

In his First Treatise on Civil Government he attacks the Divine Rights theory given by Robert Filmer.in his book
Patriarcha.
Robert Filmer’s Divine Right Theory of Kings

The divine right of kings, divine right, or God’s mandate is a political and religious doctrine
of royal and political legitimacy. It asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority,
deriving the right to rule directly from the will of God. The king is thus not subject to the will of
his people, the aristocracy, or any other estate of the realm. It implies that only God can judge
an unjust king and that any attempt to depose, dethrone or restrict his powers runs contrary
to the will of God and may constitute a disrespectful act. It is often expressed in the phrase
“by the Grace of God”, attached to the titles of a reigning monarch.
As per Filmer God has created a big family called the state and placed under it the control of first man, Adam.
Adam enjoys absolute authority and this authority will pass down to his sons and successors. As per Filmer’s
logic, anyone who is a king must be the successor of Adam or his sons therefore has an absolute claim to
rule.
Filmer did not accept the idea of social contract. He believes that man is not born outside or before the
state or society. If you are born inside the society or state, then how can you create a contract which creates
society or state? Therefore the idea of a social contract through which state and society are coming into
existence is illogical. And even if we accept that some individuals did assemble and created such a contract,
what about those people who were born later? Should not they also have a say in the terms of the contract?
Or is it justified that my sons and grandsons are bound with a contract which only I had the opportunity to
create?
Therefore to settle the question regarding the claims of future generations, Filmer prefers that hereditary
succession should be the guiding principle.
LOCKE’S ANSWER TO FILMER:

Locke argues that what is the evidence that God gave any such authority to Adam in the first place. There
is no proof or evidence of this.
Even if we accept that Adam was given authority by God to rule over other human beings, there
is no conclusive proof that God has agreed to allow Adam to pass that authority to his sons and
successors.
Also there is the problem of identifying who are the real sons, grandsons and successors of Adam.
So much time has passed since the age of Adam that it is impossible to determine who is a true
successor and who has captured power by force or fraud among the numerous kings we see today
across numerous nations.
Locke finally says that so much time has passed since supposedly God gave authority to Adam, that
the event itself has lost relevance and we need a new contract to establish rules of political authority.
Filmer has compared the king-subject relationship to that of Father-children relationship. Locke
strongly refutes this by saying the two authority figures are not the same. Father will always care for
his children and the children in return are completely dependent on father but in case of king , the
citizens are not dependent for all of their needs on the king and nor is the king equally concerned for
all citizens always.
Therefore Locke does not accept the Divine rights theory by Filmer and instead suggest his theory of
social contract
LOCKE: STATE OF NATURE

In his Second Treatise of Civil Government, he argues that all human beings are by nature equal and there
is no power which can put them under any control or authority without their own consent. Political authority

for Locke is very different from other relationships which exist in the society like that of master and servant,
husband and wife, parent and child etc. All of these relationships are examples of particular circumstance and
conditions but political authority is a very wide and general condition and hence cannot be governed by the
same rules which apply to the above relations.
Man being by nature all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate, and
subjected to political power of another, without his own consent.
- John Locke (Second Treatise of Civil Government)
Locke in his times witnessed the Glorious Revolution which played a major part in shaping his view on human
nature. In this revolution, King James II was replaced by his son-in-law William of Orange. While James was
an absolutist, William accepted the supervision of Parliament. The revolution was bloodless and absolute
monarchy was replaced by constitutional monarchy.
In comparison to Hobbes, Locke has a much more optimistic view of Human nature. He accepts that man is
self-centred but he also has reason. For the sake of his own interest, he takes care of others as well.
For Locke the state of nature is not a state of constant of all against everyone. It is the state of ‘peace,
goodwill, mutual assistance and preservation’. It is a state of liberty but not of license. People’s inner morality
determines their behaviour. Men are rational and everyone treats others as they would treat themselves. Reason
tells man not to harm others. The state of nature for Locke is characterized by Peace and Cooperation.
IF THE STATE OF NATURE WAS SO GOOD,

THEN WHY DO NEED THE CONTRACT AT ALL?
The state of nature does not come to end due to an event or crisis, but due to certain inconveniences. In the state
of nature there will always be few persons who will be driven by passion more than reason. They will eventually
prefer their self-interest over morality. Since in the state of nature there is no common authority to make the
laws or execute them or interpret them, everyone becomes the law maker, implementer and interpreter in his
own. Everyone becomes the judge in his own case. Law will vary from person to person. If I murder someone,
then I will not be guilty since I will change the law to prove myself innocent as per my convenience.
In this respect, the state of nature proves to be inconvenient. In order to rectify this defect, men abandon
the state of nature and enter into civil or political society by means of a contract. Natural law, as per Locke,
contains rules which are based on a person’s morality and conscience. Natural rights consist in the ‘perfect
freedom and equality’ of every man ‘ not only to preserve his property, that is his life, liberty and estate,
against the injuries and attempts of other men, but to be the judge of , and punish the breaches of natural
law ‘ committed by others. When men enter into political society, they surrender their natural rights to be the
judges in case of breaches of law. The power is now vested in the community, not in individuals. But they still
retain their natural rights to ‘life, liberty and property’. It is also to be understood that Locke’s contract is only
pre-political and not pre-social.
Man hath by nature a power to reserve his property that is, his life, liberty and estate- against the
injuries and attempts of other men.
- John Locke (Second treatise of Civil Government)
LOCKE: SOCIAL CONTRACT

In case of Locke, there are two contracts instead of just one contract as in the case of Hobbes. For Hobbes,
a single contract created both the society and the state. But for Locke, the first contract leads to creation of
civil society and the second contract leads to creation of government.
Why did Hobbes have one contract but Locke has two contracts?
For Hobbes, if for some reason the state comes to an end, then the society also comes to an end and everyone
goes back to the state of nature. To avoid this, Hobbes advocates absolute sovereignty. Locke answers this
issue by creating multiple stages in his contract.
Contract and consent have three stages in Locke’s description: first, men must agree
unanimously to come together as a community and pool their natural powers so that they can
act together to uphold one another’s rights; second, the members of this community must
agree by a majority vote to set up legislative and other institutions; third the owners of property

in a society must agree, either personally or through their representatives to whatever taxes
are imposed on the people. - Jeremy Waldron
For Hobbes, state and society are born together and perish together when men decide to break the contract
and go back to state of nature. But for Locke, the society and state are created at different stages of the
contract. First society is created and then government is created. Even in case government is dissolved or
abolished, society continues to remain in existence and does not get dissolved. The abolished government is
simply replaced by another government in its place.
The government is very similar to a trust. It always has to abide by the terms of the contract. The government
is always under the supervision of the society which has been created before it. There is no chance for the
government to capture unnecessary power and if the government attempts to become absolutist, the society
will simply replace it.
Absolutism of the kind Hobbes envisaged is ruled out on the grounds that people hold their natural
rights to life and liberty as a sort of trust from God and therefore cannot transfer them to the
arbitrary power of another. Since government is set up to protect property and other rights, and
not to undermine them, the government may not take or redistribute property without consent.
- Jeremy Waldron
While Hobbes advocated complete sovereignty to the state and created an absolutist government, Locke
evolves a constitutional government. For Hobbes, everyone has to surrender all their natural rights which
existed in the state of nature because he argued this unhindered and unregulated freedom is the cause of
conflict and anarchy. But Locke only allows a partial surrender of natural rights. He considers the right to life,
liberty and property as fundamental and they cannot be surrendered. These rights are the foundation of human
freedom and cannot be done away with. The right which people give up is to be a judge in their own case and
the cases of others. They also give up their right to make and implement the law. So in totality the three major
rights which everyone gives up once the contract comes in force are
Right to make laws
Right to implement laws
Right to judge or interpret the laws
These rights are now surrendered to the government on one condition. The condition is that the right to
life, liberty and property of citizens will be protected at any cost. Society will always supervise whether the
government is duly protecting these rights or not. If the government fails in this duty, it will be replaced by
other government.
The government formed by the second contract has no original powers. It only enjoys the power delegated
to it by the society. It cannot work against the wishes of the citizens. The government cannot create laws
against the wishes of citizens. It simply cannot make any laws which violate the right to life, liberty and
property of the citizens.
Now one question still remains to be answered. How will the citizens elect the government? It will be elected
by the majority of citizens. But another problem arises that if the government comes into existence because
of majority support then what about those who do not support the government i.e. the minority?
As per Locke consent is of two types Explicit and Tacit. Majority provides direct and explicit consent and
minority provides tacit or indirect consent.
LOCKE: THEORY OF REVOLUTION

WHAT IF THE GOVERNMENT GOES
AGAINST & WISHES OF THE CITIZENS?
In order to understand why Locke provides the scope of revolution to citizens, one needs to understand two
things:
The government has to function as per consent of people. People are endowed with reason, conscience,
morality and knowledge of right and wrong. Since the government is created by people themselves, it
can use its superior logic or reasoning to override their wishes.

If the government goes against this rule, then people have the right to rebel and change or replace the
government. That is why Locke justifies the bloodless Glorious revolution in 1688.
This change of government has to be peaceful. Man is rational and therefore there is no need to be violent.
WHAT ARE & SPECIFIC CONDITIONS WHEN REVOLUTION BY CITIZENS IS JUSTIFIED?

When government does not act as per the wishes of people.
When the executive does not allow legislature to function.
When executive does not rule according to the laws made by the legislature.
When government puts people under foreign rule.
The end (aim) of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom.
John Locke (Second Treatise of Civil Government)
Locke likens the citizen to a householder who employs a night-watchman to guard his house. Then he
himself remains constantly vigilant to see that the night watchman neither neglects his duty nor cheats the
householder.
LOCKE: DEFENSE OF PROPERTY RIGHTS

The sole purpose for which man has created commonwealth is the preservation of property.
- Locke
For Locke property is a natural right and he argues that ownership of natural resources among people should
be determined by the amount of labour each man mixes with these resources. He said that every person own
his body and the labour which can be done with his body. So if he mixes anything taken from the nature with
the labour from his body, then that object becomes his property. The only thing he needs to ensure that enough
is left for the use of others and also for common use for everyone.
IS HIS DEFENSE OF PROPERTY ABSOLUTE AND UNQUALIFIED?

Locke puts three specific limitations on the right to property:
• Labour Limitation: Property should only earned by use of labour and it also includes labor of horse or
slave. It should not be acquired by force or fraud.
• Spoilage Limitation: Property should be enjoyed and not spoilt.
• Sufficiency Limitation: Acquire only that much you can use and leave the rest for others. Your acquisition
should not result in deprivation of others.
MCPHERSON’S CRITIQUE OF LOCKE

For McPherson, Lockean theory of property is an example of ‘possessive individualism’. The political society
which Locke aims to create is simply a rational mechanism to protect the property of the individuals in which
even the life and liberty of the individual are considered as the part of his property.
With the invention of money, the spoilage limitation has become irrelevant. The value stored in form of
currency, gold and silver does not decay. Then comes the sufficiency limitation which loses relevance when
property is diverted for other productive purposes like building a factory. In that case if a person acquires
a large amount of property to build a factory, then he can be excused from the sufficiency limitation since
by building the factory he is creating opportunities for others also to acquire new property i.e. workers and
supervisors getting paid due to the existence of factory in the first place.
Finally Locke allows labour to be sold in the market. When labour is sold, its product becomes the property of
the buyer. For McPherson, Locke’s defence of property rights was in fact defence of unrestrained accumulation
of the capital and the advance of capitalism.
McPherson believes that Locke’s justification of right to property was intended to promote the interests of
the newly emerging capitalist class. Locke argues that every man is rational but his theories portray that
those who have property are more rational than those who do not have it. In the eyes of McPherson, Locke is
an advocate of the capitalist class.

