CPP Ignou

BPSC-111
CLASSICAL POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY
CBCS CORE COURSE (B.A. HONOURS)

V SEMESTER
SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES

INDIRA GANDHI NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY
Expert Committee
Prof. D. Gopal (Chairman) Prof. (Rtd.) Valarian Roudrigues Prof. Anurag Joshi,
Faculty of Political Science School of International Studies Faculty of Political Science
School of Social Sciences, IGNOU Jawaharlal Nehru University School of Social Sciences, IGNOU
Maidan Garhi, New Delhi-110068 New Delhi-110067 Maidan Garhi, New Delhi-110068
Prof. Gurpreet Mahajan Prof. Meena Deshpande Prof. Krishna Menon
Centre for Policy Studies Dept. of Political Science Centre for Gender Studies
Jawaharlal Nehru University University of Bangalore, Bengaluru Ambedkar University, Delhi
New Delhi – 110067
Prof. Shefali Jha Prof. S. V. Reddy Prof. Jagpal Singh
Centre for Policy Studies Faculty of Political Science Faculty of Political Science
Jawaharlal Nehru University School of Social Sciences, IGNOU School of Social Sciences, IGNOU
New Delhi – 110067 Maidan Garhi, New Delhi -110068 Maidan Garhi, New Delhi-110068
COURSE PREPARATION TEAM

BLOCKS AND UNITS UNIT WRITER
BLOCK 1 TEXT AND CONTEXT
Unit 1 Text and Context: Reading and Interpreting a Dr. Rashmi Gopi, Assistant Professor, Miranda House,
Text University of Delhi
BLOCK 2 PLATO
Unit 2 Theory of Forms and the Idea of Philosopher Dr. Ankita Dutta, Research Fellow, Indian Council of Word
King Affairs
Unit 3 Justice Dr. Raj Kumar Sharma, Consultant, SOSS, IGNOU
Unit 4 Education Dr. Ankita Dutta, Research Fellow, Indian Council of Word
(Presentation Themes: Critique of Democracy, Affairs
Women and Guardianship, E d u c a t i o n ,
Censorship)
BLOCK 3 ARISTOTLE
Unit 5 State and Good Life (Endaemonia) Dr. Rashmi Gopi, Assistant Prof, Miranda House, DU
Unit 6 Citizenship and The Rule of Law Dr. Rashmi Gopi, Assistant Professor, Miranda House,
(Presentation T hemes: Classification of University of Delhi
Governments, manas Zoon Politikon)
BLOCK 4 MACHIAVELLI
Unit 7 Politics and Morality Rohit Sharma, Asst. Prof., Arya College, Ludhiana
Unit 8 Republicanism Rohit Sharma, Assistant Professor, PG Department of Political
(Presentation Themes: Morality and Statecraft, Science, Arya College, Ludhiana
Virtu)
BLOCK 5 HOBBES
Unit 9 Social Contract Dr. Abhiruchi Ojha, Asst. Prof. CU Kashmir
Unit 10 Sovereignty Dr. Abhiruchi Ojha, Assistant Professor, Department of
(Presentation T hemes: State of Nature, Politics & Governance, Central University of Kashmir
Leviathan, Atomistic Individuals)
BLOCK 6 LOCKE
Unit 11 Natural Rights Dr. Abhiruchi Ojha, Asst. Prof., CU Kashmir
Unit 12 Constitutionalism and Limited Government Dr. Abhiruchi Ojha, Asst. Prof., CU Kashmir
Unit 13 Idea of Toleration Dr. Abhiruchi Ojha, Assistant Professor, Department of
(Presentation Themes: Natural Rights, Right to Politics & Governance, Central University of Kashmir
Dissent, Justification of Property)
COURSE COORDINATOR & EDITOR:

Prof. Anurag Joshi
Faculty of Political Science
School of Social Sciences
IGNOU, New Delhi
UNIT FORMATTING, VETTING & CONTENT UPDATING:
Dr. Raj Kumar Sharma
Consultant, Faculty of Political Science
IGNOU, New Delhi
SECRETARIAL ASSISTANCE
Mr. Rakesh Chandra Joshi
AE (DP), SOSS, IGNOU
New Delhi
PRINT PRODUCTION
Shri Rajeev Girdhar, Deputy Registrar, Shri Tilakraj, Assistant Registrar,
MPDD, IGNOU MPDD, IGNOU
Maidan Garhi, New Delhi Maidan Garhi, New Delhi
September, 2021
© Indira Gandhi National Open University, 2021
ISBN:
All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form, by mimeography or any other means, without
permission in writing from the Indira Gandhi National Open University.
Further information on the Indira Gandhi National Open University courses may be obtained from the University’s
Office at Maidan Garhi, New Delhi-110 068 or visit our website: http://www.ignou.ac.in
Printed and published on behalf of the Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi, by Director, School of Social
Sciences.
Laser Typeset by: Mr. Rakesh Joshi, AE (DP), SOSS, IGNOU, New Delhi.
Printed at:
Course Contents
BLOCK 1 TEXT AND CONTEXT 09
Unit 1 Text and Context: Reading and Interpreting a Text 11
BLOCK 2 PLATO 27
Unit 2 Theory of Forms and the Idea of Philosopher King 29

Unit 3 Justice 39
Unit 4 Education 51
(Presentation Themes: Critique of Democracy, Women and Guardianship, E d u c a t i o n ,
Censorship)
BLOCK 3 ARISTOTLE 61
Unit 5 State and Good Life (Endaemonia) 63

Unit 6 Citizenship and The Rule of Law 78
(Presentation T hemes: Classification of Governments, manas Zoon Politikon)
BLOCK 4 MACHIAVELLI 93
Unit 7 Politics and Morality 95

Unit 8 Republicanism 106
(Presentation Themes: Morality and Statecraft, Virtu)
BLOCK 5 HOBBES 117
Unit 9 Social Contract 119

Unit 10 Sovereignty 131
(Presentation T hemes: State of Nature, Leviathan, Atomistic Individuals)
BLOCK 6 LOCKE 145
Unit 11 Natural Rights 147

Unit 12 Constitutionalism and Limited Government 160
Unit 13 Idea of Toleration 172
(Presentation Themes: Natural Rights, Right to Dissent, Justification of Property)
SUGGESTED READINGS 185

COURSE INTRODUCTION
Political philosophy is often seen as that branch of philosophy which is
concerned, at the most abstract level, with the concepts and arguments involved
in political opinion. While there may be a debate over how to define political,
generally, it may refer to all those institutions and practices that are concerned
with government. Since political element is central to political philosophy, it is
an important part of the discipline of Political Science. There is a difference
between political philosophy and political theory. Political philosophy is
concerned with normative aspects or what ought to be and in this sense, tries to
achieve the ideal. On the other hand, Political theory tries to define, describe and
explain. For example, political theory would answer what is meant by state but
political philosophy would try to find which type of state is the best. Hence,
political philosophy is closer to normative political theory than empirical political
theory. Leo Strauss had used the term political philosophy for normative political
theory and the term political theory for empirical accounts of political reality. He
argued that political theory tells us only about the nature of political things while
political philosophy is a quest for wisdom. Political theory tells us about
something particular but political philosophy informs about the universal. It
enables us to understand essence of political reality while political theory sheds
light on some opinion about political phenomenon. According to Bhikhu Parekh,
political philosophy is the study of the phenomenon which is ‘political’ in a
‘philosophical’ way. Here, philosophical way implies a self-conscious critical
inquiry and interpretation of the phenomenon. Parekh further argues that political
theory is just a description of the political phenomenon. The origin of Western
Political Philosophy can be traced to the ancient Greek and Roman society,
particularly with the works of Greek experts, Plato and Aristotle. Classical
political philosophy covers themes like the political institutions and their origin,
the concepts that interpret and organize political life such as justice and equality,
the relationship between morality, ethics and the nature of politics, and the
comparisons between different constitutional arrangements or regimes.
This course will familiarise students with some of the greatest thinkers in
Western Political Philosophy. Beginning with Plato and Aristotle, it highlights
ancient Greek political ideas and the manner in which the political questions
were first posed. Machiavelli has been discussed next as an interlude
inaugurating modern era of political philosophy. The last two thinkers, Hobbes
and Locke discussed in this course belong to social contact tradition. This course
is divided in six blocks. The first block has Unit 1: Text and Context: Reading
and Interpreting a Text. The second block has three units on Plato which cover
his theory of forms and philosopher king, justice and education. Third block
covers ideas of Aristotle under the themes – state and good life, citizenship and
the rule of law. Block four covers Machiavelli and his ideas on politics, morality
and republicanism. Hobbes and his thoughts on social contract and sovereignty
have been discussed in block five while the last block covers natural rights,
6
constitutionalism and limited government and idea of toleration as propounded
by John Locke.
Every unit in the course has exercises to assess your progress and the answers are
given at the end of each unit. There is a comprehensive list of readings in the end
of the course that would help you to broaden your perspective and go deep into
the study of political philosophy.
7
8
BLOCK I
TEXT AND CONTEXT
9
BLOCK I INTRODUCTION
Reading a text is an essential part of epistemology (knowledge creation). The
kind of knowledge that is created and even what is counted as knowledge itself
depends upon the availability of texts. There are certainly significant factors to be
considered in understanding the text by any philosopher or thinker or artist. A
text is not merely printed words. Text can be an expression of thoughts, not
necessarily always in printed words. The words or the medium of expression
speaks about the creator of that knowledge. The liberal understanding of
epistemology is problematic. In this school of thought, there is an understanding
that knowledge can be created by an isolated, rational and objective individual.
Alison Jaggar (1983) in her famous book ‘Feminist Politics and Human Nature’
states that this approach fails to acknowledge the fact that ontology is a stepping
stone towards epistemology. The knowledge of self affects any expression we do.
The knowledge of self leaves an imprint on what we seek as knowledge and what
we create as knowledge. In this background, when we are studying thinkers, it is
essential to understand the vantage point of the thinker. What was the context in
which the text was produced at the original place? Equally important is to place
the reader. From which vantage point a reader is reading or re-reading the text. In
the process, it becomes clear that a text has its own life independent of the
creator. The ideas and thoughts are the product of that thinker’s time and as well
as that of the readers. Why certain thoughts are prioritised and why others are
pushed to the periphery or ignored, are all connected with the politics of text and
context. That is why there is a relevance of those texts which give different
meanings in different contexts. Here, the act of interpretation connects text and
context. We tend to go back to classics for the same reason as the same text
acquires different meanings at different times and remains relevant for different
reasons. In this unit, we explore work by scholars like Terence Ball and Quentin
Skinner, who have emphasised the significance of the relationship between text
and context. Thus, it is a starting point to understand the thinkers covered in this
course.
10
Text and Context:
UNIT 1 TEXT AND CONTEXT: READING AND Reading and
Interpreting A Text
INTERPRETING A TEXT⁎
Structure
1.0 Objectives
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Why We Read Texts? Why We Re-Read Texts?
1.3 Strategies of Interpretation
1.4 Meanings and Contexts
1.5 Different Schools of Interpretation
1.5.1 Marxian
1.5.2 Totalitarian
1.5.3 Psychoanalytic
1.5.4 Feminist
1.5.5 Straussian
1.5.6 Postmodernist
1.5.7 Cambridge ‘New History’
1.6 Mythologies of Reading a Classic Text
1.6.1 Mythology of Doctrine
1.6.2 Mythology of Coherence
1.6.3 Mythology of Prolepsis
1.7 Let Us Sum Up
1.8 References
1.9 Answers to Check Your Progress Exercises
1.0 OBJECTIVES
In this unit you will be helping students in understanding the significance of
reading a text. It is explained why the act of interpretation is inevitable in reading
a text. The role of text and the context in which that text is produced are taken
into account to explain the process of reading and interpreting a text. Different
schools of interpretation are also discussed. All this will help to understand how
political theory depends on the act of reading and re-reading texts.
1.1 INTRODUCTION
Terence Ball started thinking about the role of reading and interpreting a text in
political theory for questions raised by scholars in this regard. He highlighted
⁎
Dr. Rashmi Gopi, Assistant Professor, Miranda House, University of Delhi
11
some basic questions raised to political theorists. The first question raised was:
BLOCK –I
why it was that scholars specializing in political theory continued to write about
Text and Context
the ‘great thinkers’ of the past. The second question raised was: why do we
bother to devise (or to read) this or that interpretation instead of going straight to
the source and seeing what the author has to say? In this unit we will be
deliberating upon various aspects of reading and interpreting a text to answer
these questions. In the next section, we will be discussing why we read texts.
1.2 WHY WE READ TEXTS? WHY WE RE-READ

TEXTS?
We read texts to connect with contemporary concerns. We engage with questions
of freedom, justice and political participation. The search for solutions to
contemporary problems in a given society forces one to read texts and derive
meanings out of it. The process of reading and re-reading brings in multi-cultural
understandings, especially moving beyond ‘white men’s interpretation’ which
has dominated political theory as a discipline for long. These new readings and
their interpretations from a set of scholars beyond the boundaries of white
skinned male scholars include the voice of different races, sexualities, religion
and regions. Thus enriching the field of political theory itself. As Terence Ball is
one of the leading scholars dealing with the question of reading texts, let us see
what he thought about the act. Ball believed that the process of interpretation is
inevitable and necessary in reading. But this act of interpretation is a deadly
process. For instance, one can even get killed for a particular interpretation if it
goes against the existing laws or religious sentiments. Therefore, the act of
interpretation has to be exercised through extreme caution. He understood the
significance of interpretation as an effort to find the true meaning of the
text/author. Ball cited the thought of Heidegger on significance interpretation as
an ‘ontological category’. Interpretation was about dealing with the nature of
being. It was about showing the relations between the concepts and categories in
a subject area or domain. Similarly, Gadamer gave importance to the act of
interpretation as ‘ontological necessity’. According to Gadamer, the world we
live in and the texts we read are already invested with meanings. We are born
into a world of meanings and with the help of language we speak and traditions
we inherit, we try to understand the world. According to Gadamer, we begin our
journey of understanding/interpreting with a particular standpoint (influenced by
a particular historicity) but at the end of understanding, we may alter the initial
prejudices and assumptions about the given meanings. Therefore, the act of
interpretation is contextual and dynamic. In the process, one widens the horizon
of understanding, seeing common threads of thought even with those who we
disagree with. For Gadamer, the art of interpretation is an essential part of the art
of living the life of a human being.
Terence Ball explained the fact that interpretations are based on meanings
already understood in a given context. Ball cited the example of a man with
blood-stained knife in hand. For an interpreter who is not aware of the particular
12 context may interpret this person as a murderer. But if the interpreter is aware of
the context as that of a butcher-shop, then the person with the blood-stained knife Text and Context:
Reading and
is understood as a butcher. Here the scene is same, but how one interprets is Interpreting A Text
connected with the awareness of context and pre-given meanings. According to
Terence Ball, a good interpretation diminishes strangeness and toughness
between different set of people with plural contexts. However, interpretations
also have a scope to produce misunderstandings. A bad interpretation can lead to
confusion and chaos between people. But one thing is clear that there is no
neutral interpretation. Interpretation is always by someone with some purpose
and pre-given assumptions.
Check Your Progress Exercise 1

Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer.
ii) Check your progress with the model answer given at the end of
the unit.
1. Explain the concept of ‘ontological necessity’ given by Gadamer.
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
1.3 STRATEGIES OF INTERPRETATION

According to Quentin Skinner (belonging to Cambridge New Historians school
of thought), the meaning of a text is something which lies within a text and is
discovered or recovered by the person who reads it. The meaning of a text is
something which is created by its author and given to a text in the process of
writing it. Skinner is committed to the principle of ‘authorial intentionalism’, that
is, intention of the author. This process of creating meaning and giving it to a text
is carried out intentionally by the author. The authors of texts have full self-
conscious awareness of (and control over) their own intentions and hence also,
the meaning of the texts they produce. This is an approach which privileges the
standpoint of the author of a text. It maintains that those who are seeking to
understand a text cannot afford to ignore the intentions of its author when writing
it. It is a necessary condition for the success of the interpretive enterprise.
Contrary to the above view, the conventional view of the post-structuralists
highlights the fact that the meaning of a text is created by and given to a text
solely and exclusively by the readers of it. For post-structuralist like James
Risser, the text ‘remains open to a fundamental multiplicity of meaning, which,
for all intents and purpose, must be produced’ by the reader. This way of thinking
about reading and interpretation of a text is associated with the principle of ‘the
death of the author’ (an author's intentions and biographical facts should hold no 13
special weight in determining an interpretation of their writing) and which is
often attributed to poststructuralist philosophers such as Michel Foucault, Gilles
BLOCK –I
Deleuze and Jacques Derrida.
Text and Context
Here it is important to understand that there are theoretical differences between
reading, interpretation and appropriation of a text. It is another matter that in
practice all of them may coincide with each other. A reading is an effort to ‘make
sense of’ a text. However, this expression is deliberately ambiguous in meaning
and allows for the probability that different readers might attempt to make sense
of the same text in different ways. For example, the reading might relate to an
effort to ‘discover’ some meaning, which is assumed to be already there in a
particular text. It might also mean to do with an effort to ‘give’ a certain meaning
to a text or to impose a certain meaning upon it. These are quite different types of
efforts but both of them could be said to fall under the notion of reading.
Therefore, any account of a particular text by readers can be considered as a
possible or plausible reading of it. There is nothing called the misreading of any
text. This is the crucial difference between a reading and an interpretation of a
text. Interpretations aim to get at something which is assumed by the interpreter
to lie within the text itself. This ‘something’ is presumed to be the meaning of the
text in question. To interpret a text means an attempt to recover or perhaps
discover the meaning of a text and this attempt may or may not be successful.
Those who claim to have done ‘interpretation of a text’ believe that they are
seeking the ‘truth’ about a text’s meaning. It is expected that readings which are
also interpretations can be either true or false; correct or incorrect. They can be
assessed as being either closer to or further away from the true or correct account
of the meaning of a text. In principle, therefore, opposing interpretations of texts
can be evaluated on the basis of an appeal to significant empirical evidence and
disputes between interpreters might be resolved by rational argument and debate.
Those interpretations which are farther from the meanings of a text can be called
as the misinterpretation of texts, even if we cannot talk about the misreading of
them. Quentin Skinner has given the impression that in his view the only
legitimate way to read a text is to interpret it. Unlike an interpretation, an
appropriation is a selective reading of a text. The purpose of offering an
appropriation of a text might be to persuade somebody to act in a certain way. In
this process, the ideas of the author of a text are taken up by appropriators and
used by them for purposes of their own. In such readings, the interest and
concerns of the appropriator is reflected and not those of the author. Those who
appropriate texts are ready to plunder them for ideas which they find useful and
sometimes present to the world as their own ideas and sometimes as the ideas of
author of the text in question. When using author’s name, appropriators are
exploiting author's authority in the field and at the same time, appropriators
distort the meaning of these ideas by ignoring the way in which they were used
and understood by the author. Appropriators have neither interest in the
intentions of the author nor in the truth. Their readings are so inconsiderate,
biased, partial, selective, unbalanced and one-sided, that it would be incorrect to
call them interpretations of the text. However, it must be accepted that in practice
14
it might be difficult to establish whether a reading of a text is an invalid Text and Context:
Reading and
interpretation of it or an appropriation of it. Interpreting A Text
In the debate of whether text is important or the context, Terence Ball feels both
are important. For him, even to know what is “unintended” by the author, we
must know “intention of the author”. Also, a text has a life beyond the author, a
reader also inscribes meaning to a text (in the same context as that of author and
in a changed context). Reading text is a merging of two visions, that is, vision of
the author and vision of the reader. This merging point is called by Gadamer as
“the fusion of horizons”. For Ball this fusion can be both illuminating and
confusing. Illuminating for the reflection of vastness of the distance covered by
the text from author to the reader. Confusing because it is not necessary that
visions of author and reader must have a meeting point. Alan Bryan agrees with
Ball when he emphasises that both authorial intention and text’s own life are
important. Bryan cites the case of Locke being considered as an early forerunner
of feminism for his work Two Treatises. Locke might be surprised with this title
but it will be a mistake to think that Locke’s writings never inspired successive
feminist academia and activism. There is nothing necessarily wrong or
illegitimate in taking the view that arguments constructed for one purpose may
subsequently be put to some altogether different use. Another example cited by
Bryan is that of Antonio Gramsci’s work. In re-describing the Communist Party
as the ‘modern Prince’, Gramsci adapted and made creative use of what he took
to be Machiavelli’s notion of a ruthless and all powerful principe. On Gramsci’s
reading, the Communist Party, like Machiavelli’s Prince, must be prepared to use
guile, cunning, deceit and violence to achieve worthy ends. By substituting
‘Party’ for ‘prince’, Gramsci was able to adapt Machiavelli’s arguments to a
more modern and distinctly different context. Thus, Bryan concludes that both
author’s intention and life of a text in itself are important.
Two integral ingredients of interpretation of a text are (a) intelligibility, that is,
audience’s standards and (b) legitimacy, that is, audience’s acceptance. If one
fails to take into account one’s audience’s standards in terms of their language,
beliefs and circumstances, then the author runs the risk of seeing one’s work as
unintelligible or illegitimate by the audience. Political theory and the texts in
political theory are significant wherein both matters of logic and language are
equally considered. Political theory texts carry matters of both political action
and philosophical enquiry together. It leads to political innovation and conceptual
change. It is in part this hybrid nature of political theory that makes its history or
any particular episode therein so difficult to interpret and so useful to study and
reflect upon.

the unit.
1. What do you understand by textual and contextual reading? 15
…………………………………………………………………………...……
BLOCK –I
Text and Context …………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
2. Explain two integral ingredients of interpretation.
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
1.4 MEANINGS AND CONTEXTS

Meanings change as contexts change. For example, Filmer’s Patriarcha (1680)
which believed that all kings are Adam’s heir and were absolute and divine rulers
was challenged by John Locke’s book Two Treatises of Government (1689).
Locke said that absolute monarchy is not acceptable and it is not possible to
prove that all kings are Adam’s heir. Even in the situation wherein both Filmer
and Hobbes spoke about political obligation, the nature of ruler was different. For
Filmer, the political obligation was justified in the name of divinity of the king.
For Hobbes, political obligation was justified in the name of contract done
between men for self-preservation of individuals. As facts are dynamic, no
reading is innocent. They are filtered through and coloured by other reader’s
readings. There is a need for regular reappraisal of one’s own received values and
validity of interpretations. There can be plurality of theories. Lakatos called it
“three-cornered fight”.
Finding truth is a process of constant validation and falsification. However, it is
not necessary that the process of finding truth is always done in fairness. When
the process of finding truth relies on fairness, then the product is called
scholarship. When the process of finding truth is based on partisan cause, then
the product is called politics. For Terence Ball, scholarship is not politics and
politics is not scholarship.
16
Text and Context:
Reading and
Constantly changing Interpreting A Text
data
Changing Changing
Interpretation 1 Interpretation 2
Therefore, we can conclude that both origin of writing and receiving by readers
are equally important. Authorial intentions are important but they are not the end
in itself. Intentions can be discovered or rediscovered in later stage also. Any text
may have unintended consequences (unexpected by the author at the time of
writing). Reading is a problem-solving activity wherein the reader connects the
content of the text with contemporary issues. Texts are alive only when they are
carefully and critically reappraised rather than blindly worshipped. No single
method of interpretation can address all the issues. It depends upon the context.
Interpretive problems can be witnessed in any school of thought. Every author
and reader has their own strengths and accordingly each will do justice to the
text.

the unit.
1. What is the difference between scholarship and politics?
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
1.5 DIFFERENT SCHOOLS OF INTERPRETATION

Humans continuously interpret contexts and texts around them. Students of
political theory read and decide between rival interpretations of political texts. As
a subject constantly fascinated with its classic texts, political theory requires an
interpretation of not just the ‘words’ but also the ‘meaning’ of these classic texts. 17
Such an interpretation is essential to understand the statements made long ago in
different contexts and also to make them familiar and accessible to the present.
BLOCK –I
As stated in the beginning itself, interpretation may sometimes lead to
Text and Context
misunderstandings and there is nothing called a neutral standpoint from which to
analyse a text. What it does uphold is the simple fact that there can be no
understanding without interpretation.
Different schools of interpretation have been discussed below.
1.5.1 Marxian Interpretation

The Marxian approach places ‘class’ and ‘its inequalities’ as the focus of
analysis. For Marxists, conventional ideas hide the damning reality of class
inequalities and paint false pictures of society’s fairness and justness. The task of
textual interpretation then is to expose the raw reality hidden behind the rosy
façade. The goal is to undo the fabric of illusion woven by the mainstream point
of view and reveal the true hidden social and economic reality. Crawford Brough
Macpherson’s The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism (1962) is an
important Marxian interpretation that projects Locke as an extraordinarily clever
propagandist for capitalism. Macpherson understands Locke’s discussion of
private property in the Second Treatise — where he proclaims property as that
part of nature which one mixes with one’s own labour — as a justification of the
institution of private property. Marxists see all theories as ideological masks.
How and why their own theory must be exempted is not explained (or
explainable). Predominantly, Marxian interpretations also tend to ignore impact
of identities based on other power structures (other than class) like caste, gender,
sexualities, religion, region and race in shaping reality. Even when they recognise
other identities, they are placed as secondary in shaping reality.
1.5.2 Totalitarian Interpretation

The rise of fascism and communism encouraged investigation into the
philosophical roots of modern totalitarianism. The roots, once one starts looking
for seems to be present everywhere. Plato’s philosopher king, Machiavelli’s
ruthless prince, Hobbes’s all-powerful sovereign/Leviathan and Rousseau’s all-
wise legislator, all seem to be forerunners to totalitarian rulers of the 20th
century. A well-known work of this perspective is Karl Popper’s The Open
Society and its Enemies (1945). He construes Hegel’s remark ‘what is rational is
actual and what is actual is rational’ in the “Preface” to the Philosophy of Right
as justifying everything that is now real (or “actual”) exists by necessity and must
thus, be reasonable and good (“rational”). Hegel is seen as giving his
philosophical approval to the proto-totalitarian Prussian state which existed at
that time. A closer look, however, discloses Popper’s misinterpretation. Hegel
uses the word wirklich which translates as ‘actual’ and means ‘realised potential’,
and not what is “real”, as Popper supposes. Hegel’s remark would mean: “What
is rational is that which fully actualizes its potential; and that which fully
actualizes its potential is rational.” It is, then, not the sinister justification of
everything that is real (one of which was totalitarian Prussia). This example
18
highlights the danger of appropriating a text (both at conceptual and linguistic Text and Context:
Reading and
levels) which we discussed earlier. Interpreting A Text
1.5.3 Psychoanalytic Interpretation

The father of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud, argued that our actions are driven
by desires and fears which we may not be consciously aware of (state of
unconsciousness as important). This approach puts forward the idea that
psychoanalytic interpretations can be applied to all sorts of texts including those
of political theory. This treatment has been given to thinkers like Machiavelli,
Burke, Luther and Gandhi. An example of this approach is Bruce Mazlish’s
James and John Stuart Mill (1975). Mill’s On Liberty is cast as a personal appeal
and a declaration of independence from his father who was exceptionally strict.
Mill might not have consciously envisioned, it but his unconscious desires
shaped his work. He also had an affair with a married woman named Harriet.
Given that his mother’s name was also Harriet, this coincidence fits perfectly
with what is known in psychoanalytic theory as the Oedipus complex.
Expectedly, Mazlish makes the most of it. Psychoanalytic interpretations, though
sometimes insightful, are speculative, impressionistic and non-falsifiable. The
approach also moves attention away from the text and onto the author which is
hardly the proper method for any attempt at textual interpretation.
1.5.4 Feminist Interpretation

This approach puts gender as the focal point of analysis and uses that vantage
point to look at political theory. The essence of this approach is reflected in
Susan Okin’s statement, “the great tradition of political philosophy consists…of
writings by men, for men, and about men”. This gap has pushed for feminist re-
readings and reappraisals of the classic works. The first phase of this approach
began in the 1960’s. Works of Mary Wollstonecraft, Emma Goldman, Bentham,
Mill and Engels were singled out for their attention and homage to gender
question. A second, more radical, phase followed which sought to expose the
misogyny in the works of the greats of political theory including the ones who
had in the first phase been venerated. For example Carole Pateman highlighted in
her work The Sexual Contract how the social contract was a fraternal contract
and the welfare state was a patriarchal institution. The third phase criticised the
essentialised civic virtues of men — hunger for power, competitiveness,
rationality. It turned the public/private distinction on its head and declared the
superiority of the private realm of the family to the public realm of politics.
Feminist interpretations have been dominated by upper class, white-skinned and
educated women. To bring forth the voice of different women (as the category of
women is not monolithic) is a challenge for this school of interpretation.
1.5.5 Straussian Interpretation

This approach originates from the work of Leo Strauss who tried to locate the
eternal truth of politics in the works of Plato and other ancient and pre-liberal era
thinkers. These ‘rigourous’ works were contrasted with the ‘lenient’ works of 19
modern liberal thinkers. Strauss lamented the weakening of normative
foundations in the face of the violent winds of fanaticism. His experiences as a
BLOCK –I
Jewish refugee from Nazi Germany influenced his approach. Having pointed out
Text and Context
the crisis, Strauss and his followers tried to trace the origins and diagnose the
maladies of liberalism, relativism, historicism and scientism. Solutions were to be
found by prudently re-reading and deciphering the real meaning in the texts of
the pre-liberal era. The Straussian approach made distinction between ‘exoteric’
and ‘esoteric’ doctrines of a text. The ‘exoteric’ disguise intended for the public
and decoding the ‘esoteric’ doctrine embedded between and hidden behind the
lines. This approach counts, on some sort of insider’s knowledge which is
available only to the initiated who in turn dismiss the uninitiated as hopelessly
ignorant. Also, it just projects that the esoteric doctrine does not correspond to
the exoteric doctrine.
1.5.6 Postmodernist Interpretation

Postmodernism arises out of the failures of grand narratives. It is a diverse
perspective shared by many different, even dissimilar, thinkers. Postmodernism
emphasises the incoherent and incomprehensible nature of the world and resists
any attempt to find continuity and unity in the human condition. It also dismisses
the idea of linear progress as merely an advance in one group’s power to
dominate the others. One of the most influential scholar of this approach is
Michel Foucault. He examines the ways in which human beings are ‘normalised’,
that is, made willing participants in their own subjugation (by power). It involves
re-reading texts from the perspective of the present and then realigning and
relocating them according to new axes so as to reveal who contributed to the
subjugation and who resisted it. Another popular scholar of this approach is
Jacques Derrida. He aims to ‘deconstruct’ or expose and criticize the arbitrariness
of claims to truth by examining various binary oppositions or dichotomies such
as knower/known, object/representation, text/interpretation, true/false. What is
proclaimed as truth, including texts, is merely a representation of a part of truth/s.
No version can claim superiority. As such, all interpretations are essentially
indeterminate. The insistence on the indeterminacy of interpretations is an
extremely cynical stance that does not advance our knowledge. But more
importantly, it legitimises or, at least, is unable to distinguish propaganda and
falsehood in the texts and thus, making it morally and epistemologically
unsatisfactory.
1.5.7 Cambridge New ‘History’

The Cambridge ‘new historians’ see textual interpretation as revealing the
historically variable problems to which particular philosophers proposed
particular answers and deny that there are eternal problems. Understanding
meaning needs that we understand the problem being addressed. Peter Laslett, in
his introduction to Locke’s Two Treatises (1960), reinstates the book to its
political and historical context. It also shows that the volume had been written
nearly a decade earlier than what was known paving the way for succeeding
reinterpretations of Locke. This method of historical investigation has been
20
vehemently promoted. Textbook approaches have been rejected as insufficiently
historical. For this approach, political theory is a form of political action. It is Text and Context:
Reading and
intended to warn, persuade, criticize and frighten. Political theorists have always Interpreting A Text
involved in propaganda and persuasion. Textual interpretation is a task of
restoring texts to the historical contexts and understanding the question(s) to
which the texts were offered as answers.
Therefore, we could see that any single method won’t suffice to get the answers
we seek. A plurality of approaches which will not burden us in the range of
questions we can ask is preferable. In adopting this pluralistic approach,
intellectual, political and linguistic contexts have to be considered. Also we have
to remember the fact that texts take a life of their own once they are published.
To concentrate solely on what the author intended in a particular text is to the
neglect of what other thinkers and readers had to say about the said text.
Interpretative enquiries are problem-driven and dynamic. We turn to texts to
clear doubts. These doubts may arise from anywhere but their interpretative
solutions must be justified by rigourous scholarly criteria. The classic works may
be kept alive through reinterpretations and reappraisals.

the unit.
1. Explain significance of interpretation in reading a text. Which school of
interpretation has impressed you the most? Describe briefly its features.
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
1.6 MYTHOLOGIES OF READING A CLASSIC

TEXT
The task of the political theorists have been to study and interpret a canon of
classic texts. The classic texts contain a ‘dateless wisdom’ in the form of
‘universal ideas’. As a result of study of classic texts, Quentin Skinner feels that
we learn and benefit directly from investigating these timeless elements. These
texts possess perennial relevance. The best way to approach these texts must be
to concentrate on what each of them says about each of the fundamental
concepts. The classic texts are embedded with questions of morality, politics,
religion and social life. This means to read each of them as though it were written
by a contemporary. Focusing simply on their arguments and examining what they
have to tell us about the perennial issues. Taking them out of their contexts will
lose sight of their dateless wisdom and thereby, lose contact with the value and
purpose of studying them. There have been certain mythologies existing when it 21
comes to reading classic texts. In the following paragraphs, we are going to
BLOCK –I
discuss some of them.
Text and Context
1.6.1 Mythology of Doctrines
The most insistent mythology is generated when the historian is set by the
expectation that each classic writer will be found to articulate some doctrine on
each of the topics regarded as constitutive of its subject. It is a perilously short
step from being under the effect (however unconsciously) of such a paradigm to
‘finding’ a given author’s doctrines on all of the mandatory themes. This
mythology is called ‘mythology of doctrines’ and it takes several forms. The first
is the risk that scattered and incidental remarks are converted into doctrines
regarding the mandatory themes of the subject. Both (a) ‘intellectual
biographies,’ where the focus is on the varied ideas of individual thinkers and (b)
‘histories of ideas,’ where the focus is on the idea itself as stated by many varied
thinkers, are vulnerable to this kind of mythology.
In the case of ‘intellectual biographies,’ a certain view or doctrine may be
attributed to a writer based simply on some chance similarity of terminology
even if s/he cannot have in principle meant to define. For example, Marsilius of
Padua is accredited with the doctrine of separation of powers because of some
remarks on the executive role of a ruler compared with the legislative role of a
sovereign people. But the doctrine’s origin was drawn to the Romans about two
centuries after his death and would grow fully only in the 17th century. Also, a
doctrine may be too freely extracted from or read into simple statements. The
author might have simply stated the principle (even believed in it) without
intending to articulate a doctrine out of it. For example, John Locke is attributed
with the ‘doctrine’ of ‘the political trust’ based on some scattered remarks.
In the second case, that is, regarding ‘histories of ideas,’ there is a trend to
embody an ideal type of a given doctrine as an entity, an organism almost, with a
history of its own. Such reification, creates a form of non-history of the doctrine
where its history and history of the writer is erased. For example, in the case of
doctrine of separation of powers, from Marsilius to Montesquieu there is erasure
of history of the evolution of the doctrine. It is presented as given doctrine. Also,
endless debates are generated about the incidence and emergence of a given idea
in certain writers or during certain times.
In following the mythology of doctrine, there is a possibility that a historian may
supply a theorist with a doctrine appropriate to the subject from its scattered
remarks. Historian may speculate about a writer’s opinions regarding a topic
which the writer did not even consider seriously. A historian may also denounce
a writer for omitting some doctrine which historian thinks is integral to the
subject. For example, Plato’s Republic is criticized for ‘omitting’ the ‘influence
of public opinion’ and Locke’s Second Treatise for omitting ‘all references to
family and race.’ A historian may criticize a writer for not being
comprehensive/systematic enough. The assumption here is that the writer
22 intended its writing to be systematic. For example, Machiavelli’s Prince is often
attacked as ‘extremely one-sided and unsystematic’.
1.6.2 Mythology of Coherence Text and Context:
Reading and
Interpreting A Text
The historian’s preconceptions and expectations also leads to second type of
mythology, a mythology of coherence. The first historical absurdity is the
tendency to find or even supply, by filling in gaps, a coherence to a text which
may actually not be present. For example, in reading Gandhi’s Hind Swaraj,
historians and political scientists try to bring in a coherence across all his
writings. Whereas Gandhi himself never tried for such coherence. Similarly, Karl
Marx is criticised for lack of coherence across his writings. While criticising,
historians and scholars forget that certain ideas evolve and reform over the
lifespan of an author and break in ideas is normal in such circumstances.
The mythology of coherence assume that it may be quite proper in the interests of
extracting a message of higher coherence from an author’s work, to discount the
statements of intention which the author itself may have made about what s/he
was doing, or even to discount whole works which would impair the coherence
of the author’s system. For example, Locke who set out in the beginning to
defend an authoritarian position is portrayed as a ‘liberal’ political theorist for the
sake of coherence. It is also common for historians to see contradictions in a
writer’s work as barriers which should be accounted for to fit in the coherent
system.
1.6.3 Mythology of Prolepsis

The mythology of prolepsis is characterised by a description of a work, being
influenced by its significance and in such a way that it leaves no place for an
analysis of what the author actually meant to say. This often happens when the
historian is interested in the retrospective significance of the work s/he is
analysing.

the unit.
1. Define classic texts. Discuss mythology of doctrine.
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
1.7 LET US SUM UP

After discussing the conceptual difference between reading, interpretation and
appropriation of a text, it is clear to us that in practice all three ways merge 23
together in the process of understanding a text. Similarly, after looking into the
BLOCK –I
debate of whether author’s intention in writing a text is important or an
Text and Context
independent life of a text is important, we have understood that life of a text is
unpredictable. Sometimes a text is known for its author’s intentions and
sometimes a text attains its own meaning and life from readers. In this chapter it
has been emphasised that the act of interpretation is integral and indispensable in
understanding a text. We discussed different schools of interpretation to realise
uniqueness of each school and simultaneously understood that no school is in a
position to answer all problems for all times. No school is perfect and complete
in itself. It is in judicious application of these approaches that a better
understanding of a text is developed. At the end of this chapter we discussed
what counts as a classic text and how certain mythologies are developed in
understanding these classic texts.
1.8 REFERENCES
Ball, Terence. (1995). Reappraising Political Theory. Oxford University Press:
Oxford.
Ball, Terence. (2004). “History and the Interpretation of Texts,” in Handbook of
Political Theory, ed. Gerald F. Gaus and Chandran Kukathas, London: SAGE
Publications, pp. 18–30.
Burns, Tony. (2011). “Interpreting and appropriating texts in the history of
political thought: Quentin Skinner and poststructuralism,” in Contemporary
Political Theory, volume 10, pp. 313–331.
Skinner, Quentin. (1969). “Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas.”
History and Theory 8 (1). Wesleyan University: Wiley, pp. 3–53.
1.9 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

EXERCISES
1. According to Gadamer, the world we live in and the texts we read are
already invested with meanings. For him, the act of interpretation is
contextual and dynamic. According to him, in the art of interpretation we
learn the art of living the life of a human being.
1. In the textual reading intention of the author is given primacy. The
meaning of a text is something which is created by its author and given to
a text in the process of writing it. This process of creating meaning and
giving it to a text is carried out intentionally by the author. In the
contextual reading, the primary importance is given to the context in
which the text was originally written and the context in which the reader
reads it.
24
2. Two integral ingredients of interpretation of a text are (a) intelligibility, Text and Context:
Reading and
that is, audience’s standards and (b) legitimacy, that is, audience’s Interpreting A Text
acceptance.
1. When the process of finding truth relies on fairness, then the product is
called scholarship. When the process of finding truth is based on partisan
cause, then the product is called politics.
1. Political theory requires an interpretation of not just the ‘words’ but also
the ‘meaning’ of these classic texts. Such an interpretation is essential to
understand the statements made long ago in different contexts and also to
make them familiar and accessible to the present. Whichever school of
interpretation impressed you the most, explain the reason for it and give
its basic features.
1. The classic texts contain a ‘dateless wisdom’ in the form of ‘universal
ideas’. These texts possess perennial relevance. Mythology of doctrine:
The most insistent mythology is generated when the historian is set by the
expectation that each classic writer will be found to articulate some
doctrine on each of the topics regarded as constitutive of his subject.
25
BLOCK –I
Text and Context
26
Text and Context:
Reading and
Interpreting A Text
BLOCK II
PLATO
27
BLOCK –I BLOCK II INTRODUCTION
Text and Context Plato is very often regarded as the founder of Western Political Philosophy. In
particular, he is seen as an innovator of philosophical idealism as he argued that
there is a universal idea in the world of eternal reality which is beyond the world
of senses (Theory of Forms). Plato was the first thinker to formulate and define
political ideas within a larger framework of a philosophical idea of Good. With a
rigorous and systematic examination of ethical, political, metaphysical, and
epistemological issues, he set the bar very high for future generations of political
philosophers. He used the dialectic method in his writings. He himself never
appears or speaks in the dialogues while the readers are urged to think for
themselves about the issues discussed in the dialogue. It is often assumed that the
main character, Socrates (or a few others), spoke for Plato’s position. Plato also
laid the foundations of Greek political theory which later became the bedrock of
Western political traditions. Plato’s most influential book, the Republic, seeks to
answer the question – what is justice and whether it is a desirable virtue for
people and states. Since it deals with an ideal concept, the book has been often
called a utopian work of philosophy. There has been no dearth of his critics who
see Plato as someone who stood against progressive and democratic ideals and as
a frontrunner of totalitarianism. Despite this, the centrality of Plato to Western
political philosophy can be gauged from Karl Popper’s statement that “Western
thought one might say has been either Platonic or anti-Platonic but hardly ever
non-platonic.” This block covers Plato’s ideas in three units – Unit 2: Theory of
Forms and the Idea of Philosopher King, Unit 3: Justice and Unit 4: Education.
28
Plato : Theory of
UNIT 2 PLATO: THEORY OF FORMS AND Forms and the Idea of
THE IDEA OF PHILOSOPHER KING⁎

Philosopher King
Structure
2.0 Objectives
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Theory of Forms
2.2.1 Allegory of Cave
2.3 The Idea of Philosopher King
2.3.1 Who is a Philosopher?
2.3.2 Ideal State and the Role of Philosopher
2.3.3 Criticism
2.4 Let Us Sum Up
2.5 References
2.0 OBJECTIVE
In this unit, you will be reading about the concept of Ideas of Form as described
by Plato. The Unit also presents an introduction to the idea of Philosopher King.
After going through this unit, you should be able to:
• Explain the Theory of Forms
• Enumerate the Idea of Philosopher King
• Discuss the Ideal State and the role a Philosopher plays in it.
2.1 INTRODUCTION
Plato (c.428-347 B.C.) is one of the most important figures of the Ancient Greek
world and in the history of Western thought. Political philosophy in the West
begins with the ancient Greeks and Plato. Plato was one of the most influential
authors in the history of western philosophy. In his written dialogues, he
expanded on the ideas and techniques of his teacher Socrates. Plato’s recurring
theme of writing was the distinction between ideal forms and everyday
experience, and how it played out both for individuals and for societies. In the
Republic, his most famous work, he envisioned a civilization governed not by
lowly appetites, but by the pure wisdom of a philosopher-king.
⁎
Dr. Ankita Dutta, Research Fellow, Indian Council of Word Affairs
29
BLOCK-II Expanding on the idea that the world that appears to our senses is in ways
PLATO
imperfect and filled with error, but there is a more real and perfect realm,
populated by entities called “forms” or “ideas” that are eternal and changeless. In
Plato's writings, it is often asserted that the true philosophers are those who
recognize the importance of distinguishing the one from the other and in a
position to become ethically superior to unenlightened human beings, because of
the greater degree of insight they can acquire. In the following sections, Plato’s
theory of ideas is discussed to understand the form of good. It also looks at how a
Philosopher is different from others and why he should be the one to rule the
ideal state.
2.2 THEORY OF FORMS

Influenced by the tradition of scepticism, the early Greek philosophers were
aware of the fact that the world was constantly undergoing change and that
nothing was permanent. This was also reflected in the Socratic Dialogues of
Plato, where he argues that because the material world is changeable it was
unreliable. For him, behind this unreliable world of appearances there was a
world of permanence and reliability. He called this world as “world of forms or
ideas”. Plato’s Theory of Forms can be considered as the first metaphysical
debate in the western political thought. In his Theory of Forms, Plato explores the
structure of reality and questions what this reality is as opposed to what it appears
to be. He concluded that everything in the world was only a copy of a perfect
form existing in the realm attainable to us through contemplation.
For Plato, the ideas or forms are abstract representation of things around us
which are timeless in nature as they are unchangeable, eternal, intelligible,
divine, and incorporeal. On the other hand, physical things are existing things but
are changeable, finite, perceptible, corporeal, and are caused by the forms. The
Theory of Forms typically refers to Plato’s belief that the material world as it
seems to us is not the real world, but only a shadow of the real world. One of the
key ideas in Plato’s theory of form is its correlation to the theory of knowledge.
Like Socrates, Plato believed that knowledge could be acquired and he postulated
that it has two characteristics of knowledge. First, knowledge must be certain and
infallible. Second, knowledge must have as its object that which is genuinely real
as contrasted with that which is an appearance only. The real must be fixed,
permanent, and unchanging.
According to Plato, philosophers were able to comprehend the Form of Good
through their intellect, and this served as the basis for what he believed as ideal
society. He saw the world divided into two realms – the material world of
appearances which was ever-changing and imperfect and second, was the world
of ‘forms’ which was perfect and unchanging. He argued that everything in the
first realm was only a copy of the perfect form in the perfect realm. He further
argues that material realm was perceived through our senses while the realm of
forms could only be perceived through intellect and contemplation. Plato was of
the opinion that philosophers can transcend material world and understand the
30
forms of virtue, justice and goodness and for precisely this reason, Plato opined Plato : Theory of
Forms and the Idea of
that the philosophers were the best to rule the ideal society. Philosopher King
This was so because according to Plato, true and reliable knowledge rests only
with those who are able to comprehend true reality that is hidden behind the
reality of everyday. Therefore, to perceive this world of Forms, individual needs
to undergo extensive education. From this idea of forms, the concept of
philosopher kings emerges who were required to perceive the true reality and the
form of good so as to be well-informed rulers. Plato further uses the Allegory of
Cave to explain the relations with the world of form.
2.2.1 Allegory of Cave

Allegory of Cave is a dialogue between Socrates and his disciple Glaucon.
During the dialogue, Socrates asks Glaucon to imagine people living in an
underground cave, which is only open to the outside at the end of a difficult
ascent. Most of the people in the cave are prisoners chained facing the back wall
of the cave so that they can neither move nor turn their heads. A fire burns behind
them, and all the prisoners can see are the shadows playing on the wall in front of
them. There are others in the cave, carrying objects, but all the prisoners see are
their shadows. Some of the others speak, but there are echoes in the cave that
make it difficult for the prisoners to understand which person is saying what.
Socrates goes on to describe the difficulties a prisoner might have adapting to
being freed. When he sees that there are solid objects in the cave, not just
shadows, he is confused. Instructors can tell him that what he saw before was an
illusion, but at first, he will assume his shadow life was the reality. Eventually, as
he leaves and steps into the sun, he is painfully dazzled by its brightness, and
stunned by the beauty of the moon and the stars. Once he becomes accustomed to
the light, he will pity the people in the cave and would want to stay above and
apart from them. The new arrival will choose to remain in the light, but,
according to Socrates, he must not. Because for true enlightenment, to understand
and apply what is goodness and justice, he must descend back into the darkness
of the cave and join the men chained to the wall, and share his newly acquired
knowledge with them.
The allegory of the cave has deep allegorical meaning because variety of
symbolic suggestions are used in this writing. The dark cave symbolically
suggests the contemporary world of ignorance and the chained people symbolize
ignorant. The raised wall symbolizes the limitation of their thinking and the
shadow symbolically suggest the world of sensory perception which Plato
considers an illusion. In his opinion, the appearance is false and reality is
somewhere, which we cannot see. For Plato, the appearing world is just the
imitation of the real world. The shadows represent such imitation and, the reality
is possible to know with the spiritual knowledge. The chains symbolize our
limitation in this material world so that we do not understand the true reality. The
outer world of the light symbolically suggests the world of spiritual reality, which
we achieve by breaking the chains that are used to tie us. The dazzling of the eyes
31
for the first time symbolizes difficulty to accept ignorance after knowing the
BLOCK-II reality. Hence, in allegory of the cave Plato has given a criticism of human’s
PLATO
limited existence in the material world. In Allegory of the cave, Plato also
described about the perception. He says that there are two types of perception:
sensory perception and spiritual perception. Sensory perception is the world of
appearance, which we perceive, with the help of our sensory organs. For this,
world is the world of illusion or shadows, thereby a world of falsehood. The
reality or truth is impossible to perceive with our senses, it is possible through
spiritual perception, which is divine enlightenment. Spiritual perception is
possible when we reject the world of sensory perception and break all the
material chains.
In short, in his book, Republic, Plato uses the allegory of Cave to explain the
relations with the world of forms. He uses analogy of people who have spent
their while life living in a cave. They have only seen shadows on the wall created
by their campfire. Compared with the reality of the world of Forms, real physical
objects and events are equivalent to being only shadows. Plato also takes the
opportunity to state that only those people who have the ability to step out into
the sunlight and see the true reality (which are the Forms) should rule. Plato
leaves no doubt that only special people are fit to rule. He describes the ideal
ruler is a philosopher-king, because only philosophers have the ability to discern
the Forms. Plato goes on to say that it is only when such a person comes to power
that the citizens of the state will have the opportunity to step out of the cave and
see the light.
2.3 THE IDEA OF PHILOSOPHER KING

The theory of philosopher king was the linchpin of Plato’s Ideal State. It was
derived from the conviction that the philosopher has the knowledge, intellect and
training to govern, ruling, like any other task, required skill and qualifications,
for its aim was the general well-being of all. A good ruler was one who not only
preserved the lives of his subjects; but also transformed them as human beings.
The most important and distinctive feature of the Ideal State is the philosophic
rile or the ‘rule of the philosophic king.’
2.3.1 Who is a Philosopher King?