LOCKE: VIEWS ON TOLERATION

Locke talks about religious toleration in his book ‘A letter concerning Toleration’. As per Locke the state should
be tolerant towards citizens when it comes to their religious choices. While Hobbes ensured that even religious
and conscience related matters are under the control of state, Locke chose to leave it to individual choice.
There is no use of using of force in such matter since it cannot really compel people to change their beliefs.
The only exception for Locke are the atheists. Locke is not tolerant towards atheists.
Promises, Covenants and oaths which are bonds of human society can have no hold upon
Atheist. - Locke
LOCKE: SIGNIFICANCE AS A POLTICAL THINKER

Known as Father of Liberalism or more accurately Classical Liberalism.
Influenced future thinkers on Justice like Robert Nozick and John Rawls
Laid the foundations of constitutionalism and representative government.
His views on property did not remain unchallenged. While his views were crucial justification for the
rise of capitalism, but they were challenged eventually with advance of socialism and capitalism.
COMMENTARIES BY LOCKE
Utility is not the basis of law or the ground of obligation, but the consequence of obedience to it.
“The end of law is not to abolish or to restrain, but to preserve or enlarge freedom, for in all the states of
created beings, where there is no law, there is no freedom.
COMMENTARIES BY OTHER THINKERS

C.B. Macpherson: Locke was indeed at the fountain head of English liberalism.
M. Seligar: John Locke was the first political philosopher to elaborate modern liberalism as a
comprehensive and influential system of thought.
Vaughan characterises him as ‘Prince of individualists’ and says that Locke had no theory of sovereignty
at all, the true sovereign of Civil Government is the individual
Kendell characterises him as a collectivist of Rousseau’s brand.
John Dunn: Locke saw the rationality of human existence, a rationality which he spent so much of his
life in attempting to vindicate, as dependent upon the truths of religion”
Simmons: Locke occupies the middle ground, calling neither for unfettered accumulation of property
nor for radical redistribution of holdings.
Ernst Barker: Locke had not clear view of the nature and residence of sovereignty.
Ashcraft: As per Locke, Resistance to tyranny is everyone’s business.
**********

6 JOHN STUART MILL
He was the son of James Mill –friend and follower of Jeremy Bentham, the founder of Utilitarianism.
Although J.S. Mill is considered a follower of Utilitarian approach, but he eventually disagreed with its
many actual consequences.’
He is one of the biggest contributors to the liberal tradition. But at the same time he understood that
business of government is quite complex, and therefore political power of making laws, policies and
decisions should only be entrusted to capable and qualified people.
Mill is one of the greatest defenders of individual liberty. His revision of Utilitarianism, his reluctance
towards democracy, his argument in favor of Welfare state and his campaign against the subjection of
Women are examples of a continued emphasis on liberty.
His major works include: A System of Logic, Principles of Political Economy, and On Liberty,
Considerations on Representative Government, Utilitarianism and The Subjection of Women.
MILL: VIEWS ON UTILITARIANISM

Bentham believed that state should only intervene into the life of the individual when the intervention is
needed to secure the ‘greatest happiness of the greatest number’.
But Mill in his efforts to defend Utilitarianism from the attacks of its critiques, argued instead for a
greater role of state especially for promotion of general welfare.
Mill believed that State just did not hinder the individual’s liberty but can play an active role in promoting
and protecting it.
Mill argues there is difference of quality when it comes to comparing different types of happiness.
Every type of happiness has a quality of its own. Quality of pleasure is as important as Quantity of
Pleasure. He prefers a high quality pleasure which might give less satisfaction as compared to a low
quality pleasure giving more satisfaction.
Mill argues that apart from physical pleasure, human beings also look for moral, intellectual and artistic
pleasures.
It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied
than a fool satisfied - Mill
For Bentham, issues such as human development, honour and dignity of the individual did not matter
while applying the maxim of ‘greatest happiness of greatest numbers’. But for Mill, Human development
is a major factor.
He agrees with Mill that Utility or usefulness is the ultimate standard for judging the worth of any action
or thing but this idea needs to be expanded to include human development as well. What he meant was
while determining the greatest happiness of greatest numbers, the state or authorities should not only
focus on the short term interests but also on the long term and permanent interests.
I regard utility as the ultimate appeal on all ethical questions; but it must be utility in the largest
sense, grounded on the permanent interests of man as a progressive being.
- Mill
For Mill, liberty was the core of Utilitarianism. The ultimate happiness cannot be achieved by physical
pleasures but development and progress of the human soul. Only those are endowed with high character

and personality can actually the pleasures of higher quality. Mill believed that this can happen only when
an individual has liberty to pursue his/her character development.
Liberty enables a person to explore and enjoy new types of pleasures. Liberty itself is a unique pleasure
which is higher than any other form of pleasure.
He who has had the taste of liberty would never be prepared to exchange it for any other pleasure.
He who has tasted the water of Nile will not like any other water. - Mill
Mill further says that intellectual and spiritual pleasures are essentially superior to merely sensual
pleasures. Those capable of enjoying the higher pleasures are superior to those who do not have this
capacity.
Issues with ‘Greatest happiness of the greatest number ‘logic?
What If every individual is given the freedom to explore his own pleasure? Then naturally it would
become difficult to determine a policy involving the ‘greatest happiness of the greatest number’. For
example, if the state wants to promote free education, then many people will oppose the idea saying
that it does not give any direct or immediate pleasure.
The second problem with the ‘Greatest happiness of the greatest number ‘principle is that its enforcement
would certainly result in encroachment on the liberty of certain individuals who don’t agree with the
majority opinion or demands of the greatest number. This sacrificing of liberty of minority for the sake
of majority was not acceptable to Mill.
Mill revolted against Bentham’s material maximizing criterion of the social good. He could not
agree that all pleasures were equal, not that the market distributed them fairly. He held that men
were capable of something better than the money grabbing and starvation avoiding existence
to which Bentham’s condemned them. He rejected the maximization of indifferent utilities as
the criterion of social good, and put in its place the maximum development and use of human
capacities- moral , intellectual , aesthetic, as well as material productive capacities.
- McPherson
MILL: DEFENCE OF LIBERTY OF SPEECH

All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility. - Mill
Mills holds a very passionate view of freedom of thought and expression. His ideas have been a source
of inspiration for those concerned with civil liberties and individual freedom. In his book On Liberty Mill
favored freedom of action and speech against state and the pressure of public opinion and tradition.
He was of the view every individual whether right or wrong must have right to express his/her opinion.
He must not be denied of this right even it is against the majoritarian view or accepted social norms.
According to Mill Tyranny of majority poses a threat to liberty. He argued that public opinion is more
dangerous than state and officials of the state. He argued that human being or citizens can not dare
to work against public opinion that blocks his intellect and finally eliminates the power of thought. In
the support of breech of speech and action, he said public opinion and traditional wisdom is not the
parameter of value and truth of speech. Therefore one should be always allowed to speak even against
the whole society.
‘If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion,
mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power,
would be justified in silencing mankind.’
While in case of ‘actions’ he clearly distinguishes between ‘self-regarding’ and other regarding actions
and allows state’s interference in other regarding actions, he takes a different stand in terms of ‘thought
and expression’. He says that while thought is without exception self-regarding, expression of one’s
thoughts clearly has consequences for other people.
However, freedom of expression ‘being almost of as much importance as the liberty of thought itself
and resting in great part on the same reasons’ it is practically inseparable from freedom of thought.
And so Mill argues for both together. Thus according to him the state may only interfere with people
holding and expressing their views if those views cause harm to others and even then, it should only
interfere if doing so would be more beneficial than not doing so. So there should be ‘absolute freedom

of opinion and sentiment on all subjects, practical or speculative, scientific, moral, or theological’,
however immoral the opinion or sentiment may seem. Mill gives number of arguments in defense of
individual freedom even in case of eccentric and outspoken false opinion:-
In the first place, it is possible that the unconventional or minority opinion may actually be true and
the opinion of majority may actually be false. In this case, ignoring or silencing the unconventional or
minority opinion would deprive the whole humanity of the benefits of the truth.
Even if we accept that the majority opinion is true we should still not suppress those who have
contradictory opinions. The full essence and value of the accepted truth will not be assured until it is
tested against the opposite view. The confrontation with the opposite view creates a clearer perception
of truth. Silencing of any opinion even if wrong will deprive mankind of the opportunity of rejuvenating
the truth.
Mill argues that in real life it is very unlikely that any opinion whether orthodox or unorthodox will be
entirely true. It is most likely that every opinion we come across is partly true and partly false at the
same time. Free expression of contradictory opinions would be conducive to the destruction of untrue
elements of our beliefs and refinement of the true elements.
For Mill liberty of thought and expression is also crucial for human development. Liberty is essential
for the development of sense of moral responsibility in an individual. Every thought and action can only
be significant when it is derived from free will and personal choice.
No human being can have a sense of dignity and self-esteem unless he gets an opportunity to choose
from alternative courses of thought and action.
If the state denies this liberty to its citizens, they are bound to lose their sense of dignity. Eventually the
state will realize that no great things can really be accomplished with the help of subdued citizens.
A State which dwarfs its men, in order that they may be more docile instruments in its hands even
for beneficial purposes, will find that with small men no great thing can really be accomplished
-Mill
MILL: DEFENSE OF LIBERTY OF ACTION (HARM PRINCIPLE)

“The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized
community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or
moral, is not a sufficient warrant…. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is
sovereign.” - Mill
Mill thus disqualifies other reasons that are often used to justify interference with individual liberty. The
harm principle excludes paternalism, or constraining an individual’s freedom for the sake of what one
believes to be that individual’s own benefit.
Instead, Mill argues that each individual should be able to decide what constitutes his or her own good
and how he or she will pursue it.
Similarly, actions cannot properly be constrained on the grounds that they will cause offence, rather
than harm, to other people.
My own interests and possible offence to others may provide me with reasons to persuade someone
else to select one course of action over another, but they cannot justify coercion.
The harm principle, then, relies on a clear distinction between:
the sphere of action that concerns only the actor himself, in which the actor should enjoy unimpeded
freedom; and
The sphere of action that affects others, in which the harm principle might constrain my actions.
Whether it is possible to maintain such a precise distinction, and where exactly the demarcation lies,
has often been disputed. Mill himself, however, provides a relatively expansive interpretation of the
sphere of liberty. He writes that individuals ought to enjoy complete liberty of conscience, thought, and
feeling on all subjects, and a nearly complete liberty of expression.
Expression should be restricted only when the act of expression could cause harm, such as incitement
to violence. All should have the liberty to form and pursue their own plan of life, to do as they like,
subject to whatever consequences might follow.

Mill acknowledged that it was difficult to draw a line between self-regarding and other regarding
action, and he provided some hypothetical examples as proof of this difficulty. If a man destroys his
own property, this is a case of other regarding action because others dependent on that man will be
affected. Even if this person has no dependents, his action can be said to affect others, who, influenced
by his example, might behave in a similar manner.
On his own ground, Mill cited all kinds of restrictions on not eating pork or beef, or priests being required
not to marry, as examples of unnecessary restrictions on self-regarding action.
Mill wrote that sometimes even in the case of other regarding action, no restrictions can be placed on
one-for instance, if one wins job through competition, this action can be said to affect others’ interests
by ensuring that they do not get the job, but no restrictions are applicable here. Similarly, trade has social
consequences, but believing in the principle of free trade, Mill argued that lack of restrictions on trade
actually leads to better pricing and better quality of products.
And when it conies to self-regarding action, as we already showed, the principle of liberty requires the
absence of all restrictions.
Finally, Mill contends that the individual should enjoy freedom of association for any purpose not
involving harm to others.
Mill also holds a relatively expansive notion of the potential threats to individual liberty. Mill does not
believe that popular sovereignty alone is a sufficient safeguard for human freedom.
Rather, he sides with Benjamin Constant and Alexis de Tocqueville, and believes the tyranny of the
majority to be a serious threat in an age of popular government.
Further, Mill does not regard the instruments of government as the sole, or even the most serious,
constraint on individual liberty. The harm principle also applies to the informal sanctions imposed by
society upon dissenting or eccentric individuals.
When society oversteps its bounds,
“it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since,
though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating
much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself.”
Mill is worried that the weight of public opinion can stifle individuality, and regards these informal social
controls as a form of coercion. The yoke of opinion, in Mill’s view, poses as much of a threat to human
liberty as the yoke of the law.
MILL: DEFENSE OF LIBERTY OF ASSOCIATION

Mill defended freedom of association on three grounds. First, “when the thing to be done is likely to be
done better by individuals than by government. Speaking generally, there is no one more fit to conduct any
business, or to determine how or by whom it shall be conducted, as those who are personally interested
in it.”
Second, allowing individuals to get together to do something, even if they do not do it as well as the
government might have done it, is better for the mental education of these individuals. The right of
association becomes, for Mill :
“Practical part of the political education of a free people, taking them out of the narrow circle
of personal and family selfishness and making them familiar to joint concerns and guiding their
conduct by aims which unites them.
Further government operations tend to be everywhere alike, while individuals and voluntary associations,
on the contrary, there are varied experiments, and endless diversity of experience.
Third, if we let the government do everything, there is the evil of adding unnecessarily to its power.
MILL: VIEWS ON ECONOMY

Mill’s early economic philosophy was one of free markets. However, he accepted interventions in the economy,
such as a tax on alcohol, if there were sufficient utilitarian grounds.
He also accepted the principle of legislative intervention for the purpose of animal welfare. Mill originally

believed that “equality of taxation” meant “equality of sacrifice” and that progressive taxation penalized
those who worked harder and saved more and was therefore “a mild form of robbery”.
Given an equal tax rate regardless of income, Mill agreed that inheritance should be taxed. A utilitarian society
would agree that everyone should be equal one way or another. Therefore, receiving inheritance would put
one ahead of society unless taxed on the inheritance.
Those who donate should consider and choose carefully where their money goes – some charities are more
deserving than others.
Later he altered his views toward a more socialist bent, adding chapters to his Principles of Political Economy
in defense of a socialist outlook, and defending some socialist causes.
Within this revised work he also made the radical proposal that the whole wage system be abolished in favor
of a co-operative wage system.
MILL: VIEWS ON DEMOCRACY & HIS POTRAYAL

AS A RELUCTANT DEMOCRAT
The great achievement in the hands of John Stuart Mill is that he showed liberalism needed – of all
things -- democracy. For Mill, liberalism needed democracy for two reasons, or in two senses: first, it
needed democracy for ethical reasons. For a society to be truly liberal, i.e. for it to truly maximize the
freedom of all individuals, meant, among other things, that at least the lower classes could not be denied
political power.
But secondly, liberalism needed democracy in a pragmatic sense: it needed to avoid the total disaffection
of the lower classes, i.e. of the vast majority. It was necessary, for the sake of survival, to grant them
access to at least the entrance of the corridors of power.
Mill defends representative, rather than direct, democracy. Direct democracy is impractical in anything
but a small community. But representative democracy has the further advantage of allowing the
community to rely in its decision-making on the contributions of individuals with special qualifications
of intelligence or character. In this way, representative democracy represents a more effective use of
resources within the citizenry to advance the common good.
Also, Wayper believed that Mill’s emphasis on self-development insofar came close to reluctant
democrat. Mill had firm belief that most of the citizens are inactive, uneducated, illiterate, uncivilized,
biased, prejudiced and full of regional aspiration. That is why, plural voting system should be there that
gives more weight to citizens with special intellectual and moral qualifications. He wrote:
“One of the greatest danger, therefore of democracy as of other forms of government lies in the
sinister interest of the holders of power: it is danger of class legislation: of government intended
for… the immediate benefit of dominant of whole”
Mill in order to protect citizens from tyranny of majority and legislators suggested
Plural voting
System of proportion repression
Educational and experience qualification for legislators
Open voting system
They (legislators) must not be paid because salary promotes professional politician
State should not interfere in self-regarding work and must perform less work
Mill is highly appreciative of the merits of the democracy; he never opposed democracy as a political system
but warned that all societies are not fit for democracy. In context of democracy in colonies, he was reluctant
in the sense that democracy can be dangerous if people are not fit for the democratic way of life. His major
concerns with democracy in colonial and developing societies are:
He is apprehensive of possible tyrannical nature of majority rule and its safeguarding only its own
interests.
Collective mediocrity, general ignorance and incapacity of the members of the governing body will
result in poor & mediocre governance.

There is too much diffusion of power in democracy. Some powers are wielded in the parliament, others
by cabinet, and others by ministers and finally others by civil servants. He is afraid that democratic
government generally cannot reach a quick decision, nor can it implement it properly,
The principle “everyone to count for one and nobody to count for more than one “is a principle of false
democracy. It ignores that men are not gifted by nature with equal intelligence, virtue and health. In the
political system, the men of more intelligence should be given more weightage than less intelligent men.
Even if the ruling power is apparently exercised by the numerical majority, the real power can be exercised
by the selected few for the promotion of the vested interests of the community in supersession of the
community as a whole.
Wayper in context of Mill correctly points that
“No one has been less blind to the faults of democracy. No one has insisted more vigorously that
it is not suitable for all the peoples. But no one has been more convinced that when it is possible,
it is the best of all governments”.
MILL: VIEWS ON RIGHTS OF WOMEN

Mill was convinced that the moral and intellectual advancement of humankind would result in greater
happiness for everybody. He asserted that the higher pleasures of the intellect yielded far greater
happiness than the lower pleasure of the senses. He conceived of human beings as morally and
intellectually capable of being educated and civilized. Mill believed everyone should have the right to
vote, with the only exceptions being barbarians and uneducated people.
Mill argues that people should be able to vote to defend their own rights and to learn to stand on their two
feet, morally and intellectually. This argument is applied to both men and women. Mill often used his position
as a Member of Parliament to demand the vote for women, a controversial position for the time.
In Mill’s time a woman was generally subject to the whims of her husband and/or father due to social
norms which said women were both physically and mentally less able than men, and therefore needed to
be “taken care of.” The model of the ideal woman as mother, wife and homemaker was a powerful idea
in 19th century society.
At the time of writing, Mill recognized that he was going against the common views of society and
was aware that he would be forced to back up his claims persistently. Mill argued that the inequality of
women was a relic from the past, when “might was right,” But it had no place in the modern world.
Mill saw that having effectively half the human race unable to contribute to society outside of the
home as a hindrance to human development.
“The legal subordination of one sex to another - is wrong in itself, and now one of the chief
hindrances to human improvement; and that it ought to be replaced by a system of perfect
equality, admitting no power and privilege on the one side, nor disability on the other.
“Mill attacks the argument that women are naturally worse at some things than men, and should,
therefore, be discouraged or forbidden from doing them. He says that we simply don’t know what
women are capable of, because we have never let them try - one cannot make an authoritative statement
without evidence. We can’t stop women from trying things because they might not be able to do them.
An argument based on speculative physiology is just that, speculation.
“The anxiety of mankind to intervene on behalf of nature...is an altogether unnecessary solicitude.
What women by nature cannot do, it is quite superfluous to forbid them from doing. “In this, men
are basically contradicting themselves because they say women cannot do an activity and want
to stop them from doing it.
Here Mill suggests that men are basically admitting that women are capable of doing the activity, but
that men do not want them to do so. Whether women can do them or not must be found out in practice.
In reality, we don’t know what women’s nature is, because it is so wrapped up in how they have been
raised. Mill suggests we should test out what women can and can’t do - experiment
Until conditions of equality exist, no one can possibly assess the natural differences between women
and men, distorted as they have been. What is natural to the two sexes can only be found out by allowing
both to develop and use their faculties freely.