Throughout the Republic, Plato emphasises the importance of having rulers who
know the form of good. Plato holds that a philosopher by his grasp of the idea of
good was best qualified to rule, implying that knowledge could be obtained only
by a select few who had the leisure and the material comforts. Plato shared the
general Greek perception that leisure was essential for the pursuit of wisdom. A
philosopher would be able to administer justice and act for the good of the
community. He would have a good character, a calm disposition and a sound
mind. He would have the qualities of a ruler namely truthfulness, high-
mindedness, discipline and courage. Plato in The Republic insisted that politics
and philosophy ought to be safe from one another. A philosopher ruler would
make wise legislator and frame laws in accordance with the Idea of Good,
32 thereby linking statecraft with soulcraft. For Plato, Ideal State ruled by
philosopher king was a divine institution perfectly worthy of emulation and Plato : Theory of
imitation. He defined ideal state as one based on timeless and unchanging Philosopher King
principles, suggesting that an ideal pattern existed which could be discerned and
employed to reform a diseased polity, and transform into a thing of beauty. He
implied that political order was highly malleable and could be moulded in order
to receive the right imprint.
Since the work of the ruler requires knowledge of the forms, the instillation of
such knowledge is a significant concern of the state. To Plato, entrusting the state
to rulers without this knowledge would be like turning it over to blind. Though
the philosophers prefer not to, they must be persuaded to rule. The philosophic
curriculum is an institutionalised means of creating successors to the existing
rulers. It is only when successors have been brought up and educated can the
existing rulers unshoulder their burden and return to the realm of philosophy.
According to Plato, the philosophers must undergo a rigorous program of
education and then, spend fifteen years performing administrative servile in the
city, before they are raised to glimpse the form of the good, which gives them
perfect knowledge and completes their education.
In the Republic, Plato does not explain how philosophic wisdom is beneficial to
the state. In fact, what the rulers of the state actually do and what they must know
in order to do it, it is to be seen that the knowledge of the good is not discreetly
required. The rulers main task is moulding souls. In order to succeed at this, they
require detailed knowledge of human psychology. They must know proper
propositions of mental and physical training to be applied in different types of
personalities. They must understand different types of art. This knowledge must
cover not only poetry but music and all the visual and other arts as well. The
rulers must know how to devise the crucial series of task for aspiring ruler, how
to weed out those unfit to rule and how to recognise and elevate superior
members of the producing class. They must also devise means, preferably
educational, to insure the loyalty of the lowest class, and thereby, spread
contentment throughout the state.
The ruler must know eugenics, how to breed the best and how to rig the maturing
lotteries towards this end. They must be able to keep the population stable.
Various political skills are required for this task. Plato declares that the guardians
must be versed in war. They must also be able to negotiate effectively with other
states, including scheming to subvert potential enemies. There are other tasks as
well for the rulers, such as avoiding great disparities between wealth and poverty.
Thus, in order to rule the ideal state, the guardians require a formidable array of
knowledge, skills and talent. Plato, here, fails to exactly explain how knowledge
of the good contributes to the talents required by the ruler.
Yet, he does recognise the importance of rulers’ knowing more than the good.
Plato insists that they should be of superior knowledge, at the same time also not
be deficient in practical experience. Plato devises means to provide experience.
The clearest provision is that the philosopher must spend fifteen years in
administrative service in the city, before they are given final knowledge and led 33
BLOCK-II up to contemplate the good. The Republic also mentions the military applications
PLATO
of the philosopher’s training. The study of arithmetic, geometry and even
astronomy are all explicitly recommended in this regard. Knowledge of these
subjects is required if the rulers are to be able to properly marshal their troops,
construct encampments and array their forces for battle. Plato also pays attention
to war, where he recommends that the guardian be exposed to battle at an early
age just as the children of other craftsmen are exposed to their craft at an early
age. For rulers as well as the auxiliaries, war will be important matter of concern.
Although Plato is aware that the knowledge of good is not sufficient condition for
being able to rule, in his political theory there is a significant gap because of his
failure to explain exactly how knowledge of form of the good is relevant in
governing. Even so, Plato has his reasons for insisting that knowledge of good is
necessary condition for effective rule. To him, its moral effects are indispensible.
It helps in training for philosophers to despise things of the world and gives
superior value to the rulers. Thus, importance of Plato’s emphasis on the
philosopher’s having absolute knowledge can be defended more in regard to the
moral that the cognitive effect of such knowledge. Philosophers, therefore, must
rule not because of the practical value of their absolute knowledge but because
absolute knowledge, ensures proper values.
Philosophic knowledge, whatever be the contents and applicability to the
concerns of the rulers, it nevertheless supplies other state with an active probing,
critical intelligence. This is an important theme in the Republic of Plato.
However it is to be seen that Plato views entails a renunciation of the Socratic
faith in moral autonomy. To Plato, justice as virtue is bound up with balance and
harmony, the predominant rule of reason and control of appetite. Here, Plato sets
aside Socratic ideal of each individual caring for his own soul, because according
to Plato, an individual can achieve this condition only through intensive
conditioning. The introduction of theory of forms also leads Plato to oppose
Socrates’s belief in the limited power of human knowledge. To Plato, the most
exhaustive truths are accessible to only the highly privileged few. Since the
philosopher can reach these heights, many must be enslaved to the few in order to
benefit by divine intelligence, thus, the state as a whole is wise through the
wisdom of the philosophers.
Thus, Plato departs from Socrates’ commitment to critical rationalism. The
philosopher in the Republic knows the truths of “all times and all existence”. The
philosopher kings will bring such knowledge to bear in ruling the state they
govern according to the dictates of their exalted knowledge. Plato shapes his
ideal state around the presence of an active critical intelligence. Plato argues in
the Statesman that the ruler is like a doctor who has no compulsion on abiding by
his prescriptions previously written should the condition of the patient demand a
change of treatment, the true ruler too would not feel bound to abide by the laws,
but is superior because he can adapt to changed circumstances.

34 Note: i) Use the space given below for your answer.
ii) Check your progress with the model answer given at the end of Plato : Theory of
the unit. Philosopher King
1. What are qualities of the Philosopher King described by Plato?
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
2.3.2 Ideal State and the Role of Philosopher

As the philosopher has undergone the programme of studies as defined in The
Republic, Plato has left the task of structuring the society in the hands of the
philosopher. Many aspects of the state are therefore left incomplete, sketched
broadly leaving the details for the rulers to fill in. For instance, they must
determine the extent to which the state can safely expand beyond its original
borders, and the number of marriages needed to keep the male population stable.
They must formulate the program of trials and tests through which the perfect
guardians are selected from their fellows. Regarding early education, Plato
presents only broad outlines, while the specific details are the responsibility of
the guardian.Thus, the rulers are empowered to fill in what the original founders
have left out. Because they possess exalted knowledge, Plato believes it is
possible for them to evaluate and criticise the state. They can alter features that
do not work.
Therefore, the central elements in the ideal state are subject to revision and
reviews. Thus, philosophers are to play the role of an active critical intelligence
in governing the state. As in the analogy presented in the Statesman, the
philosophers have the knowledge of the doctor who writes the prescriptions and
not just of the pharmacist who carries them out. They are not merely to shape
their surroundings according to a blueprint that is given. They must take
appropriate measures where the blueprint is found incomplete or faulty as well as
when the circumstances change. The problem that arises with this view of the
philosopher as active critical intelligence is that it seems difficult to understand
how the philosophers can maintain open critical attitude when Plato has
described them in mystical terms as doing their work with an eye on the idea of
forms when knowledge comes to them in a sudden burst of life. As Popper and
Burke point out, if the role of a philosopher is to enforce the divinely sanctioned
laws, how could he criticise and change them? However, when Plato is
portraying the philosopher king as shaping the state according to the forms, the
forms he looks to are those of moral qualities – justice, beauty, moderation, the
good itself and not the forms of the ideal state. The task of the philosopher king is 35
to embody these moral qualities in men’s souls while the means to this end must
BLOCK-II be fabricated. How to shape the political institution for the desired outcome is a
PLATO
problem to the solution of which they are not given metaphysical guidance.
Thus, the philosopher king bears responsibility for devising the institutional
structure of the state. Even if they are given a divinely grounded aim, they are not
given divine guidance concerning the means. Hence, philosopher bears a critical,
open minded attitude towards the laws and institutions of the ideal state. Another
reason for this quality in philosopher king is because of their unwillingness to
rule. They love contemplation of the eternal forms more than political power.
Therefore, they would not be afflicted by the common rulers’ fear of making
changes. They are willing to criticise and reform the state in order to improve it.
Thus, the central motif of the political theory of the Republic is putting the
philosophic intelligence in control of the state. Although, Plato fails to explain
how the philosophic wisdom is beneficial to the state, his insistence that they
possess this appears to express the ideal that the state be governed by the highest
of the truths. Thus, the political theory of the Republic centres on the rule of the
state by supreme intelligence. For Plato, philosophers must be kings because only
they can discover what must be done. The rulers maintain some measure of moral
autonomy, and they do not merely accept the structure and institutions of the
state as metaphysically grounded. They are to understand the state’s rational
basis and alter and improve things whenever and wherever necessary.
2.3.3 Criticism
One of the most common criticisms is that Plato has little to say about how the
philosopher’s knowledge actually enables them to rule. In other words, how is
this knowledge necessary for ruling the state? Aristotle criticises the kind of
moral knowledge supplied by the form of good. He criticises it on two grounds –
first, vagueness and second, the apparent uselessness of such knowledge. In the
first place, it is vague because it is difficult to say exactly what the form of good
is and what knowledge of it would entail. According to the theory of forms, the
forms of good must exemplify some quality or set of qualities common to all
things. However, things may be called ‘good’ in many different ways such as
good book, good runner etc. It is difficult to isolate one specific sense of good
common to all these uses. To many philosophers, good is used always in
reference to a set of criteria specific to its object, which differs in different kinds
of cases. But if as Plato believes the form of good supplies the intelligible
principle according to which all things are ordered, it is difficult to explain the
precise connections between the various senses in which things are called ‘good’
and their role in the rational pattern of things.
Second, since the connection between the form of the good and real world is
indefinite, it is difficult to identify the practical value of knowing the forms. As
Aristotle puts it, people engaged in different activities do not see the value in
knowing the good for their work. For example, a weaver is not interested in the
good, but only in making cloth. They are only interested in the specific criteria of
goodness in their arts rather than the good by itself. The role the good plays in
36 their art is difficult to specify. Moreover, craftsmen attain professionally in their
fields through study of the objects of their crafts, and not through studying Plato : Theory of
metaphysics. Therefore, Aristotle gives importance to practicing wisdom. For Philosopher King
him, practical wisdom is concerned with the needs and interests of particular
individual in particular situation and deals with the concrete. The man of
practical wisdom is able to assess particular situation in order to decide which
rule to apply.
Another criticism can be that Plato denied participation of the average person in
politics and decision making process. He defined citizenship not as participation,
but in terms of shared benefits flowing from that principle because to allow
participation would be to pave the way for the government by opinion. It can be
argued that by denying the participation of average person, Plato was trying to
prevent any opposition or dissent in his ideal state. He justified this exclusion on
the grounds that it could lead to factionalism whereas the ideal society should
promote the common good. Plato rejected majoritarianism and participation on
the grounds that ordinary person did not have the capacity to comprehend
absolute truth and the idea of good.
The platonic ideals were criticised by Aristotle as well for confusing unity with
harmony. If a political community was tightly organised unified, it would cease
to be a political association. The essence of a state was its diversity, making it
different from organisations. The state and family represented two different kinds
of organisations and both ought to remain that way without either imitating the
other. In view of the nature of the state and governance, it would be better for a
ruler to be worldly wise than to be wise in the world of ideas.

the unit.
1. Critically analyse Plato’s idea of Philosopher King.
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
2.4 LET US SUM UP

One of Plato’s most influential contributions to philosophy is the Theory of
Forms. In basic terms, Plato's Theory of Forms asserts that the physical world is
not the ‘real’ world; instead, true reality exists beyond our physical world. Plato’s
philosophy asserts that there are two realms: the physical realm and the spiritual
realm. The physical realm is the material stuff we see and interact with on a daily 37
BLOCK-II basis; this physical realm is changing and imperfect. On the other hand, the
PLATO
spiritual realm exists beyond this physical realm. Plato calls this spiritual realm
the Realm of Forms. Plato’s Theory of Forms asserts that the physical realm is
only a shadow, or image, of the true reality of the Realm of Forms. This is also a
recurring theme in idea of the Philosopher King. Throughout the Republic, Plato
emphasises the importance of having rulers who know the form of good. Plato
holds that philosopher by his grasp of the idea of good was best qualified to rule.
An important theme of Plato’s social and political thought, especially of the
Republic, is that philosophy alone offers true power - it is also the way to
knowledge. The philosopher knows the forms and the ideals. He alone is fit to
rule because for those who are guided by reason and knowledge alone should
have the power. They alone are capable of establishing justice, to see that
everyone contributes to the best of his abilities, of maintaining size and purity
and unity of the state.
2.5 REFERENCES
Julia Annas. (2003). Plato: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.
Subrata Mukherjee and Sushila Ramaswamy. (2007). A History of Political
Thought. Prentice Hall. India.
Richard Kraut (ed.). (1992). The Cambridge Companion to Plato. Cambridge
University Press.

EXERCISES
1. Your answer should highlight the following points:
 Good Character
 Clam disposition
 Sound mind
 Truthfulness discipline, courage
 Plato denied participation of average person in politics
 Plato confused unity with harmony
38
Plato: Justice
⁎
UNIT 3 PLATO: JUSTICE
Structure
3.0 Objectives
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Perspectives on Justice before Plato
3.2.1 Traditional View
3.2.2 Radical View
3.2.3 Pragmatic View
3.3 Plato’s Concept of Justice
3.3.1 Three Classes and Three Souls
3.3.2 Communist Principles
3.3.2.1 Communism of Plato and Marx: A Comparison
3.3.3 Justice at Individual and State Level
3.3.4 Critical Assessment
3.4 Plato and Indian Political Thinkers
3.4.1 Plato and Kautilya
3.4.2 Socrates, Plato and Gandhi
3.5 Let Us Sum Up
3.6 References
3.0 OBJECTIVES
This unit deals with Plato’s concept of justice, one of the earliest works on this
issue. After studying this unit, you should be able to:
 Know views on justice prior to Plato
 Describe Plato’s concept of justice
 Analyze some of the limitations of Plato’s concept of justice
3.1 INTRODUCTION
Plato was born in an aristocratic family in Athens. His real name was Aristocles
meaning the best and renowned. He was given the name Plato by his wrestling
coach due to his broad and strong shoulders. He was the most famous student of
Socrates and was the teacher of another Greek stalwart, Aristotle. Apart from
Socrates, Plato was also influenced by Greek philosophers Parmenides, also
called ‘Father of Metaphysics’, Heraclitus and Pythagoras. Plato’s major works
⁎
Dr Raj Kumar Sharma, Consultant, Faculty of Political Science, IGNOU, New Delhi
39
BLOCK –II include the Republic, the Statesman and the Laws. Plato is widely seen as the
PLATO founder of philosophical idealism as he believed that there is a universal idea that
lies beyond what senses can experience. Plato’s life spanned the ruinous period
of Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta from 431 to 404 B.C. resulting
in the defeat of Athens. It was probably the impact of instability and disorder
experienced during the period of Peloponnesian war that Plato’s theory of justice
was based on the premise of harmony.
Political philosophers from Plato and Aristotle to John Rawls have seen justice as
the main guiding principle to regulate power. Justice plays a main part in
maintaining, shaping and improving political order. Plato’s main work, the
Republic is a book about justice. In Greek, republic means justice, unlike its
Latin meaning, state or polity. The book seeks to answer the question – what is
justice and whether it is a desirable virtue for people and states. Since it deals
with an ideal concept, the book has been often called a utopian work of
philosophy. Plato constructed Republic in form of a dialogue between Socrates
and his friends on the virtue of justice. Socrates was the first one to develop the
dialectical method (in the form of a dialogue) to establish truth. It was called
elenchus in Greek, meaning refutation or putting to rest. Socrates would initiate a
conversation with anyone and discuss meaning of beauty, justice or truth. He
would ask the individual about his definition of something and through cross-
examination, would make him realise some inconsistency in his definition to take
forward the conversation. This method was so important to Socrates that he
refused to write down his thoughts as he believed that the responsive interaction
between the teacher and his students was the real essence of philosophizing.
3.2 PERSPECTIVES ON JUSTICE BEFORE PLATO

Pythagoras, ancient Greek philosopher and one who influenced Plato, had
expressed his views about the concept of justice before Plato. Pythagoras
believed in the power of numbers and said that justice is the equal multiple of
itself, i.e. it is a square number. A square number represents harmony since it is
made up of equal parts. Hence, he equated justice with equality. A state should
preserve equality in order to remain just. The Pythagorean School was famous
for giving centrality to ethics and ethical regulation of life. Ethics and harmony
play an important part in Plato’s conception of justice. Through a dialogue
between Socrates and others, Plato has examined some perspectives on justice
before expressing his own views on the subject.
3.2.1 Traditional View

In the Republic, traditional views about justice are expressed by the father son
duo of Cephalus and Polemarchus. When Socrates asked Cephalus about his
views on justice, he said that justice consisted in speaking the truth, being honest
and paying back one’s debt. Socrates, however, pointed towards some
inconsistencies in his definition. If a friend who lent his weapon to us goes mad,
it would not be justice if we return the weapon back to him. He also pointed out
40 that in some cases, being honest and speaking the truth may do more harm than
good and it is better to conceal truth in such cases. When Cephalus gave up his Plato: Justice
argument, his son, Polemarchus carried it forward by saying that justice was
giving each man his due, meaning harming your enemies and helping your
friends. Socrates again points to the shortcomings of this definition. He says that
helping friends may involve immoral acts like stealing or telling a lie. One may
also misjudge his friends and enemies and the rule of doing good to friends and
harm to enemies may not apply. Hurting someone makes the doer less just or less
excellent while justice is about excellence.
3.2.2 Radical View

The radical perspective on justice was given by Thrasymachus, a Sophist and a
renowned teacher of rhetoric. Sophism was a rival school of Socratic tradition
which stood for democracy, individualism and social change. Thrasymachus
defined justice as the interest of the stronger party, what could also be called as
might is right. Similar sentiment was expressed by Thucydides, Greek historian
and general who is regarded as the forefather of political realism in international
relations. Socrates answered by saying that even the powerful make mistakes and
end up making laws which harm themselves. This violates the principle that the
exercise of power by the powerful is to serve their self-interest. He goes on to say
that the proper objective of a physician is to treat his patients just like it is in the
interest of the shoemaker to make fine shoes for his customers. Likewise, the real
interest of the statesman lies in well-being of his subjects.
3.2.3 Pragmatic View

This view was supported by Glaucon and Adeimantus, brothers of Plato. They
considered justice a child of fear and the necessity of the weaker. Much on the
lines of social contract theorists like Hobbes, they believed that to come out of
the state of nature (in which there is rampant injustice), people make an
agreement not to do injustice to anyone and also, not to be a victim of injustice
from anyone. Hence, people agree to behave in a just manner under the force of
law. However, Socrates argued that justice is not an artificial virtue that could
emanate from a contract. In contrast, justice is an innate quality of soul and
conscience. Justice exists independently by itself and it does not require any
external recognition.

the unit.
1. What was the response of Socrates to Polemarchus’s view on justice?
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...…… 41
BLOCK –II …………………………………………………………………………...……
PLATO …………………………………………………………………………...……
3.3 PLATO’S CONCEPT OF JUSTICE

After examining the prevailing conceptions of justice, Plato gives his theory of
justice. Justice was one of the four cardinal Greek virtues – other three being
wisdom or prudence, courage or fortitude, temperance or self-control. Greek
philosophers defined justice as virtue in action. They always conceptualised
justice in terms of harmony and order, whether they used it for an individual,
state or the universe. Greeks before Socrates used to describe the cosmos, which
means order as just. The idea of harmony and order is clearly visible in the
contemporary usage of justice as fairness. In Greek language, the word for justice
is ‘Dikaiosyne’ which means righteousness or just. Plato’s justice was based on
morality and ethics, not on legal basis. It was reflected in doing one’s duty and
contributing to the society as per an individual’s capabilities.
Plato believed in the Socratic dictum that virtue is knowledge and knowledge can
eradicate political ills and injustice. For Plato, the ideal state possessed the four
cardinal virtues. Wisdom would prevail due to knowledgeable rulers while
courage would be present through brave warriors. There would be self-control
due to the harmony in society following a common understanding pertaining to
who would be the ruler and lastly, justice would prevail as everyone would do
their duty for which they are best suited and not interfere in other people’s work.
Plato saw the state as an ideal while justice was its reality. Sabine says that the
theory of state in the Republic results in the conception of justice. He also said
that justice for Plato is a bond that holds the society together. Plato’s idea of
justice came from his vision of the political community and justice serves
common interest. Even a den of thieves would need principles of justice to
survive. Every state needs principles of justice as its foundation. The individuals
in a state should be convinced that their state is a just state and they must follow
the principles of justice of their state. Justice is the greatest good that people can
attain as individuals and as members of a larger political community.
3.3.1 Three Classes and Three Souls

Plato starts his discussion on justice in a state by saying that the state is natural as
no one is self-sufficient and human beings require each other for survival. Plato
says that self-sufficiency consists in maintaining division of labour in a state. A
successful political community has to perform three functions – production,
protection (defence) and statesmanship (ruling). Hence, justice would consist in
fulfilling these three activities based on functional specialisation. It would ensure
that justice prevails as not only the common interest would be served but
individual happiness and well-being is also served since there is harmony in what
individuals do, what they get and their individual psyches. Based on functional
specialisation, Plato gives three types of classes in a state (also called the three
classes and three souls, an idea Plato borrowed from Pythagoras).
42
 Rulers: Every state would need rulers to rule with a function of making Plato: Justice
policy decisions.
 Auxiliaries: This is the class of warriors with a military function and they
are part of the guardians.
 Artisans: This class has to perform economic function and includes all
those who produce goods and perform socially necessary services, for ex.
traders, farmers etc.
Each class exhibits certain virtues. The ruling class must have the virtue of
wisdom and must have knowledge of properly ruling the state as a whole. Since
the auxiliary class has to defend the state, they should possess the virtue of
courage. The artisans must show temperance or self-control to curb their
passions. They should understand that they have to perform an economic
function in the state and possession of wealth or status should not prompt them to
take over other functions like rulership; which they are not equipped to handle.
Figure 1 - Plato’s Three Classes and Their Virtues

The division of labour is also a division of virtue in Plato’s ideal state. Those
who have a superior role in division of labour also have superior degree of virtue.
Since the rulers have knowledge or wisdom due to the rigorous education
process, they have complete virtue while the other two classes have incomplete
virtue. They have knowledge of ideas like justice, beauty, courage and truth and
other moral attributes which Plato called Forms. According to Plato, each entity
that exists in our world is an imperfect copy of the Form of that thing that exists
in a transcendental realm. Only the rulers with wisdom can see these Forms and
only they can ensure justice matches its Form as much as possible. For Plato,
education was a necessary tool for moral reform to transform human soul. It
would facilitate performance of one’s social functions and in attaining fulfilment.
Rousseau regarded Plato’s Republic as the finest treatise ever written on
education. Plato’s system of education combined best elements from Athens and
Sparta’s education models. From Athens, he picked up creativity, excellence and
individual training while from Sparta; Plato drew the feature of civic training.
Details of Plato’s education system are given in the next unit.
Plato’s conception of justice could be called distributive as it stood for giving his
due to an individual like skills and training while in return, the individual would
43
perform his duty with responsibility. To substantiate his argument about
BLOCK –II differences in individual capabilities, Plato used a ‘noble lie’ through the myth of
PLATO the metals which would be uttered by the rulers. The myth would propagate that
as children of earth, all were born with some metallic component in their bodies.
The rulers were born with components of gold in their bodies, auxiliaries with
silver while the artisans had parts of brass in their bodies. This noble lie served
two purposes. All people would believe that they were part of a bigger family
with other members being their brothers. Secondly, all would accept their station
in life as naturally suited to qualities they were born with and hence, would
sustain functional specialisation. There was an elaborate system to select rulers in
Plato’s state and any child, irrespective of sex and class could be a ruler if he or
she exhibited capabilities to learn philosophical truths. Plato stood for a society
based on merit not birth. He did not believe that talent and skill could be passed
on from one generation to the other.
3.3.2 Communist Principles

Plato wanted to remove objects of desire from the ruling class. He argued that it
was easy for an individual to go against the common interest for the sake of his
family. Hence, Plato abolished private property and family for the rulers as it
encouraged nepotism, favouritism, factionalism and other corrupt practices. Plato
wanted the rulers to promote common good, not their personal interests. He
proposed that the rulers would live together in common, like soldiers in a
barrack. Their basic needs for simple food and clothing had to be met by the
artisans. Mating would be regulated to ensure a future pool of rulers, but it would
take place outside any family structure. Children would be held in common and
they would not know their real parents and would identify the state as their
family. There would be nurseries maintained by state to take care of the children.
Plato’s communism applies to the ruling elite and not the majority of population.
3.3.2.1 Communism of Plato and Marx: A Comparison
There is a big time gap between Plato and Marx and stark differences in socio-
economic and political environment in which they gave their ideas on
communism. Plato advocated an ascetic communism to remove objects of desire
from the ruling class, not meant to distribute them more equitably. It was also
called koinonia, meaning fellowship or communion in Greek. There are a number
of differences between the two. Ernest Barker called Plato’s communism as
aristocratic and half communism, as it applied only to the ruling class while
Marx’s communism was universal in nature. Plato’s communism was applicable
to property and family while that of Marx was concerned with means of
production. Communism was introduced by Marx as a weapon to destroy class
distinctions and create a classless and stateless society. On the other hand, Plato
introduced communism to maintain class hierarchy to maintain harmony in the
state.
3.3.3 Justice at Individual and State Level

Plato argued that in a just individual, the philosophic element (wisdom) rules his
44 soul. An individual’s soul should be in harmony and his reason, spirit and
appetite should be in right relationship with each other so that he does not cross Plato: Justice
his boundaries. A just individual does his own job and does not interfere in
matters of others. He would take only his share and would not claim that of the
other. Socrates said that justice consists in minding your own business and not
interfering with other people. In an unjust person, the division of labour in the
soul or psyche has broken down and his passions and desires begin to rule his
soul than reason. At the state level, justice would exist when each class maintains
its appropriate position in society and ensures harmony between different virtues
in a state. Plato, however, left one aspect unsolved. He insisted that the artisans
would willingly subordinate themselves to the ruling class, but he was uncertain
as to how long this subordination would last. He has even recommended the use
of force and rhetorical persuasion leading to control and monitoring. This raised
concerns whether the ideal state would be a happy one as well. Towards the end
of the Republic, Plato has highlighted the contrast between misery of an unjust
life and happiness of just life. He has discussed the decline of the ideal state
arguing that the state would disintegrate as it is a human institution which is an
imperfect representation of an ultimate reality. Change is in the nature of this
sensory world and the ideal state is no exception. The downfall of the state begins
with the ruling class which gets corrupted by attraction of property and desire
starts to rule wisdom and reason. They would enslave the citizens and the new
virtue would be courage. Honour would be held above knowledge and this new
type of regime would be called Timocracy, a state ruled by the auxiliaries.
Timocracy would give way to oligarchy or the rule of a few rich and oligarchy
would make way for democracy, rule by many. Plato emphasised that human
beings are a product of their social environment and they will be corrupted if the
social order is corrupted.
3.3.4 Critical Assessment

Plato’s concept of justice has been criticised on a number of fronts.
First, Plato’s idea may seem liberating but it implied excessive regimentation
with less respect for privacy and individuality. To ensure that family life is not
spoiled by ill effects like selfishness, Plato abolished emotional bonding that a
family provides to an individual. Order and harmony have been more important
to Plato than emotion and passion. The state is controlled by the wise as the soul
is controlled by reason, but this control is so absolute that it approaches tyranny.
The boundaries between liberation and repression seem blurred in Plato’s ideas.
Second, there is a major inconsistency in Plato’s proposal to maintain division of
labour in the state. Despite having elaborate arrangements for classifying people
in different classes and extensive education for the rulers, Plato is still concerned
that the rulers may be corrupted and could rule unwisely. That is why, Plato
instituted the system of communism for rulers to purge their desires. But the
critical problem is this – if virtue is knowledge, how can the rulers be tempted to
act unjustly? Socrates had insisted it cannot happen, but Plato has doubted the
very Socratic premise he set out to prove.
45
BLOCK –II Third, Plato’s political theory is tainted by elitism as political decision making in
PLATO his ideal state was in the hands of a few philosophical rulers who would be
oriented towards the common good. However, Plato was so strongly an elitist
that he believed that the vast majority of human beings had no reason to decide
important things for themselves. He even considered them to be incapable of
judging the decision taken by their rulers. It can be argued that by classifying
human beings on the basis of reason, Plato attacked democratic institutions of
Athens. Karl Popper criticised Plato for using the theory of unchecked
sovereignty of the ruling class to undermine the idea of an accountable
government. Popper and other critics have pointed out that Plato’s notion of
dictatorship, the “noble lie,” eugenics, and censorship resemble the modern
totalitarian ideologies of Nazism and Stalinism.
Fourth, Plato’s idea of citizenship was not participatory but as obedience to the
authority. The individual existed for the society and state and hence, was a means
to an end, not an end in himself. Plato’s state was very powerful and it gave more
importance to unity than diversity. Aristotle had also criticized Plato’s idea of
unity. A state should not seek a strict singleness as proposed in the Republic, but
should be realized in harmony of diverse elements.
Fifth, Plato’s justice is based on ethical and moral principles and hence, is not
enforceable. It gives utmost importance to self-control in the interest of society
which makes it vulnerable to violation by different individuals.
Lastly, German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche criticised Plato for founding a
just and rightly ordered society with the help of a lie (myth of metals). The
reasons for social ordering never became clear in Plato’s arguments. The noble
lie is contrary to Plato’s assertion that justice is identical to knowledge or truth
while a lie represents injustice. Plato tried to hold his ideal state together with a
lie or with an act of injustice. It indicated that even Plato recognised the limited
capacity of truth to reform politics.

the unit.
1. Why did Plato resort to the noble lie?
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
2. Discuss the features of Plato’s Communism.
46 …………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...…… Plato: Justice
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
3.4 PLATO AND INDIAN POLITICAL THINKERS

3.4.1 Plato and Kautilya
There are constant comparisons between Oriental and Occidental thinkers.
Western (Occidental) thinkers like Plato can be compared to the towering figure
in ancient Indian political thought, Kautilya. Kautilya is believed to have been
born around the time when Plato died, making him an almost contemporary of
Plato. There are certain similarities between Plato and Kautilya.
 Both the thinkers thought that the state should be ruled by the learned and
elites, an idea which goes against the spirit of democracy.
 They also share their contempt towards the common man. Plato said that
common man is nothing but a bundle of appetites, while Kautilya said
that common man is inconsistent and unsteady.
 Hierarchy and functional specialization was important to their concept of
social structure. Plato gave the concept of three classes and favored
slavery while in Kautilya’s Arthashastra, caste system has been
maintained. Plato never discussed slavery formally and his views need to
be extracted from some remarks made by him in his works, the Republic
and the Laws.
 Kautilya advocated conquest of senses (indriyajayah) which is similar to
Plato’s concept of virtue which favors conquest of self or the inner
enemy.
 Both prefer their king to be from the military class. Plato’s ruler is
kshatriya swami of Kautilya.
There were some differences as well between the two ancient stalwarts. Plato
favoured the aristocrats to do two functions, to rule and do intellectual activity.
On the other hand, Kautilya wanted Brahmins to do intellectual activity while the
rule would be done by the kshatriya king. Plato was a philosopher while Kautilya
was a seasoned politician apart from being a philosopher. Kautilya has made
substantial contribution to the field of diplomacy and foreign policy while these
aspects did not find much mention in Plato’s works.
3.4.2 Socrates, Plato and Gandhi

M K Gandhi was influenced by Socrates and started to identify with him during
his stay in South Africa. Gandhi translated Plato’s Apology in 1908 from English
to Gujarati. This book is about how Socrates defended himself when he was put
on trial in Athens in 399 B.C. Gandhi was attracted by self-sacrifice, sense of 47
BLOCK –II duty and moral conviction of Socrates. Since both, Plato and Gandhi were deeply
PLATO influenced by Socrates; it is not surprising that both of them were idealists in
their ideas. For them, politics and ethics should not be separated, while they also
give more importance to duties than rights.

the unit.
1. Highlight similarities between Plato and Kautilya.
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
2. Which qualities of Socrates influenced Gandhi?
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
3.5 LET US SUM UP

The study of Western philosophical tradition begins with Plato’s masterpiece, the
Republic. Greek philosophers including Plato conceptualised justice in terms of
harmony and order, whether they used it for an individual, state or the universe.
Plato’s idea of justice came from his vision of the political community and justice
serves common interest. A successful political community has to perform three
functions – production, protection (defence) and statesmanship (ruling). These
functions were to be performed by three classes respectively – artisans,
auxiliaries and the rulers. Hence, justice would consist in fulfilling these three
activities based on functional specialisation. Plato’s society was highly
hierarchical, structured, merit oriented and regimented where individuals were
trained to perform their allotted duties. The rulers were to be purged of any
desires and could not have private property and family under the communist
principles. Plato’s communism was ascetic in nature, similar to the life found in
Buddhist monasteries. Somebody like Gandhi too would have demanded similar
way of life from the political leaders. Plato’s theory of justice may have its share
48 of limitations, but it was meant to achieve the welfare and development of
community and establish social harmony. It stood for non-identity of rights and Plato: Justice
power.
3.6 REFERENCES
Badie, Bertrand et. al. (ed.) (2011). International Encyclopedia of Political
Science Volume 1. London. Sage Publications.
Nelson, Brian. R. (1996). Western Political Thought – From Socrates to the Age
of Ideology. Illinois. Waveland Press Inc.
Jha, Shefali. (2018). Western Political Thought – From Ancient Greeks to
Modern Times. Noida. Pearson India Education Services Pvt Ltd.
Mukherjee, S & Ramaswamy, S. (2011). A History of Political Thought: Plato to
Marx. Delhi. PHI Learning Private Limited.
Plato (1945). The Republic. New York. Oxford University Press. (Original Work
360 B.C.)
Sabine, G. H. (1973). A History of Political Theory. New Delhi. Oxford & IBH
Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Scruton. Roger. (2007). The Palgrave Macmillan Dictionary of Political
Thought. Hampshire. Palgrave Macmillan.

EXERCISES
1) Your answer should highlight the following points:
 Socrates said helping friends may involve immoral acts like stealing or
telling a lie
 One may also misjudge his friends and enemies
 Hurting someone makes the doer less just or less excellent while justice is
about excellence.

 All people would believe they were part of a bigger family with other
members being their brothers
 All would accept their station in life as naturally suited to qualities
they were born with and hence, would sustain functional
specialization

 Communist principles applicable to the ruling class only
 No private property or family for the rulers
 Rulers would live together in common, like soldiers in a barrack 49
BLOCK –II  Regulated mating to ensure a pool of future rulers
PLATO  Children to be held in common; would not know their real parents and
would identify the state as their family

 Both believed the state should be ruled by the learned and elites
 Shared contempt towards common man
 Hierarchy and functional specialization was important to their concept
of social structure
 Both emphasized conquest of senses and self-control
 Both prefer the king to be from the military class

 Self-sacrifice
 Sense of duty
 Moral conviction
50
Plato: Education
UNIT 4 PLATO: EDUCATION (PRESENTATION
THEMES: CRITIQUE OF DEMOCRACY,
WOMEN AND GUARDIANSHIP, EDUCATION,
⁎
CENSORSHIP)
Structure
4.0 Objectives
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Theory of Education
4.2.1 System of Education
4.2.1.1 Elementary Education
4.2.1.2 Higher Education
4.3 Thoughts on Women
4.3.1 Criticism
4.4 Critique of Democracy
4.5 Let Us Sum Up
4.6 References
4.0 OBJECTIVES
In this unit, you will be reading about the concept of Education as described by
Plato. The Unit also presents an introduction to his idea on Women,
Guardianship as well as a critique of democracy. After going through this unit,
you should be able to:
• Explain the idea of education
• Enumerate on Women and Guardianship and
• Discuss the criticism related to democracy as explained by Plato.
4.1 INTRODUCTION
Plato (c.428-347 B.C.) is one of the most important figures of the Ancient Greek
world and the history of Western thought. Political philosophy in the West begins
with the ancient Greeks and Plato. Plato was one of the most influential thinkers
in the history of western philosophy. In his written dialogues he expanded on the
ideas and techniques of his teacher Socrates. In Plato’s ideal state there are three
major classes, corresponding to the three parts of the soul. The guardians, who
are philosophers, govern the city; the auxiliaries are soldiers who defend it; and
the lowest class comprises the producers (farmers, artisans, etc). Plato’s society
⁎
Dr. Ankita Dutta, Research Fellow, Indian Council of Word Affairs
51
– II
BLOCK –II
was highly structured, hierarchical and meritocratic in nature where everyone
BLOCK
EQUALITY
PLATO was expected to perform the duties that were allotted to them. He ruled out
wealth, gender and birth as criteria for distributing privileges and favours.
Education structure was crafted in a way so as to let every individual reach his
potential through extensive training. The science of eugenics was to be conducted
with utmost secrecy, as only the philosopher ruler was to know and careful
selection of mates would ensure that the genetics endowment was carried on to
the children. In the following sections, Plato’s ideas related to education of these
classes, his thoughts on women and his critique of democracy are discussed in
detail.
4.2 THEORY OF EDUCATION

According to Plato, education is a matter of conversion, i.e. a complete turn-
around from the world of appearances to the world of reality. ‘The conversion of
the souls’, says Plato, ‘is not to put the power of sight in the soul’s eye, which
already has it, but to insure that, instead of looking in the wrong direction, it is
turned the way it ought to be’. As everyone possesses the power to learn in his
soul, what is needed is to turn our soul in a proper way that is to prepare a good
environment for learning. It is shown that the more you move up, the more you
acquire knowledge. The whole process of learning requires teachers and students;
teachers are the ones who know the subject matter to be taught. The process of
learning was suggested to be in the form of discussion between students and
teachers. Plato’s idea of education was primarily intended for those who were to
be statesmen. What made him to emphasise the statesmen more was to avoid
incapable leaders; because these statesmen will be given a state, and if they are
not educated, they could lead the country or the state into a terrible situation. The
whole range of the educational system would be in part physical, in part
intellectual, and in part moral. If a man cannot withstand moral temptation, then
he might sacrifice the interest of the society in order to satisfy his own interests.
The objective of education is to turn the soul towards light. Plato stated that the
main function of education is not to put knowledge into the soul, but to bring out
the latent talents in the soul by directing it towards the right objects. This
explanation of Plato on education highlights his object of education and guides
the readers in proper direction to unfold the ramifications of his theory of
education. In Laws he says: “Education is the first and the fairest thing that the
best of men can ever have”. According to Plato the aim of education is the
welfare of both the safety of the society and the food of individual. He was of the
opinion that education should develop the sense of ideas in people, who
possesses the ability and purpose to perform their assigned tasks. Thus, the aim
of education is to enable a person to acquire the knowledge of the absolute good.
Education, according to Plato, is the welfare of both the individual and the
society. His guiding principle is that, “Nothing must be admitted in education
which does not conduce to the promotion of virtue”. According to V.K.
Maheshwari, Plato’s treatment of education in the Laws is different from that in
52
the Republic. Education in the Laws is to be universal and not restricted, as in the
Republic, to the guardian class and is to be compulsory. Children should come to Plato: Education
the school not only if their parents please, but there should be compulsory
education. The highest goal of education, Plato believed, is the knowledge of
Good and to nurture a man to become a better human being. Education prepares a
man for the vision of absolute reality and that is why, education right from
the beginning is a preparation for the future.
4.2.1 System of Education

Plato believed that the young minds could be shaped easily, if they are directed
properly. He stressed the tremendous receptive potential of human mind which is
why, according to him, early education played a crucial role in the overall
development of the individual. At this point, the educator might try and train the
individual to restrain desires, for control and harnessing of non-rational aspects
of the soul was an important prerequisite for the full development of the rational.
For Plato, elementary education helped to attain the first goal, while higher
education ensured the development of rationality.
4.2.1.1 Primary Education
For Plato, the primary education was till the age of eighteen and would be
confined to the guardian class, followed by two years of compulsory military
training and then followed by higher education for those who qualified. While the
primary education made the soul responsive to the environment, higher education
helped the soul to search for truth which illuminated it. Plato believed that
education began from the age of seven and before this, children should stay with
their mothers for moral education and genders should be allowed to play with
each other. Plato was of the opinion that for the first 10 years, there should be
predominantly physical education. In other words, every school must have a
gymnasium and a playground in order to develop the physique and health of
children and make them resistant to any disease. Apart from this physical
education, Plato also recommended music to bring about certain refinement in
their character and lend grace and health to the soul and the body. Plato also
prescribed subjects such as mathematics, history and science. The content of
education comprised of gymnastics, literature, music and elementary
mathematics. Gymnastics is essential for the physical and mental growth. Music
is chosen as the medium of education, an avenue for the spiritual growth, and
ideas are the contents of education for this stage. After the age of six years, both
girls and boys should be separated and boys should play with boys and girls with
girls and they both should be taught the use of different arms.
Plato recommended censorship of literature and music to encourage the virtues
necessary in the guardian class, for making reason supreme. Censorship of
poetry, stories and tales was undertaken to ensure that the impressionable young
minds were not exposed to harmful ideas. Plato was particularly insistent that
children not fear death; otherwise they would not develop the courage needed on
the battlefield. Children were exposed to stories about gods and great
personalities to ensure their good moral upbringing. Plato’s idea was to shut off 53
– II
BLOCK –II
all vices from the lives of the children. Training in the right virtues would create
BLOCK
EQUALITY
PLATO the perfect members of the guardian class. Education in these subjects was
followed by two years of compulsory military training. The guardians were
perfected as warriors. Luxury and self-indulgence was prohibited with the
purpose of strengthening the spirit. Plato reiterated the Athenian practice which
provided for compulsory military service between the age of seventeen and
twenty. Elementary education perfected those souls which were receptive to habit
and conditioning.
4.2.1.2 Higher Education
According to Plato, at the age of 20, the child must take an examination that
would determine whether or not to pursue higher education. Those who failed in
the examination were asked to take up activities in the community such as
businessmen, clerks, workers, farmers and the like. These selections were in
accordance with the age and stage to which these students were admitted. Plato
emphasised that education must start early. The first course in the scheme would
last ten years from the age group of twenty five to thirty years, and in this age
they get the training of Mathematical calculation and last for another ten years,
after the completion the selected ones are admitted in the study of dialect. Here
students undergo mathematical training preparatory to dialectic. Plato has
highlighted the qualities needed for an individual to enter higher education. He
proclaimed that preference should be given to the surest, bravest, fairest and
those who have the natural gifts to facilitate their education. From the age thirty
to thirty five, Plato restricted the study of dialectic to this age because he felt that
an individual should be mature enough to carry on the study in dialectics,
especially about ultimate principles of reality. In the next stage, from thirty five
to fifty years, according to Plato, an individual is ready as a philosopher or ruler,
to return to practical life to take command in war and hold such offices of state as
befits him. After reaching 50, one should spend the life in contemplation of “the
Good” as their chief pursuit should be philosophy and should participate in
politics, and rule for the good of the people as a matter of their duty.
The Platonic approach to education comprises the following aspects: sciences

and arts, which were to be communicated by teachers to their pupils; moral
virtue, necessary for teachers and students, and finally political institutions,
which were connected with the learning process. The true goal of education for
both Plato and Aristotle was to inculcate the values of civic virtues. They framed
an educational curriculum that would impart “a moral liberal education rather
than a study of political science. What they sought was rather a frame of mind
which will respond in a just, responsible and self restrained manner to public
issues”. Both believed that education by injecting into the citizens a sense of
rights and obligations would be an effective remedy for corruption and instability
that affected the states of their times. They were convinced that a system of
education controlled and regulated by the state would teach the citizens the
traditions and laws of the state.
54
Plato: Education
4.3 THOUGHTS ON WOMEN
In Republic, Plato, through dialogue between Socrates and Glaucon, suggests that
the guardian women should perform the same job as the male guardians. Some
may follow convention and object that women should be given different jobs
because they differ from men by nature. However, for Plato, the natural
differences between men and women are not relevant when it comes to the jobs
of protecting and ruling the city. Both sexes are naturally suited for these
tasks. He goes on to argue that the measure of allowing the women to perform
the same tasks as the men in this way is not only feasible but also best. This is
the case since the most suited people for the job will be performing it.
He also goes on to propose that there should be no separate families among the
members of the guardian class: the guardians will possess all the women and
children in common. Plato abolished the idea of private family and property for
the guardian class, for it encouraged nepotism, favouritism, factionalism and
other corrupt practices among the rulers. For Plato, politics did not mean
promoting one’s personal interests; instead, it was to promote the common good.
Plato proposed that the members of the guardian class live together in common,
like soldiers in barracks. The Platonic scheme was based on the idea that women
and men were identical in natural endowment and faculties. There were two ideas
that were embedded in Plato’s communism of wives: reform of conventional
marriage, and emancipation of women. To achieve this, Plato proposed abolition
of permanent monogamous marriages and private families. These were restricted
to guardian women alone. Firstly, for Plato, conventional marriage led to the
women’s subordination, subjugation and seclusion. He rejected the idea of
marriage as a spiritual union based on love and mutual respect. However,
marriage was necessary to ensure reproduction and continuation of human race.
He, therefore, advocated temporary sexual unions solely for the purpose of
bearing children. Plato further stipulated the age for both men and women for
begetting children. He stated that the proper age for begetting children women
should be between the age of 20 and 40 and men between 25 and 55 because at
this time, the physical and intellectual vigour is more. Plato advocated that the
best guardian men will also be allowed to have sexual intercourse with best
guardian women for the purpose of giving birth to children with similar natures.
The philosopher ruler would decide on these sexual unions. Once born, the
children will be taken away to a rearing pen to be taken care of by nurses and the
parents will not be allowed to know who their own children are. Except for the
philosopher ruler, none would have the knowledge of the true parentage of the
children.
Secondly, Plato pushes for women’s emancipation from patriarchal family on the
ground of their equality with men in all aspects, if given the same conditions of
upbringing up, education and opportunities. Therefore, confining women into
domestic chores was wasting half of the potential social talent. He states that -
“So far then in regulating the positions of women, we may claim to have come
safely through one hazardous proposition that male and female guardians shall 55
– II
BLOCK –II
have all occupations in common. The consistency of the argument is an assurance
BLOCK
EQUALITY
PLATO that the plan is good and also feasible.” And henceforth, he moves to argue the
indispensable need to abolish the institution of family itself for the ruling classes.
Plato argues the abolition of family on the basis that the family is linked with
property and is equally distractive and corrupting as property. The rulers must not
waste time and energy in familial responsibility, but devote themselves in the
invention of the truth, i.e. in the comprehension of the Idea of Good.
Among Plato’s reasons for offering his idea of communism of wives and
property were these: that those who exercise political power should have no
economic motives, and those who are engaged in economic activities should have
no share in political power. He, however, permitted the third social class to enjoy
private family and property, but under strict supervision of the guardians. He
subordinated both the guardians and artisans to a moral ideal: welfare of the state.
While guardians were entrusted with the task of ruling and governance, they
would lead strict and austere lives. The artisans did not have any say or right to
participate in the political processes, but enjoyed emotional ties and had
possessions unlike the guardians. Plato, for his part, played fair with both the
sections of the society in terms of rewards and denials. The characteristics of his
ideal state included class, communism, civility, control, contentment and
consensus.
4.3.1 Criticism
Through the communism of wives, Plato challenges that very notion and
conventions of human society. While for Plato, his scheme might appear to be
liberating, it rather implies excessive restriction and regimentation of the society
with no space for privacy and individuality. Aristotle also disagreed with this
idea by emphasising that family and private property were important for the
happiness of the individual and welfare of the state. Aristotle looked to the family
as a natural institution and questioned Plato’s wisdom in abolishing it. Popper
called Plato anti-individualist and anti-social change. He said that Plato’s denial
of owning property by the guardian class and then, the denial of family and
children are against the interest of the individuals. For Popper, in Plato’s Ideal
State, individuals are like commodities or tools or instruments of state, which are
always under the command of the one who controls the State. Plato wanted to
maintain his Ideal State as it was originally instituted. He did not like to make
any changes to his Ideal State. His views on communism of wives and property,
the way he advocated on eugenics, his scheme of education all reflected his
hesitation towards social change.

the unit.
1. Discuss Plato’s ideas on Women.
56
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...…… Plato: Education
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
4.4 CRITIQUE OF DEMOCRACY

Plato viewed democracy as a step in the inevitable descent into tyranny for
societies undergoing political decay. Plato explains that democracies are
susceptible to “tyranny of the majority” and rule by demagoguery. To understand
Plato’s critique of democracy, it is important to outline his analogy between the
soul and the city. He introduces this in Book II of the Republic where he says that
“…let us first inquire into the nature of justice and injustice in the city…” The
most just form of governance, the aristocracy, is joined with the philosopher-king
who has the necessary qualities to rule a just society.
Plato describes four kinds of societies: First, a timocratic society, where the
courageous soldiers have usurped for themselves the privilege of making
decisions that properly belongs only to its better-educated rulers. A timocratic
person is, therefore, someone who is more concerned with defending personal
honour than with wisely choosing what is truly best. Second, an oligarchic
government in which both classes of guardian have been pressed into the service
of a ruling group comprising few powerful and wealthy citizens. By analogy, an
oligarchic society is one where every thought and action is devoted to the self-
indulgent goal of amassing greater wealth. Third, a democratic government
where promises of equality for all of its citizens are made but it delivers only
anarchy. In democracy, members are interested in the pursuit of private interests.
Fourth, the tyrannical society where a single individual has gained control,
restoring order in place of anarchy, but serving only personal welfare instead of
the interests of the whole city. For Plato, a society organised in the ideally
efficient way is said to have an aristocratic government. Similarly, an aristocratic
person is one who’s rational, spirit, and appetitive souls work together properly.
Such governments and people are the most genuine examples of true justice at
the social and personal levels.
According to Plato, aristocracy inevitably gives way to a lesser form of
governance due to the fallibility of human nature. One faction is “Iron and
bronze,” who are drawn to the accumulation of wealth. The other is “Gold and
silver,” who try in vain to bring the “opposition back to virtue and the inherited
order.” The factionalism represents a move to timocracy, a compromise between
aristocracy and oligarchy. The greatest good, which was wisdom under
aristocratic rule, has now become the pursuit of wealth under the guise of the
oligarchic soul. Oligarchy then transitions to democracy, as the accumulation of
wealth in the hands of a few sows discontent in an expanding underclass of
citizenry. Plato describes democracy’s inception as “either by force of arms or by 57
– II
BLOCK –II
the use of terror which compels the opposition to withdraw.” The subsequent
BLOCK
EQUALITY
PLATO paramount freedoms that democracy upholds serve to damage the city, as the
“permissiveness” of the democratic city enables the manifestation of tyranny.
Plato sees democracy as more dangerous than oligarchy because although the two
share the same damaging characteristics, the democratic city “has embraced
anarchy,” and the class of people that motivates the poor against the wealthy
rulers, is dominant. Finally, the descent into tyranny is marked by the entrance of
the aforementioned demagogue, who benefits from democracy’s “propensity to
elevate and glorify one man as the people’s protector and champion.” Plato’s
critique of democracy is that democracy does not place a premium on wisdom
and knowledge seeking as an inherent good. Instead, democracy suffers from the
failures as it prioritizes wealth and property accumulation as the highest good.
For Plato what is worse is that democracy embraces total freedom (which Plato
calls “anarchy”) and unnecessary “appetites,” which crowd out the ruler’s
responsibilities of virtuous governance, to control the democratic soul.
This was a common chain of political perspective that is found in Socrates, Plato
and Aristotle. All three spoke about defending the values, way of life and
attitudes of an aristocracy that was on a decline. This was so because Plato wrote
at a time when Athens was at a crossroads after defeat in the Peloponnesian War.
Although the defeat was largely due to the military strategy of Athens, Plato
castigated the Athenian democracy for the failure. For Plato, revitalisation and
reformation of the aristocracy was crucial so that it could once again become the
basis of civic life. This was seen as the best way to counter the sweep of
democratic revolution that was led by traders, artisans and merchants along with
the rising materialism and individualism that was engulfing the Athenian society.
Plato equated democratisation with moral corruption and degradation and
endeavoured to reform and revolutionise the general quality of human life. The
Republic was a kind of rebuttal to what Plato viewed as Athenian way of life and
its participatory democracy. He dismissed the participation of Greek male adults
in political processes and forming of political opinion as unnecessary and
amateurish. For him, democracy was nothing but incompetence of the politicians
which had given rise to factionalism, violence, and partisan politics leading to
political instability. For Plato, democracy did not value highly gifted persons.
Plato has been criticised for his comments on democracy. For example, Isaiah
Berlin pointed out that Plato does not grant individual the freedom of choice and
rejects pluralism or acceptance of different value systems and lifestyles within a
society. Popper, for his part, characterised Plato as anti-individual, anti-humanist
and anti-democratic having the aim of arresting all social development and
change. This was achieved by establishing a society that was regimented,
hierarchical, and unequal, where the value of an individual was based on his
contribution to the social whole. It was the interest of the ruling elite that
mattered in the Platonic ideal state. For Popper, this was reinforced with the help
of censorship, ban on innovation in education, legislation, and propaganda.
Politically this state exercised total control and economically, it was autarchy.
58
Check Your Progress Exercise 2 Plato: Education

the unit.
1. Describe four types of societies discussed by Plato.
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
4.5 LET US SUM UP

Plato grew up during the Peloponnesian war which began before he was born and
lasted until he was 23 years old. The demoralization of Athens due to defeat
during the war led to an oligarchy revolution, followed by a savage tyranny that
finally gave way to the re-establishment of a democratic constitution. His
thoughts on democracy are well explained in The Republic and in Plato we find
the fiercest critic of democracy which he viewed as a step in the inevitable
descent into tyranny for societies undergoing political decay. Plato equated
democratisation with moral corruption and degradation and endeavoured to
reform and revolutionise the general quality of human life. The Republic was a
kind of rebuttal to what Plato viewed as Athenian way of life and its participatory
democracy.
One of the key tenets of his philosophy is his theory of education. It is not a
surprise that Plato founded The Academy in 387 BC, the first institution of
higher learning in Greece. It became the intellectual centre in Greece and the
equivalent of the first university in the history of Europe. In The Republic, Plato
sets up a theory of what education means for both the individual and the state,
focusing on the important role of those who must carefully choose the material to
teach the future guardians of the state. Plato's curriculum was carefully planned
to include training for the spirit (music) and training for the body (gymnastics),
with more difficult academic subjects added when the child is developmentally
ready. What is visible in his structure of imparting education is that Plato
supported a type of vocational education, education to complete one’s role in life;
education for the producers, the guardians and the philosopher kings, enough
education to do one’s job well, but each grouped according to one’s abilities.
Plato insisted on the great importance of the role of education, to bring the young
to gradually behold eternal and absolute truths and values; to be saved from
passing their lives in the shadow world of error, falsehood, prejudice and
blindness to true values.
59
– II
BLOCK –II
Another very critical evaluation was that Plato saw equality in men and women
BLOCK
EQUALITY
PLATO in their personhood. He was one of the first to propose equal education for men
and women based on their ability to learn, not on their gender. He viewed the
suppression of women as a waste of human resources which denied society
access to the best possible guardians. In The Republic, Plato explains two ways
for the social organisation of the ideal state, the first that the function of
guardianship is to be performed by men and women alike, the second that for the
guardians the private household and therefore, the institution of marriage is to be
abolished, since the guardians do not own property and the care of children is to
be a communal responsibility. Plato believed that the interests of the state are
best preserved if children are raised and educated by the society as a whole,
rather than by their biological parents. So he proposed a scheme for the bearing,
nurturing, and training of children in the guardian class. The presumed pleasures
of family life, Plato held, are among the benefits that the higher classes of a
society must be prepared to forego.
4.6 REFERENCES
Richard Kraut (ed.). (1992). The Cambridge Companion to Plato. Cambridge
University Press.
Julia Annas (2003). Plato: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.
Subrata Mukherjee and Sushila Ramaswamy. (2007). A History of Political
Thought. Prentice Hall. India.
K.R. Popper. (1945). The Open Society and Its Enemies. Routledge.
Isaiah Berlin. (1969). Four Concepts of Liberty. Oxford University Press.