“Women are brought up to act as if they were weak, emotional, docile - a traditional prejudice. If we
tried equality, we would see that there were benefits for individual women. They would be free of the
unhappiness of being told what to do by men.
And there would be benefits for society at large - it would double the mass of mental faculties available
for the higher service of humanity. The ideas and potential of half the population would be liberated,
producing a great effect on human development.
Mill’s essay is clearly utilitarian in nature on three counts: The immediate greater good, the enrichment
of society, and individual development. If society really wanted to discover what is truly natural in gender
relations, Mill argued, it should establish a free market for all of the services women perform, ensuring
a fair economic return for their contributions to the general welfare. Only then would their practical
choices be likely to reflect their genuine interests and abilities.
Mill felt that the emancipation and education of women would have positive benefits for men also.
The stimulus of female competition and companionship of equally educated persons would result
in the greater intellectual development of all. He stressed the insidious effects of the constant
companionship of an uneducated wife or husband. Mill felt that men and women married to follow
customs and that the relation between them was a purely domestic one. By emancipating women,
Mill believed, they would be better able to connect on an intellectual level with their husbands,
thereby improving relationships.
Mill attacks marriage laws, which he likens to the slavery of women, “there remain no legal slaves, save
the mistress of every house.” He alludes to the subjection of women becoming redundant as slavery
did before it.
He also argues for the need for reforms of marriage legislation whereby it is reduced to a business
agreement, placing no restrictions on either party. Among these proposals are the changing of inheritance
laws to allow women to keep their own property, and allowing women to work outside the home, gaining
independent financial stability.
Again the issue of women’s suffrage is raised. Women make up half of the population, thus they also
have a right to a vote since political policies affect women too. He theorizes that most men will vote for
those MPs who will subordinate women, therefore women must be allowed to vote to protect their own
interests.
“Under whatever conditions, and within whatever limits, men are admitted to the suffrage, there
is not a shadow of justification for not admitting women under the same.”
Mill felt that even in societies as unequal as England and Europe that one could already find evidence
that when given a chance women could excel. He pointed to such English queens as Elizabeth I, or
Victoria, or the French patriot, Joan of Arc. If given the chance women would excel in other arenas and
they should be given the opportunity to try.
Mill was not just a theorist; he actively campaigned for women’s rights as an MP and was the president
of the National Society for Women’ Suffrage.
MILL: BARKERS’S CRITIQUE

• It is said that if anyone is liberal it is Mill. No one has given such a systematic view of liberal concept of
liberty. It was Mill who established that liberty is superior to utility.
• Barker calls Mill as Prophet of empty liberty and scholar of abstract individualism. Barker is an advocate
of Positive liberty and he does not support negative liberty.
• According to Barker, Mill goes for artificial separation between self-regarding action and other regarding
actions.
• Actually he leaves very limited scope for liberty. There are very few actions which can be considered as
entirely self-regarding. Not only is his idea of liberty wrong Mill is unable to defend his idea. He creates
huge scope for intervention by the state.
• According to Barker, Mill is talking about an abstract man, not the real man living in the society.
• It is true that Mill is inconsistent thinker, inconsistency arises because he belongs to the time when people
were realizing the consequences of negative liberty.

MILL: SIGNIFICANCE
Mill’s Liberalism provided the first major framework of modern democratic equality by extending the
logic of the defense of liberty to end the subjection of women.
As a Member of Parliament he tried to push through a law allowing women to vote, and was disappointed
when that did not happen.
He was the first male philosopher to write about women’s subjection and oppression.
He also portrayed the wide diversity in our society and cautioned the need to protect the individual
from the fear of intruding his private domain by a collective group or public opinion.
The distinction between self-regarding and other regarding action would determine the individual’s
private independent sphere and the later, the individual’s social public sphere.
He stressed on the need to protect the rights of the minority within a democracy.
He understood the shortcomings of classical utilitarian liberalism and advocated vigorously for
important state actions in providing compulsory education and social control.
His revision of liberalism provided the impetus to T.H. Green who combining the British Liberal tradition
with the continental one provided a new basis of liberalism with his notion of common good.
CONCEPT OF STATE BY NOZICK
A powerful definition of the libertarian view of the minimal state has been developed by Robert Nozick
in his book Anarchy, State and Utopia. Nozick talks about the state in the context of individual rights.
Following the tradition of John Locke, Nozick speaks of prior and inalienable rights of the individual
possessed independent of society.
He says that rights are the property of the individual and are so strong and far reaching that they raise a
number of basic questions such as: what, if anything, the state may do? How much room do individual
rights leave for the state? What is the nature of the state? What are its legitimate functions and what
is its justification?
The state, according to Nozick, should be a minimal state, limited to the narrow functions of protection
against force, theft, fraud, enforcement of contract and so on.
Any more extensive state will violate the person’s right not to be forced to do certain things and as
such would be unjustified. ‘The minimal state is inspiring as well as right’. What is important is that
the state must not use its coercive apparatus for the purpose of getting some citizen to aid others, and
prohibit activities of people for their own good or protection.
Since Nozick strongly believes in the rights of the individuals, he seriously considers the anarchist
claim that the monopoly of use of force by the state may violate the individual’s right and hence, the
state is immoral. Against this claim, Nozick argues that the state will arise from anarchy even though
no one intends this. Individuals in the state of nature would find it in their interest to allow a ‘dominant
protective agency’ to emerge which would have de facto monopoly of force and could constitute a
state like entity. The formation of such an entity, if done in an appropriate way, may violate no one’s
rights, i.e. if it does not go beyond its legitimate power of protection, justice and defence.
Justifying the minimal state, he categorically asserts that liberty must get absolute precedence over
equality. He opposed the policies of progressive taxation and positive discrimination and asserts that
realization of liberty should not be inhibited by the policies of the government in providing public health
care, education or minimum standard of living. He argued that those who own wealth may voluntarily
adopt some redistribution. He is against any redistribution of property by the state because it may
transgress the liberty of those who have property.
For Nozick, the state is no more than a night watchman, protecting the inviolable rights of the citizens.
He asserts that the welfare notion which advocates that it is the society which allocates resources is
not only wrong, but illegitimate because there is no such thing as ‘ society’ except in the minimal sense
of being an aggregate of the individuals. ‘There are only people with their own individual lives’ and
society is no more than the sum of its individual components.

State intervention means appropriation of both ‘one’s resources and one’s self’. And ‘seizing the
results of someone’s labour is equivalent to seizing hours from him and directing him to carry on
various activities. Thus welfare state is a threat to liberty and independence of the individuals because
individual is the sole owner of himself and his talent.
The libertarian philosophy apart from Nozick has been propounded by a number of scholars like Hayek,
Friedman, Karl Popper, I. Berlin, Rothbard, and Ayn Rand.
JUSTICE AS ENTITLEMENT: ROBERT NOZICK

Robert Nozick, in his book Anarchy, State, and Utopia, questioned the basic assumptions of the distributive
theory of Justice of Rawls. As a counter theory, he gives an unpatterened theory of entitlement. He gives the
three principles which some have called the three theories of entitlement. The three principles of entitlement
are:
Principle of just acquisition
Principle of just transfer
Principle of rectification
The three principles of just entitlement are:
1. Just acquisition of holdings: “A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principle of
justice in acquisition is entitled to that holding." Anything acquired with one’s own effort belongs to
him.
2. Just transfer of holdings: “A person who acquires a holding, in accordance with the principle of justice
in transfer, from someone else entitled to the, holding, is entitled to the holding." it gives the holder the
right to transfer the holdings as per his own voluntary decision and that makes it just transfer. Thus
theft, dupe, fraud or even taxation become unjust because all these are involuntary. On the other hand,
the transactions, barter and contracts where transfer takes place based on one’s voluntary agreement
amounts to just transfer.
3. Rectification of injustice: “No one is entitled to a holding except by (repeated) applications of 1 and 2."
The first-two principles question the assumption of Rawls that the resources need to be distributed on the
bases of two principles which men have agreed upon in the original position behind the veil of ignorance.
According to Nozick, only that can be distributed, which has not followed the just principle and the just
holdings are entitlement of the person, therefore, cannot be put into the common kitty for distribution. The
principle to be followed in redistribution is based on the history of entitlement, only when distribution is
unjust the principle of redistribution apply. Robert Nozick’s theory of justice has come under attack by the
egalitarians.
CRITICAL ESTIMATE OF NOZICK’S VIEWS

A feature of the modern state is that it has recognized a range of individual rights which were not
recognized by ancient Greek or medieval society. Rights are socially and historically constituted. In fact,
the right which Nozick defends are actually those rights which were historically specific to the market
and were defined and constituted in the context of capitalist relations. They were neither natural nor
prior to the state.
Secondly, if the resource allocation is to be done by the market it cannot be equal because in a capitalist
society, the market also privileges some groups over others within the system of production and
exchange. Hence the idea of a free and sovereign individual choosing what to do with his resources is
a myth.
Nozick’s account of the minimum state fails because it contains no theory of taxation. For this
reason, other libertarian scholars insist that taxation be according to general rules, uniformly applied.
For example, Hayek and Friedman have argued that only a system of proportional taxation is fully
consistent with the libertarian requirements.
Proportional taxation would prevent the imposition of redistributive taxation on wealthy and unpopular
minorities and would thereby remove a major area of arbitrariness from public policy. They advocate

that the taxation policy be governed by general rules so that governments are prevented in their service
activities from curbing economic freedom in subtle and covert ways.
NEO-LIBERALISM / LIBERTARIANISM: VIEWS OF F.A. HAYEK

A man possess liberty or freedom when he is not subject to coercion by the arbitrary will of another.
This is the essence of individual freedom which should not be confused with any other meaning of
freedom.
Hayek contrasts individual freedom with other meanings of freedom such as political or inner freedom.
He argues that a non-democratic order may be permissive and a democratic order may be restrictive.
Political freedom is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition of individual freedom.
He identifies freedom as ‘freedom from the constraints of the state’. He argues that the state should
positively promote competition and should undertake non-coercive service functions, as the market
mechanism does not provide for all needs.
The state should ensure minimum income to each individual or family, but he should not make market
itself an instrument of distributive justice.
Hayek’s argument against equality: Equality is based on two premises. In the first place, he assumes
that liberty consists in ‘absence of coercion’ in the sphere of individual activity by other individuals or
the state.
Secondly, he observes that individuals differ in their talents and skills and their equality before the
law is bound to create inequality in their actual position in terms of their material status. Hence any
attempt to create material equality among different individuals is bound to involve ‘coercion’ which
would deprive them of their freedom.
He was considered as Father of Neo-Liberalism.
He was very critical of centralised planning and believed that market can best allocate resources and
utilize them.
He said that ‘ Social justice is a mirage’. It cannot be achieved. In the name of welfare , state has
introduced progressive taxation. The state is taking away money from productive sections but it never
reaches the targeted sections. Progressive taxation is bonded labour.
He says that poverty is simply bad luck and if a person is poor , it is not the fault of the state. To
eliminate poverty, coercion and taxation of rich is not justified.
VIEWS OF FRIEDMAN &ROTHBARD
Friedman argues that freedom is not needed by market, rather market is needed for freedom. In countries
where there was no capitalism, there no chance for people to enjoy freedom.
Rothbard compared politicians and bureaucrats as gangsters and thieves and central bank as legislative
fraud.
PLURALIST PERSPECTIVE ON STATE

MEANING OF PLURALISM
Pluralism is a powerful protest against the monistic theory of sovereignty which endows the state with
supreme and unlimited power. Harold Laski, J.N. Figgis, Ernest Barker, G. D.H. Cole, A. D. Lindsay, Duguit,
MacIver and others are the exponents of Pluralism.
According to Pluralists, sovereignty resides not with the state but it resides with many other institutions.
There exist many social, political, cultural and economic institutions in society and many of these
institutions are prior to the State. For example, Family and Church are prior to the State.
According to Pluralists, the State is not only the supreme institution. On the contrary, like other institutions

the State is also one of the institutions of society. There the State does not reserve the authority to
exercise sovereignty according to his will. Sovereignty is not its private property.
The Pluralistic state is, therefore, “simply a state in which there exists no single source of authority”.
According to Pluralists, sovereignty is not indivisible and exclusive”. One the contrary it is a multiplicity
in its essence and manifestation, it is divisible in two parts and should be divided”.
A.D. Lindsay has very aptly remarked in this connection. “If we look at the facts it is clear enough that
the theory of sovereign state has broken down”. Professor Laski is of the opinion that “it is impossible
to make the legal theory of sovereignty valid for political philosophy”.
He believed that “it would be lasting benefit to political science if the whole concept of sovereign was
surrendered”. Krabbe is of the opinion that the “notion of sovereignty must be expunged from political
theory”.
While Barker says, “We see the State less as an association of individuals in a common life; we see it
more as an association of individuals, already united in various groups for a further and more embracing
common purpose”. These associations have an inner life which is at least as autonomous as that of
the state.
Thus, the pluralists ardently advocate the autonomy and freedom of profession, political, religious, economic,
social and educational associations. Gettell has beautifully summed up the idea of pluralism in these words,
“The pluralists deny that the state is a unique organisation, they hold that other associations are equally
important and natural, they argue that such associations for their purpose are as sovereign as the state is
for its purpose. They emphasise the inability of the state to enforce its will in practice against the opposition
of certain groups within it. They deny that possession of force by the state gives it any superior right. They
insist on the equal rights of all groups that command the allegiance of their members and that perform
valuable functions in society. Hence, sovereignty is possessed by many associations. It is not indivisible unit;
the state is not supreme or unlimited”.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE PLURALISTIC THEORY