EXERCISES
 Conventional marriage let to women’s subjugation
 Pushes for women’s emancipation from patriarchal family
 Timocratic
 Oligarchic
 Democratic
 Tyrannical
60
Plato: Education
BLOCK III
ARISTOTLE
61
– II
BLOCK –II
BLOCK BLOCK III INTRODUCTION
EQUALITY
PLATO
Aristotle along with teacher Plato has a pre-eminent place as the great masters
and teachers in the Western philosophical tradition. However, their methods
differed – Aristotle is seen as a moderate and realist while Plato is regarded as an
idealist, utopian and radical. At the same time, Aristotle is also seen as the father
of the discipline of Political Science as he systematically analysed, classified and
criticised the existing constitutions of his time. Aristotle was one of the earliest
thinkers to use the comparative method in this endeavour. Aristotle’s idea of
citizen based on the virtue of being a ruler and ruled is a relevant cornerstone of
modern liberal democracies. Similarly, Aristotle’s notion of justice as fairness
and justice based on the principle of reciprocity has influenced future scholars of
political theory and political philosophy. Aristotle’s understanding that different
contexts demand different forms of government is a relevant point to understand
the significance of context in defining political experiments and experiences.
Relevance of Aristotle's ideas is eminent in the fact that for some contemporary
issues and challenges in politics, his ideas act as a signpost. Aristotle also made
tremendous contribution to research as his Lyceum was first research institute
where scholars and investigators came together for collaborative inquiry and
documentation. He was also the first person to establish a research library with
systematic collection of works to be used by other scholars. Given his vast
knowledge in diverse fields, Italian poet Dante referred to Aristotle as “the
master of those who know.”
62
Aristotle: State and
UNIT 5 ARISTOTLE: STATE AND GOOD LIFE Good Life
(ENDAEMONIA)⁎
Structure
5.0 Objectives
5.1 A Brief Outline of Aristotle’s Life
5.2 Forms
5.3 Virtue
5.4 State and Good Life
5.5 Criticism of Aristotle’s State and Good Life
5.6 Let Us Sum Up
5.7 References
5.0 OBJECTIVES
In this chapter, a brief introduction to the life of Aristotle is given to understand
the context in which his political philosophy developed. The chapter also
explores the points of convergence and divergence between the teacher and the
student; that is, Plato and Aristotle, in their approach to understand the
relationship between form and matter. Further, the unit explains how Aristotle
perceived virtue and its relevance in a political community. The next section
focuses on Aristotle’s theory of the state and the concept of good life. After,
reading this unit students will be in a position to understand the context and text
in which Aristotle’s concept of the state and good life evolved.
5.1 A BRIEF OUTLINE OF ARISTOTLE’S LIFE

Aristotle (c. 384 B.C.E to 322 B.C.E) was an Ancient Greek philosopher and
scientist. He was born in Stagira, a small town on the northern coast of Greece.
His father, Nicomachus, was a court physician to the Macedonian king Amyntas
II. Although Nicomachus died when Aristotle was just a young boy, Aristotle
remained closely affiliated with and influenced by the Macedonian court for the
rest of his life. Little is known about his mother, Phaestis. She is also believed to
have died when Aristotle was young.After Aristotle’s father died, Proxenus of
Atarneus, who was married to Aristotle’s older sister, Arimneste, became
Aristotle’s guardian until he came of age. When Aristotle turned 17, Proxenus
sent him to Athens to pursue higher education. At the time, Athens was
considered the academic centre of the universe. In Athens, Aristotle enrolled in
⁎
Dr Rashmi Gopi, Assistant Professor, Miranda House, University of Delhi
63
Plato’s Academy, Greece’s premier learning institution and proved himself as an
BLOCK –III
ARISTOTLE exemplary scholar. Aristotle maintained a relationship with Greek philosopher
Plato, himself a student of Socrates and his Academy for two decades until
Plato’s death in 347 B.C.E.Aristotle was not there as an Athenian citizen in
origin and he remained a foreigner. For a man who would become renowned for
having insisted that the activities of a citizen, taking turns in ruling and being
ruled, was the optimum life for the fulfilled man who by nature was a polis-living
animal, his foreigner status in the Athens where he taught and lived was, at least,
a notable irony. Many of Aristotle’s views were the result of a critical reflection
on Plato’s teachings. Aristotle’s approach led to another way of seeing and
understanding the same world that Plato settled. He would come to reject some of
Plato’s explanations of that agreed world, by finding other causes that were more
numerous, obvious and demonstrable than a single, separate, transcendent and
unifying Form of the Good to elucidate the way things are. This difference
between the two philosophers is often thought to be exemplified for any visitor to
the Vatican in Rome who is able to admire Raphael’s famous Renaissance
painting The School of Athens. In this painting, Plato and Aristotle are shown in
discussion. Plato points to the heavens while Aristotle, holding a copy of his
Ethics in his left hand, extends his right hand in front of him and appears, by this
gesture, both to be restraining Plato’s transcendental enthusiasm and to be
encompassing the material world before him. Because Aristotle had disagreed
with some of Plato’s philosophical treatises, Aristotle did not inherit the position
of director of the Academy, as many imagined he would.
After Plato died, Aristotle’s friend Hermias, king of Atarneus and Assos in
Mysia, invited Aristotle to court. There with like-minded friends and
collaborators, Aristotle carried out scientific research. In 343 B.C.E. Aristotle
was called to the Macedonian court to serve as tutor to Philip’s son, Alexander,
who was then thirteen years of age. His final twelve years, Aristotle spent in the
school established by him called Lyceum. It was said that Aristotle collected an
extraordinary library which later became the model for the famous library in
Alexandria. Aulus Gellius (a second century C.E Roman) described how
Aristotle taught. In the evenings he opened his lectures to young men who were
interested and he spoke apparently more informally, on rhetoric, the cultivation
of quick wit and civic education. But in the mornings his lectures were restricted
to those whom he judged to have sufficient education, were keen to learn and to
work hard and they listened to his more exacting investigations of nature and
dialectical discussion. It was at this time that he clarified his views on ethics and
politics. In 323 B.C.E., Alexander the Great died at the age of 32. Athens decided
on war with Antipater. Aristotle was charged with immorality and he abandoned
Athens for Chalcis, where his mother’s family had some property. He went there
with a freed woman, Herpyllis, with whom he had lived after the death of his
wife and he died in the following year in 322 B.C.E. He was 62 or 63. Aristotle
wrote an estimated 200 works, most in the form of notes and manuscript drafts
touching on reasoning, rhetoric, politics, ethics, science and psychology. They
64 consist of dialogues, records of scientific observations and systematic works. His
student Theophrastus reportedly looked after Aristotle’s writings and later passed Aristotle: State and
Good Life
them to his own student Neleus, who stored them in a vault to protect them from
moisture until they were taken to Rome and used by scholars there. Of Aristotle’s
estimated 200 works, only 31 are still in circulation. Most date to Aristotle’s time
at the Lyceum.
5.2 FORMS
Aristotle positioned sensible particulars at the centre of his enquiry. Aristotle
strongly believed in the reality of the physical world and in its study as an
essential instrument of knowledge. For him, the source of our knowledge is
perception which is the result of particular sensations. Sensation is a vital
precondition of knowledge. Although sensation on its own does not yield
knowledge. Experience, for Aristotle, is a kind of knowledge of individual
somethings. But the principles or foundations of this knowledge are reached or
revealed by induction from sensation. Induction is the process of reasoning from
particular cases to general conclusions. Knowledge relies on induction and
observation. Induction and observation give rise to commonly accepted views
which can be subject to error. But it is only through these opinions that the truth
can be teased out. Knowledge comes from the psyche’s capacity to generalise,
based on its perception of particulars and these generalizations are then subject to
a kind of logical or rational testing. Knowledge then depends on the correct
interpretation of that direct acquaintance with individuals that is provided by the
bodily senses.
Though Aristotle learned much of what he knew about philosophy from Plato, his
ideas grew so far removed from his teacher’s that he directly challenged many
Platonic ideas in his writing. In Book VII of Aristotle’s Metaphysics, he
particularly mentions the theory of ‘forms’ which Plato introduced in his
text, The Republic. Aristotle then recommends his own theory of forms, which is
quite different from Plato’s. Both Plato and Aristotle acknowledged that there are
two critical elements that compose all things that exist: the form and the matter in
which the form manifests itself. However, Aristotle’s reflection of being led him
to disagree with Plato on the relationship between form and matter. Though both
Plato and Aristotle mention form as one of the main components of things that
exist, their ideas of just what form is were quite dissimilar. In Plato’s The
Republic, narrator Socrates explains the ‘form of the good’ to his friend Glaucon
as ‘what gives truth to the things known and the power to know to the knower’.
He might just be giving his definition of ‘good,’ until he goes on to say that ‘the
good is not being, but something yet beyond being, superior to it in rank and
power’. He compares the form of the good to the sun, saying that the form of the
good is ‘sovereign of the intelligible kind and place, as is the sun of the visible.’
This analogy of Plato is difficult to comprehend. He is saying that there is an
‘intelligible realm’ where the forms of things such as justice, good and beauty
can only be conceived of with the mind. The representations of these things on
Earth, according to Plato, are just weak reflections of the perfect forms in the
intelligible world. He believes that the goal of a philosopher is to come to know 65
and understand these forms. However, Plato’s forms are not just ethical concepts.
BLOCK –III
ARISTOTLE He also notes that students of geometry ‘use visible forms and make their
arguments about them, although they are not thinking about them but about the
things that they are like’. For instance, you can draw a square with a diagonal and
argue that the diagonal divides the square in half, but you aren’t really talking
about what you’ve drawn, you’re talking about the concept of a square and
diagonal or as Plato would say, their forms.
As Aristotle systematically studied what it is to be, he drew conclusions that lead
him to reject Plato’s theory of forms. Aristotle tells us that ‘a thing comes to be
from its need or from its subject which we call the matter’. What he means is that
all things must have matter, from which they come into existence. A chair might
come to be from wood, which is why we call it ‘of-wood,’ or ‘wooden.’
However, another thing must be present for anything to come to be: the form.
Aristotle defines a form as ‘whatever the shape in the perceptible thing ought to
be called’. For example, wood might take on the form of a house or concrete
might take on the form of a sidewalk or a seed might take on the form of a tree.
Aristotle says that “the form does not come to be and there is no coming to be of
it”. According to him, both form and matter are necessary for anything to come
to be and when things come to be, it is not a matter of creating one or the other,
but of combining them. For example, a shoe might be created by forming leather
into the correct shape, but the shoemaker creates neither leather nor the shape of
the shoe. Shoemaker merely combines these two elements of being.
The consideration of the roles of form and matter led Aristotle to ask whether
there could be any such thing as a form apart from matter. Contrary to Plato,
Aristotle says that it is not. This is his way of saying that it is impossible for a
form to exist without matter, for both must be there for anything to come to be.
There can be no form of a table without any existing tables. One could talk about
a table apart from its materials, but ‘it is not a thing and something definite’. In
other words, it is not an actual table. Aristotle continues that it is evident, then,
that the forms, construed as things apart from particulars, are useless as causes, at
any rate of comings to be and of substances; this role, at any rate, is no reason for
these forms to be substances in their own right. Aristotle dismissed Plato’s forms
without empirical groundings (particular experience) and matter as “useless.”
However, a careful consideration of both Plato and Aristotle’s arguments shows
that they do not inevitably contradict each other. Aristotle countered Plato’s ideas
by saying that forms without matter could not be ‘something definite;’ they could
not actually, physically exist. Plato never claimed that forms were anything
‘definite,’ though. In fact, he specifically said that forms reside in the ‘intelligible
realm.’ If we take Plato’s intelligible realm to be not some parallel universe that
the perfect forms of everything reside in, but rather the realm of our own
thoughts and ideas, then in a way both philosophers are correct. As Aristotle said,
form cannot really exist without matter. There is no ‘house apart from bricks.’
66 However, the ideas of things can be thought of and talked about because we have
a mutual understanding of the forms of objects and ideas. This seems to be what
Plato really meant when he described forms. Students of geometry can discuss Aristotle: State and
Good Life
squares with perfectly equal sides and right angles, even if they cannot draw a
perfect square, because they all understand the form of a square.
Both Plato and Aristotle present carefully thought out arguments regarding the
nature of forms in objects. It was probably inevitable that Aristotle countered
Platonic ideas in his writings, for philosophy, like all sciences, is the process of
continually challenging previous beliefs in the search for knowledge. At first
glance, it is not apparent that Plato and Aristotle’s arguments are not truly
contradictory, especially when Aristotle so readily and openly denounces Plato’s
theory. However, it is often the case with two opposing viewpoints that the best
solution is some combination of the two, and this may be true for the question of
forms. Although it is true that forms do not exist without matter in the physical
world, having an understanding of forms as perfect conceptions of things we find
in the physical world may be necessary for understanding and talking about the
world around us.

the unit.
1. What is the primary difference between Plato and Aristotle in
understanding ‘forms’?
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
5.3 VIRTUE
Aristotle’ views about virtue can be located in two of his works :
the Nicomachean Ethics and the Eudemian Ethics. The words “Eudemian” and
“Nicomachean” were added later, perhaps because the former was edited by his
friend, Eudemus, and the latter by his son, Nicomachus. It is widely presumed
that the Nicomachean Ethics is a later and improved version of the Eudemian
Ethics. Aristotle's search for the good is a search for the highest good and he
believes that the highest good, whatever it turns out to be, has three
characteristics: it is desirable for itself, it is not desirable for the sake of some
other good and all other goods are desirable for its sake. According to Aristotle,
if we use reason well, we live well as human beings. Doing anything well needs
virtue or excellence and therefore living well consists in activities caused by the
rational soul in accordance with virtue or excellence. Living well contains in
67
doing something, not just being in a certain state or condition. It involves in those
lifelong activities that actualize the virtues of the rational part of the soul. Also,
BLOCK –III
ARISTOTLE Aristotle makes it clear that in order to be happy one must possess other goods as
well—such goods as friends, wealth and power. For Aristotle, one's happiness is
endangered if one is severely lacking in certain advantages—if, for example, one
is extremely ugly or has lost children or good friends through death. Then that
means, to a certain level, living well requires good fortune. However, Aristotle
insists, the highest good, virtuous activity, is not something that comes to us by
chance. Although we must be fortunate enough to have parents and fellow
citizens who help us become virtuous but ultimately it is we ourselves who share
much of the responsibility for acquiring and exercising the virtues.
Aristotle separates two kinds of virtue: those that relate to the part of the soul that
engages in reasoning (virtues of mind or intellect) and those that connect to the
part of the soul that cannot itself reason but is nevertheless capable of following
reason (ethical virtues, virtues of character). Intellectual virtues are in turn
divided into two sorts: those that pertain to theoretical reasoning, and those that
pertain to practical thinking.
Theoretical
reasoning
Intellectual
Virtue
Practical
Virtue thinking
Ethical Virtues of
Virtue character
Aristotle maintains that the virtues differ from the crafts and all branches of
knowledge in that the former involve appropriate emotional responses and are not
purely intellectual conditions. Likewise, every ethical virtue is a condition
midway (a “golden mean” as it is popularly known) between two other states,
one involving excess and the other deficiency. Further, Aristotle says, the virtues
are no different from technical skills: every skilled worker knows how to avoid
excess and deficiency and balances a midway between two extremes. For
instance, the courageous person judges that some dangers are worth facing and
others not and experiences fear to a degree that is appropriate to his
circumstances. The courageous man lies between the coward (who flees every
danger and experiences excessive fear) and the rash person (who judges every
danger worth facing and experiences little or no fear). Aristotle argues that this
same topography applies to every ethical virtue: all are located on a map that
places the virtues between states of excess and deficiency. However, Aristotle
highlights the fact that finding the balance or midway between excesses and
68 deficiency depends on particular context in which an individual is situated, there
is no universal way to this. Discovering the mean in any given situation is not a Aristotle: State and
Good Life
mechanical or thoughtless procedure, but requires a full and detailed
acquaintance with the circumstances. His theory explains the nature of virtue, but
what must be done on any particular occasion by a virtuous agent depends on the
circumstances. But, Aristotle makes it clear that certain emotions (meanness,
shamelessness, envy) and actions (adultery, theft, murder) are always wrong,
regardless of the circumstances.
The initial point for practical reasoning: Practical reasoning always assumes that
one has some end, some goal one is trying to achieve; and the task of reasoning is
to decide how that goal is to be reached. It has to be kept in mind that practical
reasoning is correct only if it begins from a correct premise. Then what is it that
assures the correctness of its starting point? Aristotle answers: “Virtue makes the
goal right, practical wisdom the things leading to it”. A good person starts from
meaningful concrete ends because his habits and emotional orientation have
given him the ability to know that such goals are within reach, here and now.
Those who are flawed in character may have the rational skill needed to achieve
their ends—the skill Aristotle calls cleverness but often the ends they seek are
worthless. The cause of this deficiency lies not in some impairment in their
capacity to reason but in the training of their passions. Aristotle reasons that the
happiest kind of life is that of a philosopher, someone who exercises, over a long
period of time, the virtue of theoretical wisdom and has sufficient resources for
doing so. One of his reasons for thinking that philosopher’s life is superior to the
second-best kind of life—that of a political leader, someone who devotes himself
to the exercise of practical rather than theoretical wisdom—is that it requires less
external equipment. The grandest expression of ethical virtue requires great
political power because it is the political leader who is in a position to do the
greatest amount of good for the community. The person who selects to lead a
political life and who targets at the fullest expression of practical wisdom, has a
standard for deciding what level of resources he needs: he should have friends,
property and honours in sufficient quantities to allow his practical wisdom to
express itself without obstruction. But if one selects instead the life of a
philosopher, then one will look to a different standard—the fullest expression of
theoretical wisdom—and one will need a lesser supply of these resources. If one
opts for the life of a philosopher, then one should keep the level of one's
resources high enough to secure the leisure necessary for such a life but not so
high that one's external equipment becomes a liability and a disturbance rather
than an aid to living well. The philosopher will need to determine, in particular
situations, where justice lies, how to spend wisely, when to meet or avoid a
danger and so on. All of the normal problems of ethical life remain and they can
be solved only by means of a comprehensive understanding of the particulars of
each situation. Having philosophy as one's ultimate aim does not put an end to
the need for evolving and exercising practical wisdom and the ethical virtues.
Aristotle believes that the intellectual virtues were acquired by inheritance and
education and the ethical ones through the imitation of practice and 69
habit. According to Aristotle the highest virtue is intellectual contemplation. In
BLOCK –III
ARISTOTLE addition, Aristotle mentions twelve virtues and they are as follows:
 Courage – bravery and valour (mean between cowardice and rashness)

 Temperance – self-control and restraint (mean between insensibility and
over-indulgence)
 Generosity (mean between stinginess and extravagance)
 Magnanimity (mean between pettiness and vulgarity)
 Pride – self-confidence (mean between timidity and conceit)
 Proper ambition (mean between under-ambition and over-ambition)
 Good Temper – equanimity, level headedness (mean between impassivity
and ill-temper)
 Friendliness and friendship – conviviality and sociability on the one hand
and camaraderie and companionship on the other (mean between
unfriendliness and flattery)
 Truthfulness – straightforwardness, frankness and candour (mean
between false modesty and boastfulness)
 Wit – sense of humor – meaninglessness and absurdity (mean between
humourlessness and buffoonery)
 Proper shame – (mean between shamelessness and excessive shame)
 Justice – impartiality, even-handedness and fairness (mean between
malice and envy)
Aristotle’s virtue theory has been criticised for various reasons. Scholars like
Grotius feel that many of the virtues enlisted by Aristotle are not following the
mean between extreme vices. For thinkers like Kant, without moral principles,
misapplied virtues become vices. For philosophers like J.S. Mill, morality
involves judging actions and not character traits. In spite of all these criticism’,
Aristotle’s vision on virtues are reference points for political theorists of all
times.

the unit.
1. Explain two main types of virtues identified by Aristotle.
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
70
2. Mention twelve virtues of individual emphasised by Aristotle in an ideal Aristotle: State and
Good Life
polis.
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
5.4 STATE AND GOOD LIFE

For Aristotle, the state is a community of persons. Every community has definite
aim and that aim is good. As a community, the state has an aim and that aim is
also good. Nevertheless, the state is not an ordinary community. It is the premier
of all communities and naturally its aim shall be the highest or supreme. The state
being the highest association enjoys the highest position in the social structure.
Aristotle being a biologist treated the state as a natural living being consisting of
many small parts/units. For Aristotle, the state exists by nature. Aristotle states
that the state is characterized by natural growth. However, during its different
stages of progress, man-made laws and conventions have intervened. Aristotle
believes that in the evolution of state as a community, laws and conventions
played a positive role. Laws and conventions are basically good and man has
made them to serve their beneficial objectives. These laws and conventions have
facilitated and enriched the functioning of the state.
In its natural development, the state witnessed various stages. For Aristotle, the
first stage of the state is the household. The union between male and female
forms the basis of family. Again, the union between male and female is vital for
reproduction, since each is powerless without the other. This is not a matter of
choice. It is the result of desire implanted by nature and this desire is to be found
in all animals. Family includes other constituents such as slave, ox and plough.
Without these constituents, a family cannot maintain its own physical existence.
In Aristotle’s definition: “This association of persons, established according to
the law of nature and continuing day after day, is the household.” The household
is the basic form of association and meets the basic necessities. But man’s
necessities are various and naturally, it is beyond the capacity of the family to
satisfy those demands.
Several families come together and form a village to fulfil the greater demands
and necessities. It generally comes into being naturally. The village, though
higher than the family, cannot cope with the growing demands of its members.
When several villages come together, they form a Polis or State. Thus, Aristotle
states, “The final association formed of several villages is the city or state. For all
practical purposes the process is now complete. Self-sufficiency has been reached
and so, while it started as a means of securing life itself, it is now in position to 71
secure the good life”. Aristotle notes that besides securing life itself, it has also a
greater purpose, that is, to secure a good life. Securing good life is the ultimate
BLOCK –III
ARISTOTLE aim of both individual and community. The state is a perfectly natural form of
association, as the earlier associations from which it evolved were natural. This
final stage of association is the end of those others and its nature is itself an end.
The state alone meets all the needs of man, it is alone self-sufficient. Household
and village are not self-sufficient. They could meet only a fragment of man’s
necessities. We have already discussed that, according to Aristotle, for the sake
of good life the use of both ethical and intellectual virtues is very much vital and
the former requires the easy availability of sufficient amount of external goods.
Only the state with an adequate size and sufficient population can guarantee the
smooth supply of external goods. In Aristotle’s vision, man seeks to satisfy his
physical or material demands to attain good life. Any institution or community
other than state is insufficient. Therefore, the membership of state is essential.
Aristotle says that man is by nature a political animal. The term political animal
means an animal that lives in state or polis. Nature has stimulated and
encouraged man to be a part of the state. Aristotle believes that it was not
possible for man to live outside the state. It is the state that fulfils all his
requirements. If due to inevitable bad luck, a man fails to get membership of
polis then he will come down to the level of sub-man. On the other hand, if
anybody refuses to live in a state he may be regarded as a superman/God. It is the
basic nature of man to live in a state. Aristotle declares that, nature does nothing
without purpose and for the purpose of making man a political animal, she has
gifted him alone among the animals with the power of reasoned speech and other
good qualities. The consequence of the term political animal is man is reasonable
and with the power of reason, he can distinguish between good and bad; right and
wrong; just and unjust. According to Aristotle, reasonability is the basis of
sharing a common view in the matters that make a household or city. The
fundamental difference between man and other animals is that man possesses
consciousness and reasonability while other animals do not have these qualities.
These unique qualities enable man to form organisation and also pursue a good
life.
Aristotle’s theory of state is organic in nature—which means that the state is a
compounded whole. He has made distinction between “aggregate” and “whole”.
The aggregate means that different parts of a thing are put together to make a
unit. By their association, the parts make a unity. But the whole means a different
thing. The polis or state is a whole. The state has several parts. But when they are
put together, the unity will have a different meaning. The state is not a mere
aggregate of individuals. Its members are not atomized individuals connected to
one another only by the fact that they inhabit the same territory. When the
individuals form a whole they share a joint activity and simultaneously lose their
separateness. It is important to note that for Aristotle if the parts are separated
from the whole, they will be useless. This is the organic theory of state. Aristotle
has said that the polis or state has priority over the household and over any
individual. For the whole must be prior to the parts. Separate hand or foot from
72 the whole body and they will no longer be hand or foot. Only the membership of
state makes man self-sufficient and helps him fulfil his ambition and also to be Aristotle: State and
Good Life
moral and virtuous. Although man is a part of the whole, he will stand in the
same relationship to the whole as other parts. It indicates that the individual will
be able to keep his separate identity intact. In the state the individuals will
perform different functions, but these functions are complementary. By claiming
that the membership of the polis does not destroy the separate identity of man
and group, Aristotle has recognised the plurality of parts composing the state.
According to Aristotle, the individual can achieve morality and goodness only
through the membership of and subordination to the state. He cannot have rights
and liberties apart from the state or against the state. The individual, though not
merged with the state, is completely dependent upon the state for pursuit of his
moral and ethical objectives. Aristotle holds that without the membership of the
state, the lofty ideals of individuals will remain unfulfilled.
Like many other philosophers, Aristotle placed self-preservation as the basic
reason for man agreeing to form higher associations, particularly the state. No
question of compromise can arise in respect of personal protection. But if the
purpose of the individual is to help the polis in achieving the common good, then
the opinion of the state will always predominate and the individual must submit
to the state. For all other purposes, other than self-preservation, man must
sacrifice himself for the sake of the common good embodied in the state.
Aristotle is embedded in Greek philosophy which always thinks of the
community as a whole. The view of the individual cannot get precedence over
that of the state.
For Aristotle, the objective of the state is to make the life of the individual noble
and happy. This is the most important function. But the state must also look after
the security and general welfare of its citizens. According to Aristotle, a real state
is concerned with both outward and inward actions of man. If the state makes
itself busy only with the outward actions, it will do only half of its functions.
Aristotle has stressed upon education. Education is the most powerful weapon for
making men good or for training them in virtue. Education can be imparted by
the institutions set up by the state. On this point, Aristotle and Plato have
common understanding. The object of institutions should be to train men to
goodness, to intellectual, moral and physical excellence. The state should be the
school of citizens. The state in Aristotle’s theory is a reformatory. As the state is
the supreme organization, it is entitled to look after the interests of all men in a
balanced way which no other association or institution can do.
For Aristotle, the good life is ensured by the state when according to the
specificity of the person and his circumstances, moral practices can be chosen.
The state facilitates choices for good life which is particular to each individual.
For Aristotle, political entity, that is, the state, is a precondition for good life.
Human excellence can be realised only under the aegis of correct compulsive
norms and just laws of a state. The primary function of the state is character
formation as man is not born with characters, but acquire them in a given context.
Cultural rules, proper educational training and right laws of the state help human 73
beings to acquire good character. In such a situation, human beings know why
they choose what they choose in given circumstances. For Aristotle, good life
BLOCK –III
ARISTOTLE falls into three levels. They are life of pleasure, life of honour/virtue and life of
contemplation. Life of pleasure is sought by the masses. Life of honour/virtue is
sought by people in positions of power. Life of contemplation is chosen by a very
few persons who understand the incompleteness of life in pleasures and honour.
They think more about life. They try to understand the life beyond the immediate
given circumstances. For this, rationality is a primary requirement. Therefore,
ideally good life for human beings is not about nutrition and growth (plants also
do it). Good life is also not about sentience (horses and other animals also do it).
Good life is about rationality, the ability to think. For Aristotle, soul and body are
inseparable. Humans exercise excellence of soul to think rationally, to choose an
option of living in a given situation (animals and children cannot do this). Here,
the ability to exercise one’s virtue is more important than merely possessing
virtue. Therefore, for Aristotle, soul and body act together to define good life.

the unit.
1. Explain the organic nature of the Aristotelian state.
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
5.5 CRITICISM OF ARISTOTLE’S STATE AND

GOOD LIFE
Aristotle’s theory of state has been criticised for subsuming individual and all
other associations under the state. His state is seen as a totalitarian state. In the
vision of Aristotle, there is hardly any scope for the individual to think in his own
way and to do something independently.
According to Aristotle, the state is all-embracing and it leaves no room for the
individual’s freedom. The morality, ethics and idealism of the state and that of
the individual are inseparable and same. Since the state is the highest association,
it is quite capable of accepting the responsibility of helping and enriching the
moral and ideal values to which the individual aspires. So the individual must be
subordinate to the state and not vice versa. If the reverse is accepted then the
authority of the state as the supreme organisation will be challenged and the non-
existence of the state will suggest the non-fulfilment of the goals. Again, this is
unacceptable. Hence, the subordination of the individual to the state is a must.
74
This type of subordination of individual to the state—which may also be Aristotle: State and
Good Life
described as totalitarian, authoritarian or paternalistic—is undoubtedly
recommended by Aristotle. He thinks that people want to be happy and their
happiness is required to be maximum. This is possible only if the state takes steps
in making legislation and regulating the entire educational system. That means,
the state-controlled education and state-sponsored laws are the only weapons of
attaining happiness. The state is the only authority of all the enterprises and the
individual has no choice. There is no alternative but subordination.
His concept of organic theory of state is also a powerful hint of totalitarianism. In
an animal body the parts have no importance away from the whole. Although this
is true, yet the same cannot hold good for the relationship between the individual
and the state. The state is essential for the individual no doubt, but it cannot claim
to embrace all the aspects of his life. The state can fulfil a part of human demands
but not all the demands. For complete satisfaction and happiness, the individual
seeks the membership of different organizations. Aristotelian state cannot tolerate
this. It is absolutely unintelligible how a political association can make all its
inhabitants moral, ethical and ideal single-handedly. It is both physically
impossible and morally unjustifiable. No person or organization can take the
absolute guardianship of all individuals. Aristotle’s polis is a community and not
an association, because men value it for its own sake and not just as a means to
the fulfilment of separate individual ends. If this is the nature of Aristotle’s polis,
the individual finds no honourable position in the state. Any form of defiance to
the state is seen as irrationality on the part of individuals. Rationality of the
individual is equated with unconditional surrender to the state.

the unit.
1. Do you think Aristotle’s state is totalitarian in nature? Justify your
answer.
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
5.6 LET US SUM UP

In spite of all the criticism, one cannot ignore the fact that Aristotle’s state came
into existence to preserve life and continues to exist to ensure good life. Thus, we
could see that for Aristotle a state is not a mere society, having a common place,
established for the prevention of mutual crime and for the sake of exchange. 75
These are conditions without which a state cannot exist; but all of them together
BLOCK –III
ARISTOTLE do not constitute a state, which is a community of families and aggregations of
families in well-being, for the sake of a perfect and self-sufficing life. Such a
community can only be established among those who live in the same place and
intermarry. Hence, there arise in cities family connexions, brotherhoods, common
sacrifices, amusements which draw men together. But these are created by
friendships for to choose to live together is friendship. The end of the state is the
good life and these are the means towards it. The state is the union of families
and villages in a perfect and self-sufficient life, by which we mean a happy and
honourable life. Then, the conclusion is that political society exists for the sake of
noble actions and not for living together. Those who contribute most to such a
society have a greater share in it than those who have nobility of birth or wealth.
Aristotle brought theory of the state to empirical world. Aristotle amply
understood the impact of changing context on changing nature of the state. In the
next chapter, we can see in detail how Aristotle has propounded classification of
constitution to highlight variations in state formations.
5.7 REFERENCES
A. Skoble and T. Machan. (2007). Political Philosophy: Essential Selections.
New Delhi: Pearson Education. pp. 53-64.
T. Burns. (2009). ‘Aristotle’, in D. Boucher and P. Kelly. (eds.). Political

Thinkers: From Socrates to the Present. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp.
81-99.
C. Taylor. (1995). ‘Politics’. in J. Barnes. (ed.). The Cambridge Companion to

Aristotle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 232-258.
D. Hutchinson. (1995). ‘Ethics’, in J. Barnes. (ed.). The Cambridge Companion

to Aristotle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 195-232.

EXERCISES
1. Contrary to Plato, Aristotle says that there is no difference. This is his
way of saying that it is impossible for a form to exist without matter, for
both must be there for anything to come to be. There can be no form of a
table without any existing tables. One could talk about a table apart from
its materials, but ‘it is not a thing and something definite’. In other words,
it is not an actual table. Aristotle continues that it is evident, then, that the
forms, construed as things apart from particulars, are useless as causes, at
any rate of comings to be and of substances; this role, at any rate, is no
reason for these forms to be substances in their own right. Aristotle
dismissed Plato’s forms without empirical groundings (particular
76 experience) and matter as “useless.”
Check Your Progress Exercise 2 Aristotle: State and
Good Life
1. Aristotle separates two kinds of virtue: those that relate to the part of the
soul that engages in reasoning (virtues of mind or intellect) and those that
connect to the part of the soul that cannot itself reason but is nevertheless
capable of following reason (ethical virtues, virtues of character).
Intellectual virtues are in turn divided into two sorts: those that pertain to
theoretical reasoning, and those that pertain to practical thinking.
2. Courage, Temperance, Generosity, Magnanimity, Pride, Proper ambition,
Good Temper, Friendliness and friendship, Truthfulness, Wit , Proper
shame and Justice.

1. For Aristotle, the basic unit of political community is formed when a man
and a woman with slaves and children form a family. Families come
together to form villages. Then villages come together to form a state.
The parts (individuals, families and villages) are subservient to the whole
(state).

1. (a) The morality, ethics and idealism of the state and that of the individual
are inseparable and same. (b) The state-controlled education and state-
sponsored laws are the only weapons of attaining happiness. (c) It is
absolutely unintelligible how a political association can make all its
inhabitants moral, ethical and ideal single-handedly. It is both physically
impossible and morally unjustifiable.
77
BLOCK –III UNIT 6 ARISTOTLE: CITIZENSHIP AND THE
ARISTOTLE
RULE OF LAW (PRESENTATION THEMES:
CLASSICIFICATION OF GOVERNMENTS, MAN
⁎
AS ZOON POLITIKON)
Structure
6.0 Objectives
6.1 Aristotle Science
6.2 Aristotle’s Views on Human Nature
6.3 Citizenship
6.4 Justice and Rule of law
6.5 Classification of Governments
6.6 Aristotle and Contemporary Relevance
6.7 Let Us Sum Up
6.8 References
6.0 OBJECTIVES
The objective of this unit is to understand the way Aristotle saw integrity of
different branches of knowledge and how he viewed science. This unit throws
light on the fact that human nature defines political structure of a particular
community. How Aristotle perceived citizenship, justice and classification of
governments have been discussed in this unit. By analysing these concepts and
categories, we realise continuities and changes in political discourses over the
years. Understanding Aristotle and his relevance is important for the present
generation to understand how political science of today came into existence.
6.1 ARISTOTLE’S SCIENCE

For Aristotle, reality of the physical world is important. The source of our
knowledge is perception of the physical world which is the consequence of
particular sensations. Aristotle believes in inductive method based on sensations
to reach knowledge from particular to general. For this reason, Aristotle
perceives science as a product of cognitive quality of persons engaged in search
of knowledge. He emphasises on change and plurality of truth we experience.
Science for Aristotle is a product of three things coming together, namely,
production of something, practical action and theoretical contemplation. All three
⁎
Dr. Rashmi Gopi, Assistant Professor, Miranda House, University of Delhi
78
aspects are connected and unified. Thus, for Aristotle, science is based on Aristotle: Citizenship
and the Rule of Law
concrete physical reality and arena of ethics.
Aristotle highlights the fact that the condition in which people fixed their states
of mind influences social behaviour. But once condition in which people live
changes, then state of mind takes more time to change. The sciences which are
dependent more on human behaviour are identified as ‘inexact sciences’ by
Aristotle. ‘Inexact sciences’ are less universal, precise and stable as ‘concrete
sciences’ based on physical world. Unlike Plato, Aristotle believes that all men
by nature, seek knowledge and all have a potentiality for knowledge. The
function of man is to engage in moral and rational activities seeking possessions
of their good. The aim of science of politics as a branch of philosophy is action.
Politics is not metaphysical. Aristotle says that men like Pericles are judged to be
prudent and political experts par excellence. But people like him are incapable of
teaching their knowledge as they rarely sat and wrote what they know. Therefore,
Aristotle concludes that science of politics is specialised by those who study it
systematically. In science of politics, theorists and practicing politicians are
equally important.
To study nature, Aristotle believes, one has to begin with observation and
experience. People talk about kinds/categories of things. People trust their
experiences more than theories. Therefore, Aristotle observes that natural and
political science theories must be examined and tested against experiences, not
by another specialist but by everyman. Aristotle speaks about scientific method
from the point of view of an anthropocentrism because it is only from human
point of view that we know anything at all. Perception and thinking of human is
important and through language it is conveyed to others. Therefore, before we
start to systematise the ‘scientific’ disciplines and their respective subject matter,
we need to study mind’s own workings and its consistent arguments (logic).
For Aristotle, logic is rational quality of mind. Through speaking, people display
logical ways of thinking. Aristotle gives significance to logic. He states that
without a reflection on the rules which govern the expression of our thoughts, we
would not be able to say anything conclusive about our knowledge of reality.
Logic does not discover facts about the world but provides a system to articulate
what we think we know. Logic does not guarantee a correct starting point of
study. For correct starting point all intellectual learning should start from pre-
existing knowledge by wise men. Aristotle’s logical writings were grouped
together in the sixth century C.E. under the name Organon (tool of analysis).
For Aristotle, language plays a significant role in scientific study. Language
reflects the way we think of individual things and we think through naming
things in common. Intuition enables us to pick out the universal in the particular.
For Aristotle, knowable is prior to knowledge. Actual things are already existing,
that we acquire knowledge about them. Perceptible is prior to perception. When
we state something about a subject, then we do two things, we name it and we
define it. The logos (set of words) which indicates the essence of a subject does
79
not change over time or culture. It is because, the elements of the definition are
BLOCK –III
ARISTOTLE prior, more universal and intelligible absolutely than any particular subject.
According to Aristotle, nature has a purpose (telos), whether conscious or
unconscious. It is constructive. Its purpose is observable. Telos helps to explain
reality as intelligibly structured. It sees nature as in motion – from potential to
actual. Therefore, man as part of nature is also ‘goal-oriented’. Definitions
express the actualized purpose of things. For Aristotle, definitions are a
combination of human thought and human language. Definitions are best
provided by the experienced and wise down the ages. Aristotle makes it clear that
all facts of life handed down by wise men should be tested against one’s own
experience. This is because human beings are not pure intellects, but creatures of
flesh and blood, body and mind. Human beings are desirous and cognitive within
a physiological state as well as members of cultural communities. Definitions are
set of words which shows the essence of a thing. Dialectician provides reasons
for choosing one definition as opposed to another. Aristotle understands dialectic
as a method of analysing the consistency of plausible arguments. It precedes
practical and theoretical. Aristotle’s dialectic is a tool to help analyse commonly
accepted views that emerge from premises within a given community. Dialectic
enables a discussant to reason more clearly and without contradiction in
arguments with others in his community. It is a skill in speaking between two
competitive opponents. In dialectic engagement, premise is important to know
the accepted thesis amongst wise. Intention is to reach closer to truth and not
display of skill in argument. Aristotle uses dialectical method in ethics and
politics. In the following sections, we will see how Aristotle developed his ideas
about human nature, citizenship, rule of law and classification of governments.

the unit.
1. What is science for Aristotle?
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
6.2 ARISTOTLE’S VIEWS OF HUMAN NATURE

For Aristotle, man is by nature social being, political being and ethical being.
80 Human beings are social beings, because they are always to be found living
together with others in society or in a polis. Additionally, however, Aristotle Aristotle: Citizenship
and the Rule of Law
considers it to be a ‘characteristic of man that he alone has any sense of good and
evil, of just and unjust’. According to Aristotle, then, man is by nature an ethical
being. In Aristotle’s view, for human beings a natural life is a life of justice. This
is what differentiates the human species from other species of animals. Only if
human beings live a life of justice, do they satisfy the requirements of their own
nature and thereby, become proper human beings. For Aristotle, the ultimate aim
of politics is to enable this process of personal development to take place. It is
political society that makes it possible for human beings to live a ‘good life’ in
this sense of the term. To fulfil one’s potential as a human being in this way is to
achieve a condition called by Aristotle as ‘eudaimonia’. This term can be
translated as fulfilment in English language. In Aristotle’s view, the achievement
of eudaimonia necessarily requires that there be rules or laws which serve as a
standard of right and wrong for individual moral agents. For Aristotle, in the final
analysis, these rules are the principles of ‘political justice’ of the polis in which
they live. As an ethical life is possible only in political society, Aristotle’s views
on ethics and politics are closely related to one another. Aristotle states that the
study of politics is the ‘highest master science’ because it incorporates within
itself the study of ethics. The study of politics tells us what we ought to do and
what we ought not to do.
6.3 CITIZENSHIP
Aristotle discusses about who a citizen is in his work named Politics. He begins
with a definition of the citizen, since the city-state is by nature a collective entity,
a multitude of citizens. Citizens are differentiated from other inhabitants, such as
women, children and elderly members of city-states on the one hand, resident
aliens and slaves on the other hand. After more analysis, he defines the citizen as
a person who has the right to participate in deliberative or judicial office. For
instance, in Athens citizens had the right to attend the assembly, the council and
other bodies or to sit on juries. The Athenian system varied from a modern
representative democracy in that the citizens were more directly involved in
governing. Although full citizenship was restricted in the Greek city-states (with
women, slaves, foreigners and some others excluded), the citizens were more
deeply enfranchised than in modern representative democracies because they
were more directly involved in governing. This is reflected in Aristotle's
definition of the citizen (without qualification). Further, he defines the city-state
as a multitude of such citizens which is adequate for a self-sufficient life.
He excludes certain categories of people from the ranks of citizenship:
 “‘made’ citizens” (a sort of honorary title, in the sense that a university

might confer an honorary doctorate)
 mere residence in the area governed by a polis does not count as
citizenship: slaves and resident aliens are not citizens
 women
81
 people who by law have access to the legal system, but who otherwise
BLOCK –III
ARISTOTLE would not qualify as citizens (foreigners covered by commercial treaties,
for instance)
 boys too young for military service and old men retired from duty may be
citizens, but not fully-fledged ones: they are a sort of semi-citizen
 people who have been exiled or stripped of their rights
But Aristotle acknowledges that citizenship is defined differently in different

places depending on the nature of the constitution. Aristotle highlights that
though citizenship is often reserved for those who are born to citizen parents, this
hereditary status becomes irrelevant in times of revolution or constitutional
change, during which the body of citizens alters. This brings the question: to
whom may citizenship be justly granted and can the city be held accountable for
decisions made by governing individuals if these individuals have not been justly
granted citizenship? Further, if the city is not identical to its government, what
explains a city, and at what point does a city miss its identity? Aristotle points out
that a city is defined by its constitution, so that a change in constitution signifies
a change in the city. He does not, however, answer the question of whether a city
should honour debts and obligations made under a previous constitution.
Aristotle asks the question of “whether the virtue of the good man and the
excellent citizen is to be regarded as the same or as not the same”. For Aristotle,
definition of the good man is the one who pursues his telos, living a life in
accordance with virtue and finding happiness by doing so. Because there are
several different types of regime (six, to be specific, which will be considered in
more detail shortly), there are several different types of good citizen. Good
citizens must have the type of virtue that preserves the partnership and the
regime. As there are indeed several forms of regime, it is clear that it is not
possible for the virtue of the excellent citizen to be single or complete virtue.
There is only one situation in which the virtue of the good citizen and excellent
man are the same and this is when the citizens are living in a city that is under the
ideal regime: “In the case of the best regime, [the citizen] is one who is capable
of and intentionally chooses being ruled and ruling with a view to the life in
accordance with virtue”. For those of us not living in the ideal regime, the ideal
citizen is one who follows the laws and supports the principles of the regime,
whatever that regime is. That this may well require us to act differently than the
good man would act and to believe things that the good man knows to be false is
one of the unfortunate tragedies of political life.
There is the further question of whether manual labourers can be citizens.
Aristotle acknowledges that they are necessary to a city but states that not
everyone who is necessary to the city can be a citizen: good citizenship requires
that the citizen be free from the necessary tasks of life. These are the people who
must work for a living. Such people lack the leisure time necessary for political
participation and the study of philosophy. In the ideal city they would play no
part in political life because their necessary tasks prevent them from developing
82 their minds and taking an active part in ruling the city. Their existence, like those
of the slaves and the women, is for the benefit of the free male citizens. Still, in
oligarchies, in which citizenship is determined by wealth, a rich manual labourer Aristotle: Citizenship
and the Rule of Law
may qualify for citizenship. In regimes where the citizens are similar and equal
by nature – which in practice is all of them – all citizens should be allowed to
participate in politics, though not all at once. They must take turns, ruling and
being ruled in turn. This means that citizenship is not just a set of privileges, it is
also a set of duties. The citizen has certain freedoms that non-citizens do not
have, but he also has obligations (political participation and military service) that
they do not have.
Aristotle's suggestion that a citizen is someone who shares in the deliberative or
judicial offices of a city may seem odd to the modern reader, as very few people
in the twentieth century would count as citizens by this definition. In the polis, on
the other hand, involvement in the affairs of the city defined one's identity to a
large extent. Though there were certain leaders concerned exclusively with the
government of the city, all citizens were required to contribute in some way.
Assemblies of citizens made decisions in bodies whose modern equivalents are
law courts and city councils and these assemblies would rotate membership so
that every citizen served a specific term. The only aspect of this system that
remains in modern times is jury duty.

the unit.
1. Explain human nature as understood by Aristotle.
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
2. Explain the grounds on which Aristotle defined citizenship.
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
83
BLOCK –III 6.4 JUSTICE AND RULE OF LAW
ARISTOTLE
After working with Plato at his Academy for a couple of decades, Aristotle was
understandably most influenced by his teacher, also adopting, for example, a
virtue theory of ethics. Yet part of Aristotle’s greatness stems from his capacity
for critical appropriation, and he became arguably Plato’s most able critic as well
as his most famous follower in wanting to develop a credible alternative to
Sophism. Book V of his great Nicomachean Ethics deals in detail with the moral
and political virtue of justice. It begins arbitrarily with the circular claim that it is
the condition that renders us just agents inclined to desire and practice
justice. But his analysis soon becomes more enlightening when he specifies it in
terms of what is lawful and fair. What is in accordance with the law of a state is
thought to be advantageous to the common good and/or to that of its rulers. In
general, citizens should obey such law in order to be just. The problem is that
civil law can itself be unjust in the sense of being unfair to some, so that we need
to consider special justice as a function of fairness. He analyses this into two
sorts: distributive justice includes dividing benefits and burdens fairly among
members of a community, while corrective justice needs us, in some
circumstances, to try to restore a fair balance in interpersonal relations where it
has been lost. If a member of a community has been unfairly benefited or
burdened with more or less than is deserved in the way of social distributions,
then corrective justice can be required, as, for example, by a court of law. Notice
that Aristotle is no more an egalitarian than Plato was, while a sort of social
reciprocity may be needed, it must be of a proportional sort rather than
equal. Like all moral virtues, for Aristotle, justice is a rational mean between bad
extremes. Proportional equality or equity involves the “intermediate” position
between someone’s unfairly getting “less” than is deserved and unfairly getting
“more” at another’s expense. The “mean” of justice lies between the vices of
getting too much and getting too little, relative to what one deserves, these being
two opposite types of injustice, one of “disproportionate excess,” the other of
disproportionate “deficiency”. Proportional equality emphasises that those who
are equal ought to be treated equally as their circumstances are similar. Those
who are not equal in a relevant respect ought not to be treated equally. This
means that unequals ought to be treated differently provided the difference in
treatment is proportional to the inequality that exists between them.
Political justice is held to apply only to those who are citizens of a political
community (a polis) by virtue of being “free and either proportionately or
numerically equal,” those whose interpersonal relations are governed by the rule
of law, for law is a prerequisite of political justice and injustice. Nonetheless,
since individuals tend to be selfishly biased, the law should be a product of
reason rather than of particular rulers. Aristotle is prepared to distinguish
between what is naturally just and unjust. He also speaks of a particular system of
taxation for some particular society to deliver justice. Aristotle discusses the
relationship between justice and decency, for sometimes following the letter of
84
the law would violate fairness or reasonable equity. A decent person might
selfishly benefit from being a stickler regarding following the law exactly, but Aristotle: Citizenship
and the Rule of Law
decides to take less or give more for the sake of the common good. In this way,
decency can correct the limitations of the law and represents a higher form of
justice.
In his Politics, Aristotle further considers political justice and its relation to
equality. For Aristotle, justice involves equality “not for everyone, only for
equals.” He agrees with Plato that political democracy is essentially unjust,
because, by its very nature, it tries to treat unequals as if they were
equals. Justice rather requires ‘inequality’ for people who are ‘unequal’. But,
then, oligarchy is also intrinsically unjust in so far as it involves treating equals as
unequal because of some contingent disparity of birth and wealth. Rather, those
in a just political society who contribute the most to the common good will
obtain a larger share, because they thus exhibit more political virtue, than those
who are inferior in that respect; it would be simply wrong, from the perspective
of political justice, for them to receive equal shares. Therefore, political justice
must be viewed as a function of the common good of a community. Aristotle
acknowledges that it is the attempt to specify the equality or inequality among
people that constitutes a key ‘problem’ of ‘political philosophy.’ He considers,
we can all readily agree, that political justice requires ‘proportional’ rather than
numerical equality. But inferiors have a vested interest in thinking that those
who are equal in some respect should be equal in all respects, while superiors are
biased, in the opposite direction, to imagine that those who are unequal in some
way should be unequal in all ways. Thus, for instance, those who are equally
citizens are not necessarily equal in political virtue, and those who are financially
richer are not necessarily morally or mentally superior. What is relevant here is
“equality according to merit,” though Aristotle cannot precisely specify what,
exactly, counts as merit, for how much it must count, who is to measure it, and
by what standard. All he can suggest, for example in some of his comments on
the desirable aristocratic government, is that it must involve moral and
intellectual virtue.
While Plato accepted slavery as a legitimate social institution but argued for
equal opportunity for women, in his Politics, Aristotle accepts sexual inequality
while actively defending slavery. Anyone who is inferior intellectually and
morally is also socially and politically inferior in a well-ordered polis. A human
being can be naturally autonomous or not, ‘a natural slave’ being flawed in
rationality and morality, and thus naturally fit to belong to a superior; such a
human can rightly be regarded as ‘a piece of property,’ or another person’s ‘tool
for action.’ Given natural human inequality, it is supposedly unfitting that all
should rule or share in ruling. Aristotle holds that some are marked as superior
and fit to rule from birth, while others are inferior and marked from birth to be
ruled by others. This hypothetically applies not only to ethnic groups, but also to
the genders and he unequivocally asserts that males are “naturally superior” and
females “naturally inferior,” the former being fit to rule and the latter to be 85
ruled. The claim is that it is naturally better for women themselves that they be
BLOCK –III
ARISTOTLE ruled by men, as it is better for “natural slaves” that they should be ruled by those
who are “naturally free.” Aristotle does argue only for natural slavery. He
opposes custom slavery wherein in ancient period conquered enemies were made
prisoners of war and slaves. Aristotle (like Plato) believes that Greeks are born
for free and rational self-rule, unlike non-Greeks (“barbarians”), who are
naturally inferior and incapable of it. So the fact that a human being is defeated
or captured is no assurance that he is fit for slavery, as an unjust war may have
been imposed on a nobler society by a more primitive one. While granting that
Greeks and non-Greeks, as well as men and women, are all truly human,
Aristotle justifies the alleged inequality among them based on what he calls the
‘deliberative’ capacity of their rational souls. The natural slave’s rational soul
supposedly lacks this, a woman has it but it lacks the authority for her to be
autonomous, a (free male) child has it in some developmental stage, and a
naturally superior free male has it developed and available for governance.
Aristotle’s theory of justice has been criticised in modern times for being highly
racist, sexist and for completely ignoring notions of human rights. Aristotle’s
theory of justice fails adequately to respect all persons as free and rational
agents. Aristotle was so focused on the ways in which people are unequal, that
he could not appreciate any fundamental moral equality that might provide a
platform for natural human rights.