The pluralistic theory originated in the writings of Otto V. Gierke. “The germ of Pluralism is to be found”,
says Professor R.N. Gilchrist, “in the work of the German Jurist, Von Gierke (1844-1921) whose monumental
work on the legal theory of corporation, part of which was translated, with a sympathetic introduction, by the
English Jurist, F.W. Maitland, in his “Political Theories of Middle Ages” (1900), gave an impetus to the idea of
corporations as legal entities, with a life of their own independent of government”
No doubt it is true that the theory of pluralism originated in the last quarters of the nineteenth century and
developed in the beginning of the twentieth century, yet its background can be traced in the Medieval Age.
In Medieval Age, the organisation of the State in Europe was loose and the church, vocational associations
and Guilds played their significant role in society. In sixteenth and seventeenth century, national sentiment
gathered force in Europe and as a consequence national states emerged.
These national states became powerful and all the powers, in these states, were centered with the ruler. In
due course of time, these national states faced revolt and public- movements and the result was the dawn
of democracy.
In Democracy, the authority of the ruler was confined, the cabinet became more powerful but the state
remained sovereign and supreme. With the advent of the Welfare State there came a rapid increase in the
functions of the State and there remained no sphere of life with which the State did not interfere, the sovereign
and the supreme state also faced revolt and reaction. This reaction against the sovereign and supreme state
resulted into the dawn of pluralism.
FACTORS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF PLURALISM:

1. The individuals laid emphasis on the reduction of the powers of the State. The Pluralists also followed
suit. But the main point of difference between the individualists and pluralists is that the individualists
laid emphasis on the rights and freedom of the individual whereas the pluralists laid emphasis on the
rights and freedom of the associations of the individuals and guilds.
2. Both the individualists and pluralists laid emphasis on the need of cooperation between the state and
other associations for promoting the common welfare.

3. In the modern age, all the states of the world are inter-dependent on one another in one way or the
other and, therefore, the need of confining the sovereignty of the state is felt these days.
4. Famous German Jurist Otto Von Gierke (1844-1921), F.W. Maitland, famous English Jurist, J.N. Figgis
and others have argued that the Churches and Guilds possessed internal freedom and were party to
sovereignty in the Medieval Age. They argue that if the Churches and Guilds possessed freedom in the
Medieval Age, associations must possess freedom and autonomy these days also.
5. Anarchism and Guild Socialism laid a great stress on the confinement of the sovereignty of the state
and this gave impetus to Pluralism.
Main Supporters of Pluralism: Otto Von Gierke, F.W. Maitland, Figgis, G.D.H. Cole, A.D. Lindsay, Ernest Barker,
Krabbe, Duguit, Laski, Cober, Zimmern, Durkheim are some of the supporters of Pluralism. Gierke wrote, “The
state should accept the common point of view that permanent associations have rights and duties as groups
whether or not the state has accepted them as corporations”.
According to Laski, “State is only one among the various forms of associations and as compared with
them, has no superior claims to the individual allegiance”. He further says, “These associations are not less
sovereign than the state itself. Because society is federal, the authority must also be federal”.
MacIver has also pointed out in his famous book, “The Modern State” that “State is one association among
many associations within the community”. The Pluralistic ideology has been very well summed up by Cober,
“The state is confronted not merely by unassociated individual but also by other associations evolving
independently, eliciting individual loyalties, better adopted than the state-because of their select membership,
their special forms of organisation and action for serving various social needs.
CRITICISM OF PLURALISM
The theory of the pluralistic state has been criticised by a number of political thinkers on the following
grounds:
1. The State is needed to control various types of institutions existing in society. It is the sovereign state
that brings about unity and regulates all the associations existing in society. Gierke, Barker, Miss M.P.
Follet and Figgis and many other supporters of Pluralism have to realise the need of the State for this
purpose.
2. If sovereignty is divided among various associations existing in society, this division will lead to the
destruction of sovereignty. As a result anarchy will prevail in society and there will be chaos.
3. Many of the pluralists believe that law is superior to the state and the State is controlled by law. But
this hypothesis is wrong because laws are framed by the state.
4. It is a mere illusion and not a reality that other associations are equal in status to the State.
5. Laski, the ardent advocate of Pluralism, has also gone to the extent of criticising Pluralism by saying
that it has not closely studied the different sections of society.
6. If sovereignty is divided among various associations existing in society, these associations will be so
powerful that it would be difficult, if not possible, for the State to have a control over these associations.
This will lead to the rise of numerous problems in the State.
7. If these associations are transferred limited sovereignty, society will deteriorate and mutual disputes
will arise. Professor Gilchrist believes like this.
8. State is needed for protecting people from the excess of associations.
Importance or Value of Pluralism
Miss M.P. Follot in her famous book, “The New State” has summed up highlights of Pluralism in the following
manner:
1. The Pluralists “prick the bubble of present state’s right to supremacy. They see that the State which
has been slowly forming since the middle Ages with its pretences and unfulfilled claims has not won
either our regard or respect”.
2. They recognise the value of the group and they see that the variety of our group life today has
significance which must be immediately reckoned with in political life”.

3. “They plead for revivification of local life”.

4. “The Pluralists see that the interest of the State is not always identical with the interests of its parts”.
5. “Pluralism is the beginning of the disappearance of the crowd”.
Gettell describes the contribution of the Pluralists in these words: The emphasis on the fact that states, In spite
of legal omnipotence, should be subject to moral restraints is a desirable reaction against the idealization of
the state and the doctrine that state is an end in itself, free from all moral restraint. The Pluralists also make
a timely protest against the rigid and dogmatic legalism of the Austinian theory of sovereignty”.
Gettell further remarks, “The Pluralists emphasise the necessity of studying the actual facts of political life in
a rapidly changing social system. In this connection, they point out the growing changing social system. In
this connection, they point out the growing importance of non-political groups, the danger of over-interference
by the State with the proper functions of such groups and the desirability of giving to such group’s greater
legal recognition in the political system”.
STEPHEN KRASNER’S NOTIONS OF

SOVEREIGNTY IN THE AGE OF GLOBALISATION
In contemporary parlance, Stephen Krasner identifies four major usages/notions of sovereignty.
1. Interdependence sovereignty: It refers to the capacity of states to regulate movement across their
borders. In a globalised world, it-bas been, argued that states have limitations and constraints in terms
of their ability to effectively regulate the flow of people, capital and ideas in particular. The Contention
is that globalisation has to a large extent eroded the- ability of states. To Manage their borders.
2. Domestic sovereignty: It is a reference to authority structures within states, and their ability to
effectively regulate the behaviour of their citizens. Theorists like Jean Bodin and Thomas Hobbes
were primarily’ focused on domestic sovereignty of states. A major dimension of domestic
sovereignty is àcceptance’ and `recognition’. In other words, it is the organisation of sovereignty
within a particular polity.
3. Westphalian sovereignty: It refers to the ‘exclusion’ of external sources of authority both de jure and
de facto. In other words, within the boundaries, the state has monopoly over authoritative decision-
making. At the international level, this would translate into a scenario of non-intervention in the internal
affairs of states. It emphasizes the exclusion of external authority.
4. International legal sovereignty: It refers to `mutual recognition’ to juridically independent territorial
entities.
Krasner is one of the major defender’s of the continuing importance of sovereignty However Stephen
Krasner argues that the rules institutions and practices associated with the above four dimensions
of sovereignty are neither “logically nor empirically linked in some organic whole”: Hence he argues
that states can enjoy international legal sovereignty, mutual recognition without having Westphalian
sovereignty, as it-happened in the case of the East European states during the cold war. There can also
be cases of states voluntarily agreeing to do so as in the case of the European Union. This has been the
outcome of intense and complex negotiations., As Weiler and many others argue the mosaic is highly
complex. The European Union has territory, recognition, control, a court structure, monetary union,
national authority, extra-national authority and supranational authority. In short, the European Union
liar curtailed the Westphalian sovereignty attributes of its members. This has a bearing on the domestic
structures of the member states. Krasner’s major argument has been that sovereignty has never been
either `complete’ or ‘unchallenged’.
Stephen D. Krasner (1942) is Professor of International’ Relations at Stanford University. He former
Director of Policy Planning at the United States Department of State. Stephen Krasner, is particularly
remembered for his extensive contributions on the topic of` states sovereignty, especially in his
.influential book, Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy (1999). In this book, he talks about the rules of
sovereignty continually being broken. He identifies different ways in which people refer to sovereignty.
His major writings include: Are Bureaucracies Important? (1972), Defending the National Interest: Raw
Materials investment and American Foreign Policy (1978), Structural Conflict: the Third World Against