the unit.
1. Explain the proportional equality propounded by Aristotle.
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
6.5 CLASSIFICATION OF GOVERNMENTS

As we have seen that Aristotle places the state above individuals, we have to
understand that this state was contextual for Aristotle. Aristotle realised that
different contexts will lead to formation of different types of states and
governments. In Aristotle’s writings, he has interchangeably used the words
governments and constitutions. Therefore, here we are also using the term
86 government and constitution interchangeably. Aristotle differentiates several
types of rule, based on the nature of the soul of the ruler and of the subject. He Aristotle: Citizenship
and the Rule of Law
first reflects on despotic rule, which is exemplified in the master-slave
relationship. Aristotle thinks that this form of rule is justified in the case of
natural slaves who lack a deliberative faculty and thus need a natural master to
direct them. Though a natural slave allegedly aids from having a master, despotic
rule is still primarily for the sake of the master and only incidentally for the slave.
Aristotle next considers paternal and marital rule, which he also views as
defensible. For him, the male is by nature more capable of leadership than the
female, unless he is constituted in some way contrary to nature and by nature the
elder and perfect are more capable than the younger and imperfect (these points
we have already discussed). This sets the stage for the central claim of Aristotle's
constitutional theory that constitutions which aim at the common advantage are
correct and just without qualification, whereas those which aim only at the
advantage of the rulers are deviant and unjust because they involve despotic rule
which is inappropriate for a community of free persons.
Aristotle's constitutional theory is based on his theory of justice, which is
expounded in Nicomachean Ethics. Aristotle distinguishes two different but
related senses of “justice” (universal and particular) both of which play an
important role in his constitutional theory. Firstly, in the universal sense “justice”
means “lawfulness” and is concerned with the common advantage and happiness
of the political community. The conception of universal justice shapes the
distinction between correct (just) and deviant (unjust) constitutions. But what
exactly the “common advantage” (koinionsumpheron) entails is a matter of
scholarly controversy. Secondly, in the particular sense “justice” means
“equality” or “fairness”, and this includes distributive justice, according to which
different individuals have just claims to shares of some common asset such as
property. Aristotle analyses arguments for and against the different constitutions
as different applications of the principle of distributive justice.
The distinction between correct and deviant constitutions is combined with the
observation that the government may consist of one person, a few, or a multitude.
Hence, there are six possible constitutional forms:
Number of rulers Correct Deviant
One Ruler Kingship Tyranny
Few Rulers Aristocracy Oligarchy
Many Rulers Polity Democracy
Aristotle discusses various forms of constitutions in his book Politics. There are
three whose nature is correct (orthaí), namely kingship (the good rule of one
man), aristocracy (the good rule of few), and republic or polity (the good rule of
the majority) and three whose nature is corrupted or deviated (parekbáseis),
namely tyranny (the perverted rule of one man), oligarchy (the perverted rule of 87
few), and democracy (the perverted rule of the majority). This means thus, that
BLOCK –III
ARISTOTLE good political rule can take various and heterogeneous institutional forms, which
produce thus, different legitimate ways of solving the problem of sovereign
authority within the city. In this theoretical scheme, even though kingship
appears as the system that exhibits the most elevated concentration of power and
whose monocratic nature would seem, at least on a first approach, counteract
what is proper of the political organization of the city, the rule put into practice
by a king is explicitly stated as a form of government as legitimate as that is
found in an aristocracy or even in a republic, since the principle that defines the
essence of the genuine exercise of political power - the search of the common
interest or of the public good - is entirely contemplated and preserved by it.
Aristotle seeks to show how each of the right political regimes mentioned above -
kingship, aristocracy, and republic (or polity) - can be considered the best one, if
one examines the different social contexts and takes then into account the
plurality of the political and moral circumstances. Aristotle defends kingship on
two grounds. The first ground has a pure theoretical nature and bases itself on the
argument according to which, being the main purpose of political life the
achievement of virtue, if in a city an exceptional political situation takes place
concerning the emerging of a man of extraordinary or transcendent virtue, there
is no other procedure to be adopted with regard to this outstanding man but to
grant him full powers, raising him above the law itself and instituting accordingly
an absolute kingship. On the other hand, the second ground has a sociological
and historical character and proceeds from the empirical verification of the fact
that the absolute monarchical rule that exists in some nations and cities, exercised
by an actual king entrusted with unfettered powers over every issue, is the most
suited to the character of certain people and to the particular situation of some
political associations. When rule of man deviates from common good and fulfils
only one man’s interests, then that system of government slips from kingship to
tyranny (perverted form).
He observes that the dominant class in oligarchy (literally rule of the oligoi, that
is, few) is typically the wealthy, whereas in democracy (literally rule of
the dêmos, that is, people) it is the poor, so that these economic classes should be
included in the definition of these forms. Polity is characterized as a kind of
“mixed” constitution typified by rule of the “middle” group of citizens, a
moderately wealthy class between the rich and poor.
Aristotle studies a comparable range of constitutions: first, the constitution which
is best without qualification, that is, “most according to our prayers with no
external impediment”; second, the constitution that is best under the
circumstances “for it is probably impossible for many persons to attain the best
constitution” and third, the constitution which serves the aim a given population
happens to have, that is, the one that is best “based on a hypothesis”. Therefore,
we can see that Aristotle pursues to find not only the best constitution but for
next best constitution also.
88
Regarding the constitution that is ideal or “according to prayer,” Aristotle is Aristotle: Citizenship
and the Rule of Law
highly critical of the ideal constitution set forth in Plato's Republic on the
grounds that it overestimates political unity, it holds a system of communism that
is impractical and inimical to human nature and it disregards the happiness of the
individual citizens. In contrast, in Aristotle's “best constitution,” each and every
citizen will own moral virtue and the equipment to carry it out in practice and
thereby attain a life of excellence and complete happiness. All of the citizens will
hold political office and own private property because “one should call the city-
state happy not by looking at a part of it but at all the citizens.” Furthermore,
there will be a common system of education for all the citizens, because they
share the same end.
The second-best system typically takes the form of a polity in which citizens
possess an inferior, more common grade of virtue. Polity is also seen as a mixed
constitution combining features of democracy, oligarchy and where possible,
aristocracy, so that no group of citizens is in a position to abuse its rights.
Aristotle claims that for city-states that fall short of the ideal, the best constitution
is one controlled by a numerous middle class which stands between the rich and
the poor. For those who possess the goods of fortune in moderation find it
“easiest to obey the rule of reason”. They are consequently less apt than the rich
or poor to act unjustly toward their fellow citizens. A constitution based on the
middle class is the mean between the extremes of oligarchy (rule by the rich) and
democracy (rule by the poor). “That the middle constitution is best is evident, for
it is the freest from faction: where the middle class is numerous, there least occur
factions and divisions among citizens”. The middle constitution is therefore both
more stable and more just than oligarchy and democracy.
Aristotle classifies democracy as a deviant constitution (although the best of a
bad lot). The central claim is that the many may turn out to be better than the
virtuous few when they come together, even though the many may be inferior
when considered individually. For if each individual has a portion of virtue and
practical wisdom, they may pool these assets and turn out to be better rulers than
even a very wise individual.
Aristotle points out that to reform a constitution is no less a task of politics than it
is to establish one from the beginning and in this way the politician should also
help existing constitutions. Aristotle also alerted to be cognizant of forces of
political change which can undermine an existing regime. Aristotle criticizes his
predecessors for excessive utopianism and neglect of the practical duties of a
citizen.

the unit.
89
1. Aristotle has propounded six types of constitution. Which are they?
BLOCK –III
ARISTOTLE Amongst them, which one is best suited for contemporary times? Justify
your answer.
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
6.6 ARISTOTLE AND CONTEMPORARY

RELEVANCE
Aristotle’s relevance lies in the fact that he brought significance of empirical
engagement in political philosophy. Aristotle’s influence on John Rawls’s theory
of justice is more than evident. Like Aristotle, Rawls treats justice as fairness.
Rawls also borrows formal and substantive understandings of justice. Another
important fact which reflects Aristotle’s impact on Rawls is seen in ‘principle of
reciprocity’. Justice for both Aristotle and Rawls rests on the fact that one should
treat another human being the way one wants to be treated oneself. Even the
human rights discourse reflects this contribution of Aristotle. In the modern
political judicial structure, rule of law is followed and ‘treating like cases alike’ is
followed. Rawls failed to imbibe certain values in Aristotle’s theory of justice.
Rawls theory is excessively universalistic and rationalistic and lacks Aristotle’s
sense of community, of the historical rootedness of the ethical conduct of
individual moral agents. In the theory of communitarians like MacIntyre, they
ignore Aristotle’s theory of justice where weightage is given to universally valid
and rationally apprehensible principles of natural justice.
What we learn from above insight is that even today philosophers, theorists and
thinkers need to find a refined balance between physical/social,
universal/particular, rational/irrational, just/unjust and ethical/unethical – from
Aristotle.
6.7 LET US SUM UP

After reading the main ideas of Aristotle regarding citizenship and the rule of
law, it becomes clear that his ideas were products of his time. For Aristotle, the
universal adult franchise was not a reality as he was a product of society divided
on the basis of the binary opposition of master/slave; native/foreigner,
man/woman, adult/child. Here these two categories were not only different from
each other but hierarchical also wherein one aspect is superior to the other. Thus,
Aristotle’s citizenship idea was limited to ‘adult native master man’. However,
Aristotle’s idea of citizen based on the virtue of being a ruler and ruled is a
90 relevant cornerstone of modern liberal democracies. Similarly, Aristotle’s notion
of justice as fairness and justice based on the principle of reciprocity has Aristotle: Citizenship
and the Rule of Law
influenced future scholars of political theory and political philosophy. Aristotle’s
understanding that different contexts demand different forms of government is a
relevant point to understand the significance of context in defining political
experiments and experiences. Therefore, we can conclude that the relevance of
Aristotle's ideas is eminent in the fact that for some contemporary issues and
challenges in politics, his ideas act as a signpost.
6.8 REFERENCES
New Delhi: Pearson Education. pp. 53-64.
T. Burns. (2009). ‘Aristotle’, in D. Boucher and P. Kelly. (eds.). Political

Thinkers: From Socrates to the Present. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp.
81-99.
C. Taylor. (1995). ‘Politics’, in J. Barnes. (ed.). The Cambridge Companion to
D. Hutchinson. (1995). ‘Ethics’, in J. Barnes (ed.). The Cambridge Companion to


EXERCISES

1. Aristotle perceives science as a product of cognitive quality of persons
engaged in search of knowledge. He emphasises on change and plurality
of truth we experience. Science for Aristotle is a product of three things
coming together, namely, production of something, practical action and
theoretical contemplation. All three aspects are connected and unified.

1. For Aristotle, man is by nature social being, political being and ethical
being. Human beings are social beings because they are always to be
found living together with others in society or in a polis. Additionally,
however, Aristotle considers it to be a ‘characteristic of man that he alone
has any sense of good and evil, of just and unjust’. According to Aristotle,
then, man is by nature an ethical being. In Aristotle’s view, for human
beings a natural life is a life of justice. This is what differentiates the
human species from other species of animals. Only if human beings live a
life of justice do they satisfy the requirements of their own nature and
thereby become proper human beings. For Aristotle, the ultimate aim of
politics is to enable this process of personal development to take place.
91
2. He begins with a definition of the citizen, since the city-state is by nature
BLOCK –III
ARISTOTLE a collective entity, a multitude of citizens. Citizens are differentiated from
other inhabitants, such as women, children and elderly members of city-
states on the one hand, resident aliens and slaves on the other hand. After
more analysis he defines the citizen as a person who has the right to
participate in deliberative or judicial office.

1. Proportional equality or equity involves the “intermediate” position
between someone’s unfairly getting “less” than is deserved and unfairly
getting “more” at another’s expense. The “mean” of justice lies between
the vices of getting too much and getting too little, relative to what one
deserves, these being two opposite types of injustice, one of
“disproportionate excess,” the other of “disproportionate deficiency”.
Proportional equality emphasises that those who are equal ought to be
treated equally as their circumstances are similar. Those who are not
equal in a relevant respect ought not to be treated equally. This means that
unequals ought to be treated differently provided the difference in
treatment is proportional to the inequality that exists between them.

1. The six forms of constitutions propounded by Aristotle are kinship,
tyranny, aristocracy, oligarchy, polity and democracy. Polity can be seen
as a best form of constitution in the contemporary world. Polity is
characterized as a kind of “mixed” constitution typified by rule of the
“middle” group of citizens, a moderately wealthy class between the rich
and poor.
92
Aristotle: Citizenship
and the Rule of Law
BLOCK IV
MACHIAVELLI
93
BLOCK –III BLOCK IV INTRODUCTION
ARISTOTLE
Ever since the writing of Niccolo Machiavelli emerged in 15th century, they have
guided inspired, outrages and perplexed intellectuals and politicians around the
world. He is regarded first modern political philosopher as he separated ethics
and morality from politics and he also made a distinction between state and
religion. In Greek political tradition, ethics was the basis of politics but
Machiavelli gave more importance to power to preserve the state. For him, state
was above morality. Machiavelli argued that a stable political authority and order
are needed to ensure moral regeneration and social cohesion. It was for this
reason that he stressed the need for a unified polity. Unlike St. Thomas Aquinas
who believed that man needs the guidance of divine law, Machiavelli not only
separated religion from politics but he made it subservient to politics. Power
politics was central to his analysis and thus, Machiavelli's philosophy advocated
case for a great power. Elements of modern day nationalism based on glory,
power and greatness can be seen in his works. Machiavelli is also associated with
the Realist school in international relations as he brought the importance of
power to the fore and highlighted the shortcomings of idealist policies. There was
a big impact of the Renaissance in Machiavelli’s works as Renaissance was about
the emergence of the new human, an ambitious restless individual, motivated by
his self-interest, seeking glory and fame. Laski even said that the whole of
Renaissance was in Machiavelli. Since he gave less importance to morality,
Machiavelli’s name has since become synonymous with words like cunning,
duplicity, treachery, and ruthlessness. However, a comprehensive view of
Machiavelli comes up after reading all his important works. Based on his reading
of Machiavelli’s Discourses, Montesquieu regarded him as a lover of liberty and
even a pioneer in political sociology. Rousseau, who was a disciple of
Montesquieu, regarded Machiavelli as a Republican and also described him as a
good citizen and an honourable man.
94
Machiavelli: Politics
UNIT 7 MACHIAVALLI: POLITICS AND and Morality
MORALITY⁎
Structure
7.0 Objectives
7.1 Introduction: Life and Times of Machiavelli
7.1.1 The Renaissance and Machiavelli
7.1.2 The Life of Machiavelli
7.1.3 His Times
7.2 Machiavelli’s Attitude Towards Politics and Morality
7.2.1 Machiavelli’s Conception of Human Nature
7.2.2 Power and Politics
7.2.3 Religion as a Political Tool
7.2.4 Double Standards of Morality: Public and Private
7.3 Let Us Sum Up
7.4 References
7.0 OBJECTIVES
Niccolò Machiavelli, a child of Renaissance, not only dared to question the
prevailing moral assumptions of his own times but also posed challenges to
utopian tradition of political philosophy. Machiavelli is remembered for making
the first move for the scientific study of politics and also pointed to separate
religion from politics. But he is often misunderstood because of his advice to The
Prince where he justified the use of deception, force and violence to achieve the
desired political ends. Hence, the colloquial terms like Old Nick or Machiavellian
are ascribed to him. Such terms are byword for cunningness and duplicity and
often used for a person whose character appears to be dubious and shrewd
enough to manipulate any given situation to his/her own advantage. Interestingly,
even after 500 years of his death, whenever there is any discussion about
leadership or issues of political power, his name is often invoked in praise for his
political realism and pragmatism.
⁎
Rohit Sharma, Assistant Professor, PG Department of Political Science, Arya College,
Ludhiana
95
This unit will familiarize you with the 15th -16th century’s influential as well as
BLOCK –IV
MACHIVELLI controversial philosopher Niccolò Machiavelli and his theory of politics and
morality. After going through this unit, you should be able to:
 Understand the time and context that shaped Niccolò Machiavelli’s
political philosophy
 Analyze - why Niccolò Machiavelli was concerned about separation of
morality and politics
7.1 INTRODUCTION- LIFE AND TIMES OF

MACHIAVELLI
7.1.1 The Renaissance and Machiavelli
As it says that a text without a context is a structure without a base; for that
reason Machiavelli can be better understood in the context of renaissance only. In
the wake of 14th century, Italy experienced greater changes in its social, cultural,
economic and political milieu. It was the time when the spirit of renaissance
impelled men to re-examine things from new ideas based on scientific reasoning
rather than of scholastic dogmas. Such changes not only laid the strong
foundation of intellectual and spiritual churning of ideas in Italy but also
gradually spread to the rest of Europe by the late fifteen century that liberated the
human spirit from the shackles of old beliefs and value system of life. Thus, it
can be seen as a departure from medieval Christian values that gave importance
to asceticism, humility and worthlessness of men on earth. Therefore, the concept
of eternity or next world, which was main guiding factor for humans in
medievalist’s era started fading away. This epoch of Italian renaissance
concentrated on this world only and liberated men from dogmas of medieval
times and ushered the new consciousness of life, idea of individual liberty and
sanguinity based on raison d’état. Further, the discoveries of new lands, printing
press, gun powder etc. stimulated the imagination of men and their old beliefs
were totally shaken up.
The renaissance made an attempt to defend the individual’s love for liberty by
reinstating pre-Christian approach that was based on the nature and humanism. It
was a clear indicator that the people were now no longer going to keep their faith
in medieval Christian values of renunciation and self-denial; rather they gave
importance to one’s own glory, happiness, fame and the spirit of individualism. It
also rejected the ecclesiastical supremacy of the priest and laid stress on the
intellectual emancipation of human spirit.
Machiavelli was always seen as the child of renaissance. His native city of
Florence was the axis of Italian renaissance and that immensely shaped his
intellectual and political ideas. Perhaps, it was only Machiavelli who could grasp
the dynamics of modern secular state and the new human that no longer tolerated
the suppression of one’s individuality, emotions and natural faculties. This may
be the reason that Machiavelli’s primary concerns of security and unity of State
96
and liberty and republicanism clearly reflected in his major treaties- The Prince Machiavelli: Politics
and Morality
and Discourses respectively.
On the whole, the renaissance was non-Salvationist; where the authority of God
was replaced by the authority of science and human rationale. More importantly,
it also signified the emergence of modern state based on the ideas of secularism
and nationalism. In its secular notion it signified the separation between religion
and politics, and the independence of the State from the control of the Church.
This marked the beginning of a new era in human history.
7.1.2 The Life of Machiavelli

Niccolò Machiavelli was a nobleman by birth and a republican by his conviction.
He was born on 03 May 1469, in the Italian province of Tuscany, in the city of
Florence. Unlike many prominent figures of Italian Renaissance, there is not
much information available about the early life of Machiavelli. His father
Bernado was a lawyer and had ties to the city’s famed humanist circles. From an
early age, he studied Latin and humanistic studies of Cicero, that focused on
different moral situations of life like subordination of individual interest for the
common good with advice on how to follow an upright path to attain glory.
The year of 1498 to 1512 sketches an accurate picture of Machiavelli’s life. After
completing his education at the University of Florence, he entered public life
when he joined the frontline diplomatic service. Later on, he was elected second
chancellor of the Republic of Florence and engaged in a flurry of diplomatic,
military and administrative activities on behalf of Florence. For his diplomatic
assignments he travelled to France, Siena the Papal Court, the German emperor,
and to Cesare Borgia. It was Borgia that Machiavelli admired for his ruthless and
daring leadership. Machiavelli also served as advisor to Piero Soderini,
gonafaloniere after the Medici’s were driven out of power. Thus, he got an ample
opportunity to examine and experience the working of real politic.
In 1512 Machiavelli’s political career came to an end when Medici led a coup
d’état in the Republic of Florence. Machiavelli was dismissed from his position
and was ordered to be imprisoned and tortured on suspicion of conspiracy. Later
he was granted amnesty and as a token of gratitude he dedicated The Prince to
Lorenzo II de’ Medici. He lived there until his death on 22 June, 1527. The
works that Machiavelli penned made him immortal. Among his major works, the
most popular are- The Prince (1513), The Discourses (1516), The Art of War
(1521), History of Florence (1525) and a play Mandragola that explored the
relationship between ends and means, and ideas of immorality.
7.1.3 His Times

The Italian peninsula was divided into five states; the kingdom of Naples, the territory of the
Roman Catholic Church, the Duchy of Milan, and the republics of Venice and Florence. The
constant social conflicts and struggle between these city-states made Italy weak. The
Florence, Machiavelli’s homeland was prey to internal and external threats.
Internally, the Medici regime was powerful, corrupt and repressive. They also 97
used the political power to fulfil their personal motives only. Externally, the city-
state of Florence was intruded by regional contenders such as Siena and Pisa and
BLOCK –IV
MACHIVELLI also by the French and the Spanish neighbours.
During the times of Machiavelli, a monarchic reaction had also set in, which destroyed
almost all aristocratic regimes in Europe. During this time the expression of nationalism was
dominant in political organizations. Therefore, Great States of Europe had started establishing
and organizing strong monarchies on their territories. For instance, Henry VII in England,
Louis IX, Charles VIII and Louis XII in France and Ferdinand in Spain had completely
destroyed the political power of the feudal assemblies in their respective territories and
established strong monarchies. At the same time, when every State of Europe was heading
towards expansion and consolidation, Italy did not make any progress because of endemic
hostility in Peninsula. Perhaps, this was the reason that Machiavelli’s ideals revolved around
the unification of Italy.

the unit.
1. How time and context influenced Machiavelli’s thinking and philosophy?
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
7.2 MACHIAVELLI’S ATTITUDE TOWARDS

POLITICS AND MORALITY
As a great patriot Machiavelli had keen desire to see stability, peace and
prosperity in his homeland. To find its solution he turned to history as he had his
strong conviction that contemporary reality can be better understood with the
help of history. His approach to history was realistic and believed that history
tends to repeat itself. He stated that through ages the passions and desires of men
always remain the same and he tends to repeat the same conduct and is also likely
to find the same solutions with the help of same means.
Since, Machiavelli had strong desire to secure the unification of peninsula; he
read the history of ancient Rome in order to draw the causal inferences of the rise
of Rome’s imperial power and its downfall. He read the works of the Roman
historian Titus Livy and got convinced that Florence can attain the same glory by
emulating the example of Rome. From his study of past, he also inferred that the
governance is an art and has nothing to do with the morals. He held the view that the
98
purpose of politics is to preserve and increase political power of State. For that reason, he was
always interested in the policies through which the problems of statecraft can be solved and Machiavelli: Politics
and Morality
subsequently can increase their power. That’s the reason Machiavelli is considered the first
exponent of power politics. Machiavelli’s this attitude was influenced by his conception of
human nature.
7.2.1 Machiavelli’s Conception of Human Nature

The State cannot be imagined without men. So it is imperative to look at the relationship
between politics and human nature. Contrary to Aristotle and other thinkers of medieval
period, who presumed human nature as innately social, Machiavelli had taken a very
pessimistic idea of human nature. He alleged that human nature, throughout the ages, did not
change significantly and what men have done, they are on equal provocation liable to do
again. Men are generally unreasonable and their actions are guided by their emotions. They
have no general inclination towards morality and constantly in gesture to satisfy their desires.
At one place he says that men are prey to endless desires and one such desire is the love for
private property. He further stated that men would readily forgive the one who murdered his
father but not the abduction of his patrimony.
Machiavelli illustration of human nature was of a political animal whose inherent desire was
always to control and establish his supremacy over others. However, Machiavelli assigned
this trait to the Prince only and advised him to trust upon his own instincts and judgment
rather than his counsellors. Machiavelli’s conception about men had inevitably, highlighted
his theory of state, the ends of the State and his views regarding the methods of achieving
those ends. It also leads to divorce between morality and politics.
7.2.2 Power and Politics