Global Liberalism (1985), Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy (1999), Addressing State Failure (2005) and
Power, the State, and Sovereignty: Essays on International Relations (2009).
MULTICULTURALISM
Most countries of the world today are internally plural. They have people of different religions, races and cultures
living within their boundaries. Multiculturalism begins with the understanding that granting equal civil and
political rights was an important achievement within democracy, but it has not adequately dressed the issue
of discrimination in society. Marginalized cultural communities, as minorities, continue to be disadvantaged
even within the democratic nation state. Culture-based discrimination exists even in the most advanced liberal
polities of the west, and it cannot be readdressed simply by giving identical rights to all persons as citizens.
Multiculturalism aims to minimize discrimination of minority cultural communities and to promote the ideal
of non-discrimination. The recognition that cultural identities may also be a source of marginalization and the
actions of the liberal state may disadvantage members of minority communities.
Theorists of multiculturalism argue that the policies of liberal nation-state disadvantage minority communities.
They place external pressures upon the members of minority communities to assimilate into the culture of the
majority. Policies aimed at promoting diversity are seen as ways of curbing the process of homogenization
that is engendered by the nation-state.
SIGNIFICANCE OF MULTICULTURALISM
The presence of many different cultures enriches our lives and enables critical self-understanding. Parek
argued that no cultures can “ever expresses the full range of human potentialities”, and each articulates ‘only
one aspect of it. Consequently, the presence of many cultures contributes to the “overall’ richness of society”.
Different cultures enable us to experienced different ways of living and thinking, and this makes us aware that
our cultural horizon is only one of the many that have given meaning to lives of countless men and women. This
consciousness of the finitude of our existence prompts us to take a critical look at the beliefs and institutional
structures of organization that we have inherited and perhaps accepted.
Multiculturalism is more than a statement of value pluralism. It does not merely suggest that different
value systems exist in society and individuals may favour or commit themselves to any of them. Instead,
multiculturalism argues that each culture incorporates a distinct value, different from that which is expressed
in another culture. Further, the life of an individual is shaped to a considerable extent by the value framework
of the culture to which he belongs. The customs and institutionalized practices of that culture structure his
preferences and judgments. What multiculturalism tries then to protect is the cultural context of experience.
Its policies are aimed at ensuring that minority cultures- their language, customs and institutions – survive
and are treated as equals in the public domain. Theorists of multiculturalism argue that a plural society
requires a multiculturalism framework policy of democracy.
Multiculturalism challenges this liberal understanding of the self with the argument that membership of a
cultural community is valuable to the individual. It defines, at least in part, their personal identity and forms
a “context of experience” (Kymlicka 1995). theories of multiculturalism argues that community identities
are bound to enter into the public domain and people may bring into political life issues that arise from their
community membership.
Excluding a cultural community from the political and public domain, denying it recognition or misrecognizing
it, causes grievous injury to individual .They become nervous and diffident and are unable to perform
successfully in society (Parekh 1992). It creates inter generation conflicts and deprives the individual of a
secure social environment that is necessary for proper growth and development. For the multiculturalism
secure cultural context is an essential condition for leading a reasonably autonomous existence and
exercising choices.
TOOLS OF PROMOTION OF MULTICULTURALISM

1. Differentiated Citizenship
Liberalism addressed the issue of social discrimination by disregarding ascribed identities and
extending the same rights to all persons as citizens. Multiculturalism, in sharp contrast to this, argues
that identical rights for all are inadequate for minimizing culture-based discrimination. What we require

are special rights for identified minorities. ‘The idea that citizens be differentiated on the basis of their
cultural identity and that different communities may receive different rights as citizens of the polity
is one of the defining features of the multiculturalism and it is expressed through the concept of
differentiated citizenship. The idea of group-differentiated citizenship and rights would enable them to
protect their culture against pressures of homogenization that come from the state and society.
2. Different Kinds of Special Rights
Within the framework of Differentiated citizenship, multiculturalism is sanctions three kinds of special
rights for minority communities:
cultural rights
self-government rights;
Special representation rights.
Multiculturalists argue that minority communities require special right so that they have access to
their culture in public domain. In western democracies, ‘special cultural rights have been demanded in
the form of exemptions from existing laws, assistance for minority cultural institutions and recognition
for minority culture.
GROUP RIGHTS-WILL KYMLICKA AND JOSEPH RAZ

One of the arguments of multiculturalism is that people are culturally embedded and hence their membership
of a cultural group gives meaning to their life, enhances their well-being. Culture provides choice to individuals
that enriches the life of individuals and, therefore, the cultural group should be recognized, their needs be
addressed, and if need be special rights be given to groups Thus multiculturalism is sensitive to the existence,
equality and continuation of cultural groups. The major thinkers associated with the theory or moral pluralism,
group rights, collective rights and cultural rights’ are Joseph Raz (1986),Larry May (1987),Franc Svensson
(2005), Will Kymlicka and Jacob Levy, who have given a comprehensive classification of collective rights which
the call cultural rights. All these thinkers agree as to the groups being the bearers of rights.
Joseph’ Raz in his two works The Morality, of Freedom (1986) and Ethics and the public Domain: Essays in
the Morality of Law and Politics (1994) argues for state protection of cultural identity on- the basis of moral
pluralism. Plurality of values is justified on the ground that it provides choice to-individuals and they flourish
in the ethos of value pluralism. His rejection of superiority of single value makes him assert tolerance for
Plurality of values. Individual reflection that leads to human flourishing can be nurtured only if-moral diversity
is present. Therefore, the state should remain neutral, as he asserts “it is the goal of all political action to
enable the individual to pursue valid conceptions of the good and to discourage evil or empty ones”. Since
the cultural groups provide self-respect, sense of dignity, moral options and the normative context, the state
should support cultural group rights. The range of options, in the words of Raz the ‘horizon of opportunity’, is
widened by cultural groups. Hence moral pluralism adds to human flourishing, well-being and moral growth
and serves common goods. But if the cultural group is illiberal and, instead of providing choices, it restrains
the choice and retards the reflection what policy the state should follow towards such a group? Raz feels the
illiberal cultures do not secure human flourishing and, therefore, they need not be tolerated nor supported by
the state.
THUS TOLERATION AND SUPPORT FOR A CULTURAL GROUP IS CONDITIONAL.

The need for group rights is emphasized by the multiculturalist thinkers on different grounds. There is
philosophical and practical justification for group rights. It helps to develop loyalty towards host nation as
nationalism becomes problematic in a multicultural society. The recognition and special rights for groups lead
to better understanding and adjustment among diverse groups.
Will Kymlicka, one of the prime advocates of group rights adopts liberal approach to collective rights. In his
earlier writings regarding cultural identify, he holds that cultural membership should be considered as primary
good in Rawlsian sense because culture provides a context where individuals make choice. The freedom to
make a choice is a liberal value. Collective rights he argues, promote individual freedom and autonomy which
are the crore values of liberalism. Only by exercising the rights to choose what one considers good can one
lead a good life and cultures provide this choice. The right to choose implies the right to rethink and revise
the choice made. Kymlicka firmly believes and argues that ‘culture provides a context of choice’.

According to Kymlicka, ‘societal culture’ gives the group a legitimate claim for rights. For him, “societal culture
provides its members with meaningful ways of life across the full range of human activities, including social,
educational, religious, recreational, and economic life, encompassing both public and private spheres. These
cultures tend to be territorially concentrated and based on a shared languages.” Thus culture becomes an
‘intergenerational community with its own history and language with a territory’. This definition restricts the
type of groups considered for special right. Only two group fulfil the condition: the immigrants and national
minorities
The above statement makes it clear that only two groups, the immigrants and national minorities, according to
Kymlicka (l990) are profoundly different’ and, therefore, it is necessary to treat differently. He notes ‘these two
categories are of course not exhaustive although they do capture the main forms of ethno-cultural pluralism
in many. Western democracies’, He advances different arguments in support of these two broader groups. For
example the argument of self-respect and self-government applies only to national minorities.
There is difference in the nature, desire, requirement and demand of these groups. Immigrants try to integrate
into the mainstream of the recipient society they demand the lowering of the barriers on the way of integration
and, therefore, the group rights they demand are concerned with removal of these barriers. They are entitled
to Polyethnic Rights, which facilitate accommodation and integration. Multiculturalist group rights for
immigrants, then, reflect a desire to achieve fairer terms of integration. Without such multicultural policies,
government pressures on immigrants to integrate into common institutions would simply be unjust.
The `national minorities, on the other hand, have lost their land involuntarily and, therefore, `these groups do
desire a high level of self-government, and seek to maintain a wide range of separate institutions which are
conducted in their own language’. The rights that they demand are not absolute unlimited rights but they need
to be exercised within the liberal frame. These multiculturalist group rights endorse the liberal principle of
social equality and individual freedom. To put in Kymlicka’s phrase they are desirable and virtually inevitable
feature of a just liberal democracy. Kymlicka recognizes three types of cultural rights:
special group representation rights for minorities in the mainstream political institutions,
self-government rights to the aboriginals,
And polyethnic rights to the immigrants.
Thus Kymlicka emerges as a great defender of group rights within a liberal paradigm.
Chandran Kukathas’ raises some objection against this liberal position of Kymlicka. The first objection is that
group rights could not be defended successfully from the standpoint of liberal equality. The reason is that
groups are not made up of equal, persons and not all members of a group are unequal (in the relevant respects)
to all those outside it.
The second objection concerns the nature of rights, there are some basic rights from which the specific rights
are derived and these basic rights should be the same for all people. Therefore, Kymlicka’s suggestion that
cultural minorities have different basic rights becomes untenable.
The third objection originates form the different liberal visions the two have. For Kymlicka liberal society is that
where equality and individual autonomy are upheld and for Kukathas liberal society connotes a ‘society in which
different ways of life can coexist, even if some of those ways of life do not value equality and autonym.
Adrian Favell raises certain objections to the two arguments of Kymlicka: `The first is the hierarchy of
precedence in claims for minority rights that Kymlicka, gives to indigenous national minorities over immigrant
ethic groups. The second key argument is to defend the proposition that substantive group-based minority
rights are compatible with liberal ideas of equality and autonomy. Adrian Favell through concrete examples
shows how these two arguments which are philosopher’s ideas cannot be applied as each multicultural nation
has developed its own way of handling the question of minorities. There is no single methodology applicable to,
all the nations. Historical specificity and unprecedented results of institutionalization should to, be considered
before arriving at the solution to the problem of diverse cultures.
The feminists have also joined the debate on group rights by raising objections, which will be discussed under
the heading ‘Critique of Multiculturalism’. The liberal grounds on which group rights are justified is questioned
by Susan Moller Okin.

CHALLENGES TO MULTICULTURALISM: AMY GUTMANN

One’ of the major challenges facing multiculturalism as identified by Amy Gutmann is `realizing social justice’,
but prior to that, she argues, difference and conflict with regard to the standard of justice prevailing in different
cultures needs to be considered. Since each culture has its own, way of ‘seeing, doing and thinking about
things’, it has its own set of `social understandings’, hence differences are bound to be there. What, is just
and true, with one culture/group need not be the same for the other. This leads to `different ethical standards
that yield conflicting judgments, concerning social justice in a multicultural society where people belonging to
different culture live together and interact with each other.
Besides, each culture has its own view of social good. Cultural relativism and lack of universal consensus
within a culture, regarding ethical standards become major hurdle in arriving at a single view on social
justice. Amy Gutmann rejects the idea that the dominant social understanding should govern by virtue of
its dominance’. On two grounds the rejects this position. She makes a bold statement “While presupposing
a single shared cultural understanding is false, relying on the dominate understanding is dangerous.” Thus
Cultural relativism to use her expression’ fails to ‘dissolve ‘multicultural conflicts’.
The second solution, political relativism, Gutmann feels is more adequate that cultural relativism because
the sphere it covers is wider than a single culture: Political community as a whole consists of different
cultures. What is good for the whole is decided through the process of discussion and negotiation, to that
extent social agreement is achieved. The limitation of political relativism is that is overemphasizes ‘social
agreement’ regarding standards and ignores substantial justice.
Having discussed two alternatives Gutmann suggest the third alternative, i.e. deliberative universalism. She
writes:
The alternative response I want to recommend to the challenge of multiculturalism is a form of ethical
universalism, but not the most commonly articulated form. Ethical universalism justifies a set of substantive
principles of justice that apply to all modern cultures, although they yield different results in different
contexts. Comprehensive universalism relies upon a comprehensive set of such principles that apply to all
modern cultures. Deliberative universalism relies partly upon a core of universal principles and partly upon
publicly accountable deliberation to address fundamental conflicts concerning social justice, conflicts that
reason has yet to resolve... I now want to suggest that deliberative universalism meets the ethical challenge
of multiculturalism better than comprehensive universalism.
Thus she Juxtaposes comprehensive universalism with deliberative universalism and favors the latter.
Deliberative universalism is a combination of the universal principles and deliberation, the one fulfilling the
normative requirement, and the other the contextual requirement. The process of discussion and deliberation
provides a way to solve the problem of cultural differences that plagues multicultural society. Fundamental
moral conflicts are dissolved and an understanding emerges.
CRITIQUE OF MULTICULTURALISM
Multiculturalism has raised many issues relating to identity, nature of culture, tolerance liberal/illiberal
dichotomy and so on. No wonder it has attracted criticism from theorists from various quarters and schools of
thought: the orthodox liberals, the liberal egalitarians, the leftists, the postmodernists, the deconstructionists,
the feminists and the aboriginals.
The orthodox liberalists are apprehensive of politics of difference and politics of multiculturalism. They feel
that ‘neutral civic space’ where individuals are recognized as right holders and moral agents, can protect and
promote the universal values of equality, rights, autonomy and common citizenship. The politics of difference
on the contrary they argue is detrimental to national unity and integrity. It divides people, ‘destabilizes and
destroys the bond’, and replaces it by particular bond. In other words, it may hinder the process of nation
building.
The liberal egalitarians give importance to equal respect for persons, individuality and voluntarism. Briant
Barry states that since multiculturalism does not subscribe to liberal values, it is inconsistent with liberalism
and, therefore, should be rejected. He takes the position that the illiberal cultures violate the liberal value of
respecting the person and thence, need not be respected. He is also critical about the emphasis given to
diversity as against individuality. Multiculturalism by given certain exemptions to group practices violated
the universal values like humanitarianism.

Kukathas rejects Kymlicka’s advocacy of group right on two grounds. Firstly, egalitarian liberalism is concerned
with individual rights, not group rights, and secondly, it is concerned with equality among men, not groups.
For example, some group members may be better, some may be better endowed with resources than some
outsiders’, granting group rights will not address the issue of differentials within the group.
The Universalists and nationalists (supporters of nationhood), and the integrationists too are suspicious of
politics of multiculturalism as they find that national integration becomes problematic with the adoption of
multicultural perspective and policy. Arthur Schelnsinger sees the danger of divisive, particularistic tendencies
being strengthened by multiculturalism in American society which once was cohesive and united. He feels
‘resentments and antagonisms’ are the natural results of overemphasizing ‘differences’, further, he laments
the destruction of unity as a consequence of ethnicity. He is critical of ‘the cult of ethnicity’ that ‘has reversed
the movement of American history’ and, further, he condemns it for the results it has produced, i.e. “breaking
the bonds of cohesion common ideals, common political institutions, common language, common culture,
common fate that hold the republic together”.
Multiculturalism is closely related to identity politics. Cultural identity is central to multiculturalism. But the
postmodernists argue that there is multiplicity of identities and hybridization too takes place. Therefore,
identity cannot be determinate, clear, static, and unchanging, on the contrary, remains fluid and changeable.
This fluidity raises a range of fundamental questions regarding cultural rights that multiculturalists advocate.
The feminists are critical about the group rights, cultural rights or special rights for groups which are
disadvantageous to women or sometimes even harmful to Women. Martha Nussbaum, Ayelet Shachar, Susan
Moller Okin, and number of feminists are critical of multiculturalism as it gives power to groups through legal
recognition and, thus, protects discriminatory practices in different cultures.
They question how these special rights to groups can be justified when they deny or restrict the equal rights to
women or when these cultural groups are based on male dominance. Therefore, group rights will strengthen
patriarchy that has put women under subjugation. Susan Moller Okin in her many writings consistently
argued for women’s rights and some of the feminist thinkers of Third World countries too hold the same
opinion. Okin sees a deep and growing tension between the feminism and the multiculturalism, as the latter
has not considered the gendered nature of culture, gender discrimination in minority culture, and restraint on
freedom of women in private sphere even the male dominance and control. Her conclusion is: “most cultures
have as one of their principal aims the control of women by men”.
Criticism has come from other quarters also. The problem associated with recognizing groups as the bearers
of rights is that it may lead to many types of controversies –within the group as groups have within them
smaller groups, between the subgroups, and between the benefits and non-beneficiaries. Thus granting of
rights to groups may disturb social cohesion, create dissatisfaction and lead to division of society. It poses
problems to national unity.
COMMUNITARIANISM: BASIC CONCEPTS

The concern for community is not new in political thought; it goes back to ancient Greece. But the words
‘communitarian’ and ‘communautaire’ appeared in the writings of French and English socialists only during
1840s. Over the years, the meaning of ‘communitarian’ has changed. Richard. Dagger has clearly perceived the
growth of the concept.
In the beginning; it was a synonym for socialist or communist in the late 19th and 20th centuries, it meant
yearning for community against modern life and modern state, hence became a critique of liberalism and,
finally, in the late 20th century, acquired a philosophical overtone. As the winds of liberalism started blowing
over Europe and America, people started thinking that the social good is the sum total of good of individuals
of the society.
Hence communitarianism is not only the critique of liberalism, but also of modernity and its consequences as
liberalism provided a philosophical justification for it: Alasdair Maclntyre perceives individual as an unconnected
autonomous unit.
The context where the debate originated was the contemporary American society and its institutional set-up.
During 1960s and 1970s, the individual-centric egoistic conception of self which was the result of extreme
individualism failed to perceive the newly emerging sociopolitical problems. On the one hand, society was
disintegrating; family which was the basic unit of society and a highly revered institution in America was
losing its sanctity. The number of divorces was on the increase, as a result, social and civic ethic was eroding.

On the other hand, the nature of polity too was changing from republican to `procedural republic’, content
losing out to the form which also came under sharp criticism by communitarians in general and Michael
Sandel in particular.
Retaining the social fabric intact became the concern of philosophers, and social scientists. Liberals did not
lag behind. They started realizing that the liberalism has reached its logical end, and was “not addressing
the social purpose, which is absolutely necessary for its survival. They widened their perception and started
thinking anew which is clearly evident in Rawls’ Theory of Justice. For this, criticism came from within the
liberal tradition by Robert Nozick and also from outside the liberal tradition questioning his fundamental
assumption. One such outside critique is communitarianism, which looks at the relationship between the
man and the community from a different angle.
The `polarized debate between liberal and communitarian political theorists’ in 1980s in a very short period
made communitarianism ‘one of the most salient schools of contemporary political thought’. But some
others argued `communitarianism was originally a title of convenience used to lump together a disparate
or incongruent group of philosophical critics of Rawlsian liberalism. The main proponents being Alasdair
Maclntyre (After Virtue, 1981), Michael Sandel (Liberalism and Limits of Justice, 1982), Michael Walzer
(Spheres of Justice, 1883), Charles Taylor (Philosophical Papers, 1985 and Sources of The Self: The Making
of Modern Identity, 1989), and Richard Rorty.
Some of them have not used the word `communitarianism’ and share some of the liberal ideas. For example,
Taylor’s notion of `holistic individualism’ is acceptable to both liberals and communitarians as it connotes
individual’s social embededness, rights and liberties.
Thus there is difference of opinion as to the clear cut categorization of these two theories. For that matter,
branding thinkers is in a way limiting them to a particular school of thought. Despite being problematic, this
exercise is being done by the social scientists from the beginning.
Communitarianism, which was initially a critique of liberalism, gradually developed; its own precepts and
became almost an alternative school of thought different from the mainstream tradition. The communitarians
have reacted to economic, political and social issues of the western societies. For instance, Etzioni and Sandel
have made observation on the social and moral issues like pornography, abortion, crime, right to privacy, etc.,
like any other philosophical traditions communitarianism has come to stay as one of the contemporary
theories, of course with its variations. But despite internal differences, there is a general agreement
regarding the core ideas. Based on this presumption, an effort will be made to give a composite theory of
communitarianism, drawing from the writings of diverse group of thinkers. Since it is also a movement, like
feminism and environmentalism, `communitarian politics’ cannot be ignored.
At the outset, communitarianism does not appear like a radical theory. It is a virtue-centric ethical-theory.
Maclntyre’s `virtue ethics’ is a case in pointing other words, it, does not go to the extreme of universalizing
like liberalism or Marxism, but believes that commitment to community and its values can solve the problems
of extreme individualism.
Amitai Etzioni identified, analyzed and suggested remedies to the problems of capitalism and excessive
individualism, and in the process became one of the leading communitarian thinkers. He noted the changes
in American society from 1950s to 1980s, from strongly shared and strongly endorsed core values that
strengthened the family and societal ties to the loss of such values, from a strong sense of responsibility and
obligation to obsession with rights. While attempting to find the reasons and solutions for the above crisis a
new set of concerns emerged that became the kernel of communitarianism:
Amitai Etzioni, introducing The Essential Communitarian Reader, writes about the four concerns of new
communitarians. They are:
1. The balance between the social forces and the person.
2. The balance’ between community and autonomy.
3. The balance between the common good and liberty.
4. The balance between social responsibilities and individual rights.
In all the four concerns, one notices the theme of individual vs society. Person, autonomy, liberty and rights
are the domain of ìndividual’ and social forces, community, common good and social responsibilities, and
the domain of community. These concerns again are not new to political philosophy, ancient or modern. For
example, the German and British idealists went to the extent of sacrificing individual interest at the altar of

state, an embodiment of collectivity. Social concern again is part of liberal tradition too.
Since liberalism has a tendency of becoming more and more liberal which one can notice in the contemporary
writings of Rawls. Nozick and Ronald Dworkin, Walzer firmly believes that periodic communitarian correction
is required because ‘liberalism is a self-subverting doctrine’.
Communitarians are critical about both the liberal theory and liberal practice. They feel that liberalism reinvents
itself to suit the needs of the time and, therefore, a watchdog like the ‘communitarian critique’ is necessary to
monitor whether such changes in liberalism suit the needs of the community or not.
COMMUNITARIAN CRITIQUE OF LIBERALISM

CONCEPTION OF SELF: ÈNCUMBERED’ VS. ‘UNENCUMBERED’
Conception of self occupies a central place in the debate between liberalism and communitarianism as most
of the other issues are linked to and originate from this. Michael Sandel’s seminal work Liberalism and the
Limits of Justice, published in 1982 contains the arguments regarding construction of `self, which has shaped
the contemporary debate.
According to Michael J. Sandel, “community describes not just what they have as fellow citizens but also
what they are, not a relationship they choose...but an attachment they discover, not merely an attribute but a
constituent of their identity” . Thus community is a constituent element of self. In the same way, Maclntyre’s
statement “separated from the polis, what could have been a human being becomes instead a wild animal”
indicates man is man because of his social connections, otherwise he is a beast. This conception clearly
manifests the influence of Aristotle and Hegel on communitarian thinking. The society is a referral point for
individual self.
Communitarians understand `self as dependent on community, tradition and culture. Self cannot be
conceptualized independent of these. No self can be unattached and un-encumbered as the large part of it’s’
identity is drawn from the community.
The communitarian perception of self resembles the ancient Greek, East Asian (Indian and Chinese in particular)
notion of self. The reference here is to relational self as perceived by Confucius and Aristotle.’ This conception
of self goes against the liberal conception.
Communitarianism challenges the atomistic conceptualization of self which is the core Component of liberalism.
Communitarians calls it `wrong’ ànd `perinious’ wrong because self becomes static and `perinious’ because
the distance is created between the self and the outside world. Liberalism starts with the Kantian notion that
man is rational; an end, in himself and, therefore, has an existence that transcends the circumstances, be it
social ethos or the values that accrue from his membership of society” Kant conceptualized self’ as rational
and transcendental’ with a ‘free’ will. And following the same tradition, man in Rawls’ original position has an
unencumbered self. The list of things unknown by a person in the original position includes his place in society;
his class position or social status his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence
and strength, and the like, his conception of the’ good, the particulars of his rational plan of life, [and]. Even the
special features of his psychology”. Thus this conception abstracts man from his social base. Communitarians
feel this abstraction is neither possible nor desirable as, it makes man rootless.
Viewed from liberalist perspective self becomes general and static. Communitarians and particularly Sandel
(1982) looks at self in two senses: the general and the particular. The `particular self is constituted by community
and the existing attachments. But this particular self is also beyond and above the circumstances because it
has the capacity to reflect’ which helps men to `participate in constitution of their identities.’ When a choice
is made between various identities, a person considers the end which he wants to attain and makes a choice.
This unique capacity of `self-reflection’ comes very close to the Indian concept of atmapareeksha.
Communitarians believe that the ‘communities give shape, substance and texture to self. Therefore, abstraction
of self from the circumstances means to make it shallow. It is not possible to view ourselves free from our
attachments and roles. If in case we do that, then we lose our, identity as a particular person like member of
a family, community, or even state. The role each person has in society gives him the identity as a father, son,
worker, friend, citizen, etc. Only as encumbered selves, we have obligations, moral duties and commitments.

‘UNIVERSALISM’ VS. `PARTICULARISM’

The liberal notion as visualized by ‘ Rawls in his book Theory of Justice, where original position of individual is
abstracted from the societal context to determine the standard of justice, was not acceptable to communitarians.
The laying down of a universal principle of justice by abstracted individuals is anathema to communitarians,
given their notion of self. On the contrary, they argued that the standard of, justice is determined by the
beliefs, customs, traditions, perceptions and practices of a, particular society. The context, time and place
will decide what the standard of justice should be, hence universalization is not possible
The response of liberals to this contention-came in the form of another seminal work by the champion of
liberalism,’ John Rawls. In his later work Law of People he tried to accommodate the various kinds of societies
into his notion of justice. His classification of societies, into liberal, ill-liberal and decent, and his acceptance of
decent `well-ordered ‘society’ indicated a partial acceptance of communitarian particularism. But again in his
notion of, international justice, one can notice that he continues to defend the, principle of universalization.
Brain Barry, on the contrary, remained firm, took a hard stand on universalizability of liberal theories. He
believed that the liberal egalitarian principles universally hold good for all societies. Further, the liberals raised
the problems of illiberal societies, where the universal standard of justice is violated, particularly in the field
of human rights. Communitarians therefore retracted their steps and concentrated on the `communitarian
politics’, where the societal values were emphasized.
Thus after one decade of arguments and debates over ùniversalism’ vs. `particularism’, by 1990, one notices a
shift in the focus. But in other parts of the world particularly in East Asia, one notices a reinventing of societal
values as against the western values and western way of life.
PRIORITY OF RIGHT OVER THE GOOD VS.

‘PRIORITY OF GOOD OVER & RIGHT’
Michael Sandel is critical of political liberalism as it is concerned only with the right and the freedom of choice
that it provides to the individual overlooking the purpose for which it is used and what impact it will have on
society as a whole, His objection to procedural liberalism is not its emphasis on individual rights but that it
seeks to ‘define and defend rights without affirming any particular conception of the good life’. In other words,
individual rights have some worth, when they serve a good purpose. The idea of good should precede rights
not vice versa. For example, drugs, pornography, consumerism, materialism, etc. may be legally permissible
but all these do not, originate front the notion of good life.
In other words, communitarians are not opposed to rights as such, but they are mistrustful of multiplication of
individual rights, claims beyond those that affect the good of the community. Liberal notion of rights as trumps
may overlook all other considerations, may harm society and weaken the virtues that hold society together.
Charles Taylor, (1985) observed the emphasis on individual rights creates antagonistic relations between
individuals. The politics based on the `judicial retrieval’ of rights will create an instrumental relations between
the individuals and the public institutions. The human relations based on shared values are estranged. In such,
situation, an individual has to move the courts and seek justice for what he could have settled in course of
human relations.
According to Walzer, the present society in the US has come into being, sustained, endorsed and justified by
the liberal view concerning liberty and the pursuit of personal happiness. Liberalism he holds supports the four
mobilities-geographic mobility, social mobility, marital mobility and political mobility in the name of individual
liberty.
These four mobilities make society unsettled as individuals become dissociated and distanced. But the reality
is that since human beings are `creatures of community’ the ties of place, class, status, family or politics
survive the four mobilities, they cannot be erased that easily. Thus Walzer does not subscribe to liberal view
and provides a communitarian angle of looking at these developments.
STATE NEUTRALITY VS. NON-NEUTRALITY OF STATE

Communitarians, particularly Charles Taylor ‘and Michael Walzer,’ have argued against the notion of neutral
state which is one of the prescriptions of liberalism. John Rawls described it as ‘a pluralists of groups
bonded by shared ideas of toleration and democracy’. For instance,” liberal “state grants freedom to form

associations, as a result, liberal society becomes conglomeration of social unions. Many associations are
formed and liquidated. The members come and go, without being responsible to the group or association. The
state is neutral with respect to all these associations, and does not interfere in their functioning; as long as
they lawful. Walzer calls it ‘free-rider problems’. On the contrary, for him, “communitarianism, by contrast, is the
dream of a perfect free-riderlessness.”
Communitarians argue that liberal state only presides over but does not participates it remains neutral which
is harmful to society. In the name of justice and individual freedom, liberalism advocates a neutral state that
will not enforce what is good. But Walter observes at least over some part of the terrain of sovereignty, it is
deliberately non-neutral.
**********

Western Political Thought &amp; Political Theory-1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Western Political Thought &amp; Political Theory-1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Join Telegram for More Update : - https://t.

https://t.me/upsc_pdf https://upscpdf.com https://t.me/upsc_pdf

https://t.me/upsc_pdf https://upscpdf.com https://t.me/upsc_pdf

4. THOMAS HOBBES ........................................................... 38

5. JOHN LOCKE .................................................................. 49

6. JOHN STUART MILL......................................................... 55

https://t.me/upsc_pdf https://upscpdf.com https://t.me/upsc_pdf

WHO WAS SOCRATES AND WHAT INFLUENCE DID

Dr. Piyush Kr. Chaubey www.iasscore.in 1

https://t.me/upsc_pdf https://upscpdf.com https://t.me/upsc_pdf

! Dialectical Method: A dialogue based method introduced by Socrates which does a

REALITY IS THE SHADOW OF IDEAS

PLATO THEORY OF JUSTICE

2 www.iasscore.in Dr. Piyush Kr. Chaubey

https://t.me/upsc_pdf https://upscpdf.com https://t.me/upsc_pdf

HOW IS PLATO’S IDEA OF JUSTICE DEPENDENT ON HIS DIVISION OF

Dr. Piyush Kr. Chaubey www.iasscore.in 3

THE IDEAL STATE THE IDEAL MAN

THEORY OF EDUCATION: HOW DO WE SELECT

4 www.iasscore.in Dr. Piyush Kr. Chaubey

PLATO’S THREE SOCIAL CLASSES

No law or ordinance is mightier than knowledge-Plato

WHAT WILL STOP THE PHILOSOPHER KINGS FROM BECOMING TYRANTS?

WHAT WILL STOP GUARDIANS FROM BECOMING CORRUPT

Dr. Piyush Kr. Chaubey www.iasscore.in 5

Plato’s Communism Vs Marx’s Communism

Nature of ownership Sharing of Common Wives, Common Ownership of Property

Why needed? To end Corruption and Nepotism in End of Exploitation of the

Philosophical Basis Moral Material

Who will acquire final Philosopher King Working Class

PLATO VS MARX: GENERAL COMPARISION

Nature of Philosopher Plato is idealist Marx is materialist

Basis of Class division Quality of Soul Ownership of Property

Relationship between Can be harmonious Antagonistic in nature

Role of state Source of virtue Source of exploitation

CAN PLATO BE CONSIDERED AS A COMMUNIST?

6 www.iasscore.in Dr. Piyush Kr. Chaubey

CRITICISMS OF PLATO’S THEORY OF JUSTICE

Dr. Piyush Kr. Chaubey www.iasscore.in 7

SCHOLARLY CRITIQUE OF PLATO

KARL POPPER’S ATTACK ON PLATO

JUSTIFICATION OF POPPER’S CRITICISM

8 www.iasscore.in Dr. Piyush Kr. Chaubey

DEFENCE OF PLATO AGAINST POPPER’S CRITICISM

Can Plato be described as Fascist?

Dr. Piyush Kr. Chaubey www.iasscore.in 9

COMMENTS & VIEWS

COMMENTS ON PLATO BY SCHOLARS

10 www.iasscore.in Dr. Piyush Kr. Chaubey

Dr. Piyush Kr. Chaubey www.iasscore.in 11

https://t.me/upsc_pdf https://upscpdf.com https://t.me/upsc_pdf

POLITICS AS MASTER SCIENCE

NATURE OF POLITICS DURING THE TIME OF ARISTOTLE

ARISTOTLE ON ROLE AND NATURE OF STATE

12 www.iasscore.in Dr. Piyush Kr. Chaubey

https://t.me/upsc_pdf https://upscpdf.com https://t.me/upsc_pdf

What does Aristotle mean when he says “State is prior to Man”?

What does he mean when he says “Man is by nature a political animal”?

ARISTOTLE’S ON GOVERNMENT & ITS CLASSIFICATION

Dr. Piyush Kr. Chaubey www.iasscore.in 13

https://t.me/upsc_pdf https://upscpdf.com https://t.me/upsc_pdf

Pure Form Corrupt From

2. ‘Aritocracy- representing a mixture f virture Oligarch - representing the greed of wealth

3. Polity-representing martial and medium Democracy - representing the principle of

Western Political Thought & Political Theory-1

Western Political Thought & Political Theory-1