Since the renaissance drove out the remnants of medievalism from Italy and awakened the
men, his emotions and his faculties which had remained dormant for long. The scientific
outlook and discoveries gave birth to the spirit of individualism which was totally in
opposition with the medieval concept of universalism in Church and State. It
signifies that new ideal of life now stands with the individual success where
success demanded self-assertion, ruthlessness and disregard of conventional
morality. It needed power which became the new deity. Power was seen as an
end in itself.
The earlier political thinkers never made an attempt to keep politics out of morals
and religion as Machiavelli did. Unlike, Aristotle, who might have regarded
politics and morality as constituting one whole science, where state power was
seen as a means to higher end conceived in moral terms. Machiavelli did not
uphold ethical purpose of the state rather he believed that the power of State is an
end in itself. Consequently, he confined his attention to the means best suited to
the acquisition, retention and expansion of power.
The political thought from Plato to Aristotle down to the close of the Middle
Ages believed that the use of political power was only rightful if it was exercised
by a sovereign whose character was virtuous. In a sense, it was assumed that
rulers can earn respect and the right to be obeyed if they showed themselves
virtuous and morally upright. In short, it was believed to follow standards of 99
ethical goodness with that rulers can establish and maintain their power and
BLOCK –IV
MACHIVELLI authority.
In his best-known treatise- The Prince, Machiavelli condemned moralistic
perspective of authority. For that reason, he emancipated politics from religion
and morality. Machiavelli did not hold the view that if there is any moral base to
adjudicate the difference between legitimate or illegitimate use of power. To a
certain extent, authority and power are correlated. It means if a person has power,
he also has the right to exercise the same. In a sense, integrity of a person does
not ensure power and the good person has no more authority by virtue of being
good. Thus, in direct opposition to a moralistic theory of politics, Machiavelli
says that the only real concern of the political ruler is the acquisition and
maintenance of power. In other words, Machiavelli opined that the only end
which man can legitimately put before him is the pursuit of his well being in this
life. This well-being needs not to be confined to the material realm; besides
health, security of life and property, it includes non-material values of life like
greatness, power and fame. But he definitely rejects the cultivation of virtues like
humility, lowliness and contempt for worldly goods on which Christianity laid
great stress, as the end of life.
In The Prince and The Discourses, he discussed the employment of all sorts of
violence, and brutality. At one place, for example, he says that while it is most
praiseworthy for a prince to be good, nevertheless one who wishes to maintain
his authority must be ready to put aside his morality as the circumstances. In
other sense, for the sake of maintaining political power, deceit and hypocrisy are
indispensable. There is no harm if The Prince showed up all his sincerity,
uprightness, and humanity but regardless to these virtues; he must also have
trained and disciplined his mind to act otherwise when State is in danger. But in
spite of this bitter and critical stance towards religion, he regarded religious
sentiments as a very important instrument for the success of State policy.

the unit.
1. Write down Machiavelli’s views regarding human nature.
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
2. How did Machiavelli look at the concept of politics?
100 …………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...…… Machiavelli: Politics
and Morality
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
7.2.3 Religion as a Political Tool
Machiavelli was more attracted by the propagandist utility than by the doctrinal
virtues of religion. According to him, Religion can be used to serve the political
ends of the State. For instance, through religious canons of good and bad; reward
and punishment can determine proper human behaviour and conduct. In turn, it
can make people to abide by the civil laws. Once people will start following
rules, the State will become stable, strong and prosperous like ancient Rome. In
ancient Rome, religious sanctions always kept the Romans in check. A fear of
hell, evil and God kept them loyal for their State. Therefore, Machiavelli
accepted the public efficacy of the religion and also looked upon religion only as
a useful weapon in the hands of a statesman to be skillfully used in furtherance of
the ends of the State, to maintain law and order as well. Therefore, he also
advised the Prince to put in possible efforts to promote religious belief, even
though he himself may be atheist or had little faith in religion because the decline
of reverence for religion would surely bring in disaster. He meant that a wise
ruler can cash on religious sentiments and even can achieve the things which may
have been impossible, otherwise.
In other sense, for Machiavelli religion had no intrinsic or objective value; it was
just a mechanism which can be employed by the ruler to influence people to
pursue their desired ends. Machiavelli considered the religion and morality as
subordinate to the State, it is neither above nor besides it. The following reasons
may sum up why Machiavelli placed the State above religion and morality:
i) He held that State is the highest form of human organization and the most
necessary of all institutions for the protection and promotion of human
welfare. Thus, it cannot be placed at par with the private citizens and
governed by the same canons of morality by which their affairs are
regulated. It stands on a wholly different footing and must therefore be
judged by a different standard altogether. It may be a crime to kill a
fellow being but it’s justified for the State to kill someone if public safety
is endangered. Therefore, State is neither moral nor amoral entity. In a
sense it is not like an individual entity, hence, individual morals are also
not applicable to it.
ii) He was convinced with the fact that it may be out of the question to
control the inherently egoistic and aggressive tendencies of men. To keep
that under check, the State might have to imply the religious sentiments
only. Machiavelli was convinced that, man being what he is, the State
would never succeed if it were to rely on moral means only. He,
therefore, propounded the doctrine that where the safety of the country is 101
at stake, there must be no consideration of what is just or unjust, right or
BLOCK –IV
MACHIVELLI wrong, glorious or shameful. Every means is justified if it is calculated to
lead to the desired end which is the security and safety of the State.
iii) Machiavelli could recommend the adoption of immoral means by the
State without any qualms of conscience because in his judgment the State
was neither moral nor immoral it could be called neuter gender.
Thus, religion and morality are social forces, working within the State, not over
it. That's why in the realm of statecraft the only criterion of determining whether
a given policy is sound or unsound is its probable effect on the peace and security
of the State.

the unit.
1. List the reasons why Machiavelli placed the State above morality?
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
2. Why Machiavelli attaches only an instrumental value to religion?
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
7.2.4 Double Standards of Morality: Public and Private

The aphorism like might is right, necessity knew no law and the end justifies the
means- had been the nucleus of Machiavelli’s idea of morality. Since, in the
realm of statecraft the safety and security of State justifies everything. Therefore,
he proposed two different strands of morality- one for the ruler and another for
the citizens. He argued that State actions cannot be judged by only individual
morals. For an individual telling a lie might be immoral but it may not be
necessary for a ruler. He may have to sometimes tell a lie in the interest of the
state because the state is a non-ethical entity.
102
Machiavelli’s firsthand experience of his diplomatic assignments made him clear Machiavelli: Politics
and Morality
with the understanding that ends can always justify the means. Therefore, he
contended that rulers need not to adhere with the notion of conventional morality.
A ruler must be judged on the basis that how successfully he ensures the well
being of its citizens, expand its territory and defend the national interest of the
State. Sometimes, for the survival and the safety of State, ruler may have to rely
upon immoral ways as well. He further stated that it may be an obligation for an
individual to exhibit his/her impeccable moral standards like trust, loyalty, purity
and simplicity that family or religious teachings nurtured. On the other hand, a
statesman can be always flexible as far as the conduct of state affairs was
concerned. In other words, in times of peace and stability, the ruler may exhibit
his high morals like humane compassion, love, faith etc. But can assert his power
to handle chaos and lawlessness by the use of force. In short, in politics,
depending upon time and circumstances, fair could be foul or foul could be fair.
Therefore, ruler must train himself to represent the judicious combination of the
lion and the fox.

the unit.
1. Differentiate between Private and Public Morality.
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
7.3 LET US SUM UP

To put in a nut shell, the radical changes that were taking shape during the
renaissance around the institutions and ideas about the system of governance are
clearly reflected in the major works of Machiavelli. He was the one who was
undoubtedly aware of the moral and political corruption of his times. He had the
nostalgia for a harmonious and peaceful social life like that of ancient Rome.
Prior to Machiavelli, political power was only considered to attain certain higher
ends like justice, law, good life and freedom, etc. He rejected all these ethical,
religious, and cultural ends of the State. He measured political power as an end
in itself and confined his enquiries to the means that suited to acquire, to retain
and to expand power. He separated the notion of power from that of morality,
and religion. He made a sharp distinction between politics and religious
principles and treated religion as a means to achieve State ends. By shaking the
103
foundation of politics based on moral values, Machiavelli set the tone for one of the main
BLOCK –IV
MACHIVELLI themes of contemporary times that accepted both secularization and amoralization of politics.
The tendency of political thought of Machiavelli was to make men more
consistent and scientific in their political cunningness. Therefore, he made a
systematic attempt to dissociate politics from all standards of conduct, save
success in the establishment and extension of governmental power. The very
intention of his remarks on morality was to clear the path for the more general
acceptance of the kind of Statecraft that he had to teach. For this he is so much
abused for his sympathy with evil. It is by this that he is best known in the world.
In the words of Chester C. Maxey “He is perhaps the most universally reprobated figure in
the history of political literature; the man whose Precepts are universally disavowed in
principle, but regularly followed in practice”.
7.4 REFERENCES
Bevir, Mark. (Ed.) (2010). Encyclopaedia of Political Theory Vol.2.California:
Sage Publications,Inc.
Bhandari, D.R. (1975). History of European Political Philosophy. Bangalore:
Bangalore Printing & Publishing Co., Ltd.
Jha, Shefali. (2018). Western Political Thought: From the Ancient Greeks to
Modern Times. Noida: Pearson India Education Services Pvt. Ltd.
McClelland, J.S. (2005). A History of Western Political Thought. London:
Routledge.
Morrow, John. (2005). History of Western Political Thought: A Thematic
Introduction. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mukherjee, Subrata and S. Ramaswamy. (2007). A History of Political Thought:
Plato to Marx. New Delhi: PHI Learning Private Ltd.
Singh, Sukhbir. (1994). History of Political Thought, Vol. I. Meerut: Rastogi and
Company.
Skinner, Quentin. (2000). Machiavelli: A Very Short Introduction. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Suda, J.P. (1970). A History of Political Thought: From Machiavelli to Burke,
Vol.II. Meerut: Jai Prakash Nath & Co.
Heywood, Andrew. (2013). Political Theory: An Introduction. Palgrave
Macmillan: New York.
Nederman, Cary. (2019). Niccolò Machiavelli. Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. URL: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/machiavelli/

EXERCISES
104
1. Your answer should highlight following points
 Influence of Renaissance Movement Machiavelli: Politics
and Morality
 The political context of Itlay

 Individuals are wicked, selfish and egoistic
 Human beings are basically ambitious, aggressive and acquisitive
 Fear and love dictates human actions
 Machiavelli’s thought is based on the concept that power is an end in
itself
 State is a non-ethical entity
 Real concern of the political ruler is the acquisition and maintenance
of power

 State is the highest form of social organization
 Every means is justified if it is calculated to lead to the desired end-
the security and safety of the State
 State was neither moral nor immoral it could be called neuter gender

 Religion as a useful weapon in the hands of a statesman
 Church only a department of the State and but not above or beside it

 It may be an obligation for an individual to exhibit his/her impeccable
moral standards, Contrary, a statesman can be always flexible as far as
the conduct of state affairs was concerned
105
BLOCK –IV
MACHIAVELLI
UNIT 8 MACHIAVELLI: REPUBLICANISM
(PRESENTATION THEMES: MORALITY AND
STATECRAFT, VIRTU)⁎
Structure
8.0 Objectives
8.1 Introduction
8.2 The Genesis of Republican City-States of Italy
8.3 Civic Virtu and Liberty
8.3.1 Liberty
8.4 Threats to Liberty and Republic
8.4.1 Corruption
8.4.2 Mixed Constitution
8.4.3 Role of Law and Law Giver
8.4.4 Violence
8.5 Let Us Sum Up
8.6 References
8.0 OBJECTIVES
Human history confirms that the environment in which an individual lives surely
makes a lasting impact on one’s personality and the thought processes either
consciously or unconsciously. In this sense, Machiavelli who is known as the
child of his times grew up in the era of turmoil’s and troubles. He witnessed the
degradation of the order of things in his native city of Florence in Italy. Even the
political context of his times was complex and depressing. It forced him to
analyze the cause and effects of events happening around and to envisage
inevitable issues and to invent effective mechanisms to heal the wounds of his
homeland. He also noticed the decline of morality and argued that politics in Italy
had withered away from Christian ethics and had set its base on selfish seizure of
political power. On the basis of prevalent condition of his times, passionately
Niccolò Machiavelli penned a number of important works among them without
any doubt The Prince is still widely read. It was The Prince that earned him ill
reputation where he defended the despotic rule and suggested the ruler to be
⁎
Rohit Sharma, Assistant Professor, PG Department of Political Science, Arya College,
Ludhiana
106
immoral and further advised him to even rely upon the ill means to seize the Machiavelli:
Republicanism
power without any reservation in mind. But in another important writing,
Discourses on the Ten Books of Titus Livy, he emerged as an exponent of
republicanism and argued that only republican form of government can bring
fame and stability in political order in the city states of Italy. In short, to bring
back the glory and unification of Italy were the only objective of his life.
This unit will familiarize you with the sixteenth century’s influential as well as
controversial philosopher Niccolò Machiavelli’s theory of republicanism. After
going through this unit, you should be able to:
 Understand the theory of republicanism as presented in Discourses
 Understand the role of civic virtu in Republic
 Importance of liberty in Republic
 Ideals to Secure liberty and Republic
8.1 INTRODUCTION
Machiavelli grew up in social, religious and political vacuum and witnessed
violence and prevalent social conflicts in the city state of Florence. He was keen
to uncover the underlying causes for this and came up with the phenomenon of
‘real politik’. In Prince, after analyzing the reasons for the rise as well as fall of
states and the factors responsible for political success, Machiavelli advised the
prince to be an enlightened despot of immoral kind. He suggested the ways to
Prince to seize and keep power. He taught the Prince that in order to succeed; he
must adopt the virtues of being clever, thrifty, cultured, forceful, decisive and
ruthless in politics. It shows he was convinced with this fact that power and
politics were the main props for the preservation of state. Thus, Machiavelli’s
pragmatism and political realism allowed him to justify the ends.
The political ideas of Machiavelli were mainly shaped by his own experience as a
secretary of Ten, or “Ten of War” in the Frontline republic. Moreover, his
diplomatic assignments provided him the opportunities to meet the prominent
statesmen of his times and their style to run the government. For instance, his
visit to the court of Louis XII of France helped Machiavelli to closely observe the
inner working of French government, which later became a reference for his
model to secure polity with the institutions and organization of a republic. Apart
from this, he had firm faith in the lessons of history that it offered time to time.
He had the conviction that history always taught and if one does not pay any
attention to its lessons that may lead to the depths of despair. He himself drew on
the classics to take hold of the contemporary realties and future. He particularly
adulated the glory of Roman Republic. He read the works of Roman historian
named Titus Livy’s history of the Roman Republic as a reference point and was
convinced to emulate in Italy.
Machiavelli had nostalgia for the glorious past of the Romans because they had a
republican form of government under which they had achieved greatness and
power. None of its rulers had inherited the throne. Further, he was impressed 107
with their passion for liberty, devotion and patriotism and argued that all these
virtu are very important for a state and could be possible only in republican form
BLOCK –IV
MACHIAVELLI of government. While expressing his republican sentiments, he further argued
that under republican government power can also be easily shared among the
nobles and the people. After going through the Discourses, one may find that
Machiavelli was as an ardent lover of individual liberty and unabashed lover of
all political virtues that can bring in glory to the state. Furthermore, like Roman
army and his contemporary French army, he advocated for national armies where
training was compulsory for all able-bodied men between seventeen and forty. In
Prince also he laid the emphasis on the maintenance of a strong national army. In
Discourses again he put stress on the significance of formation of army of
citizens and considered it crucial for the success and glory of republic.

the unit.
1. Why Roman history was important for Machiavelli?
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
8.2 THE GENESIS OF REPUBLICAN CITY-STATES

OF ITALY
The political idea of republic was germinated in late Medieval Europe that can be
traced back to the ancient Roman Republic. The word republic which stems from
Latin, res publica, stands for public or common affairs and advocates certain
institutional arrangements and moral precepts. Here, the moral concern of
republicanism is understood with the concept of civic virtu that understood to
cultivate or include respect for republic’s law and spirit of patriotism to deter any
military invasion or tyranny and check on moral corruption in the republic. Let’s
now look at the history of republicanism in Italian city-states.
Despite of being axis of renaissance, center of vibrant culture and creativity, Italy
was not unified and remained a prey to the imperial quest of neighboring states of
the French, German, and Spanish. The game of power politics had become
complex in Italy. Most of the Italian states were ruled by either an oligarchy or
self-styled tyrants, claiming absolute power for themselves. The soldiers had no
national sentiments to maintain their high sense of integrity. They always try to
minimize their professional risks. The Italy was divided into five states. The
108 historians are unanimous on the issue that Italy was wallowing in the hopeless
constitutional conditions, but it was still the torch bearer of Renaissance. Though Machiavelli:
Republicanism
it was the center of Papacy, but it never lost its secular character. The original
centers of renaissance were the Italian city-states. These city-states represented
the islands of individual republicanism in the vast sea of European monarchies.
With decline of Papacy and its powers, the Italian City States got the confidence
for self-affirmation. It short, Italy was a society of intellectually brilliant people,
artistically mature, freedom lovers, well prepared to counter the world with their
calm, having national and empirical outlook. Unfortunately it became prey to the
worst political corruption and moral degradation. They talked about statecraft but
not of statesmanship.
The political churning in whole of Europe brought a number of powerful city-
states in peninsula and they defined their own notion of freedom and defied the
rule of a few selected notables and preferred rule by the people of the city. As
stated earlier, a few city-states in Italy already had their own distinct system of
republican governance. In these city-states, power was vested with podestas and
they remain in office for not more than a year and run their administration by
means of a series of executive councils. Later on, the podesta was replaced by an
authoritarian board of executives called signori. This transition influenced all the
city-states of Italy including Machiavelli’s homeland i.e. Florence. The Florence
relatively had slow degradation of republican institutions. The signori were more
powerful in comparison to podesta, but there was provision of proper check on
the use of their authority. With the coming of the rule of Medici family in 1434-
1494, the checks were taken out and led to the eventual downfall of the republic.
With the famous law of December 1494, the republic was reinstated along with
the set up of Consiglio Grande (Great Council). The Great Council not only
allowed the participation of its citizens in public affairs but also gave them the
right to be elected in the several administrative boards. Under the leadership of a
Dominican monk Girolamo Maria Francios Matteo Savonarola an effective
republic was established in Florence (1498-1512). That was overthrown when
Medici family, under the protection of Spanish arms returned in 1513. In the
backdrop of Medici’s rule in Florence, Machiavelli wrote Discorsi sopra la
prima deca di Tito Livio (the Discourses on Livy) where he strongly advocated
the republic form of government.

the unit.
1. Write a short note on republicanism in city states of Italy.
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...…… 109
…………………………………………………………………………...……
BLOCK –IV
MACHIAVELLI …………………………………………………………………………...……
8.3 CIVIC VIRTU AND LIBERTY

Generally, the notion of virtu was found in Greek philosophy and Christianity
that associated it with the virtues of piety and clemency. However, Machiavelli
entirely altered the classical meaning of the term but retained its classical link
between public good and private interests. His conception of civic virtue marked
an important stage in the development of modern political thought and practice
for it symbolized an end to the old alliance between statecraft and soul-craft.
In general virtu is regarded as moral integrity or some kind of excellence
expected of men i.e. of martial quality to risk life to preserve the republic. On the
other hand Roman virtu was all about love for one’s own country and devotion to
duty were placed above all the self or an individual’s pleasures in order to do
what was best for the public at large. It served as an exemplar of civic virtu.
Machiavelli also developed an idea of political morality which was different from
the classical notion of virtu. For instance, for Machiavelli, virtue was very much
masculine quality. Even Machiavelli, not only admired the qualities like vitality,
courage and self-assertiveness but also of cruelty and cunningness as they too can
be handy or helpful to preserve the republic. Therefore, in Prince, he argued that
by depending upon the classical virtues, the ruler would not be able to retain his
power for long. But in Discourses he showed his regard to a civic view of
Christianity that he associated with the glories of the Roman Republic.
Further, after going through Roman history, Machiavelli drew his conclusions
that, in social order there exists two classes: the grandi (elites) and the popolari
(the people). He further probed into the underlying reasons behind these social
dissensions. He identified that these classes were guided by different sort of
interests and drives. For instance the elites always had the quest to govern over
others; contrary people prefer to live quietly. In other sense, in realm of politics
the elites were ambitious and the people were conservative and these two groups
cannot be reconciled, only under the right institutional set up they can learn to
coexist.
In the History of Florence, he also analyzed and attributed to the endemic social
conflict and violence in the city state of Florence. Machiavelli accepted that
conflict as permanent and universal phenomena. He concluded that there is a
natural class war between the people and the ruling nobility as the two main
causes of social disturbances. The internal cause of instability in state due to the
hatred that the poor harboured towards the rich and where rich sought to
dominate the poor. This endemic conflict can be managed with the provision of
equal participation in governance. Therefore, the stability of the state chiefly
depends upon the satisfaction of the dominant interests of these classes. This may
110 be the reason for the establishment of civic republicanism, the poor become
aware to protect themselves from despotic government or ruler and acted Machiavelli:
Republicanism
decisively to secure a better life. That was possible only with the overthrow of
the nobility or sharing of power.
8.3.1 Liberty
In the opening passage of the Discourses, Machiavelli described the growth of
freedom in ancient Rome and argued that those who had displayed prudence in
constituting a republic had looked upon the safeguarding of liberty as one of the
most essential things for which they had to provide.
In three books on Discourses, Machiavelli presented his themes of liberty. The
first book discussed about the how the Romans overthrew the rule of kings and
achieved their greatness through republican liberty. The second book illustrated
about the expansion of military power of Rome and to provide required liberty to
its people. The third book talked about the efforts of Romans for the continuation
of liberty.
Machiavelli drew a distinction between free and unfree states. According to him
states should govern themselves according to their own will. Machiavelli opined
that freedom produced not only powerful states but also strong individuals,
whose strength was not in dominating or influencing others but in the
independence of spirit, in their ability to think and decide for themselves. In other
sense, for Machiavelli, equated liberty with self-governance and independence,
where citizens exercise their political rights and also actively take part to protect
the internal and external integrity of the republic.
He believed that when people will have no fear of any type of arbitrariness of the
ruler, in that case they would contribute for the glory of their city through their
talents. In a sense, according to Machiavelli when a state is sovereign, free from
any external forces then people also feel powerful and strengthen. They cultivate
the affection for liberty as they know they will not be deprived of their patrimony
and their family and children will live in free air. Therefore, for Machiavelli, only
a republic can guarantee and preserve the liberty of people. But this could be
possible only if the citizens will exhibit the civic virtu. In other words,
Machiavelli upheld that virtu required to putting aside personal whims to
safeguard the life and liberty of state. Lets take Machiavelli’s account on the
defense of the city-state and emphasis on the army of citizens. Machiavelli’s this
conception was based on his observation of the politics of his times, particularly
the Italian politics and argued that a well- trained army of citizens is
indispensible in a republic for its maintenance. He strongly condemned the
mercenary army and wanted to substitute it with that of civic militia and the
citizens should never shirk of their duty to save the life and liberty of the state. In
short, by giving edge to public good over the private gains made citizens patriotic
and they in turn become the building block of a stable republic.
Check Your Progress Exercise 3 111

BLOCK –IV
MACHIAVELLI ii) Check your progress with the model answer given at the end of
the unit.
1. Illustrate the reasons why Machiavelli gave importance to civic virtu and
liberty?
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
8.4 THREATS TO LIBERTY AND REPUBLICANISM

8.4.1 Corruption
Machiavelli was the first to study the role of corruption in political life. He
upheld that lack of martial virtue led to the decline of civic virtues and thus
Italian society becomes a prey to the moral degradation and political corruption.
On the whole a republic can survive only if individuals possess the civic virtues.
Machiavelli observed a nexus between luxurious habits and moral decline most
significant threat to the liberty of the republic. He was further convinced that
when citizens give up their personal interest then republic can be kept free from
politics. The Prince also may need to enact laws to inculcate civic virtues among
the citizens over their self-interests. Thus, when citizens become aware about the
legal consequences of their actions then law and order can easily be maintained
in state. For Machiavelli, therefore, a mixed constitution can ensure that political
power is exercised for the good of the republic. It is essential for the republic to
be preserved from corruption. For this reason, Machiavelli, proposed a legal
mechanism to execute laws efficiently and guaranteed legal equality to eliminate
arbitrariness.
8.4.2 Mixed Constitution

Machiavelli did not differentiate between the different types of governments,
rather he accepted the Aristotle’s classification of the governments –monarchy,
aristocracy and democracy along with their perverted forms tyranny, oligarchy
and democracy. He concluded that in the beginning they provided the stable
government but in the absence of mechanism of check and balance they got
degenerated. Therefore, he identified the solution in the mixed form of
government. He asserted that in mixed type of government, arbitrary power can
be checked through the institutions of representation.
For the maintenance of internal and external liberty of state, he emphasized on
the republic government. He also talked about the extension of political power to
112 the citizens so that they can wisely exercise their political rights. These
conditions could be fulfilled within the framework of mixed government. For
him, Roman republic exhibited an excellent example of a mixed form of Machiavelli:
Republicanism
government where consuls represented the picture of monarchical principle, the
senate of the aristocratic, and the comitia and tribunes of democratic ideals. As a
result, factionalism was prevented with the promotion of common good and
preservation of liberty of people. All these are crucial for the stability of the
republic state.
8.4.3 Role of Law and Law Giver

Machiavelli had conviction that liberty can be only possible within the
framework of laws. Law can protect individuals from corrupt ruler and also can
liberate the individuals from becoming the victim of their natural self-destructive
tendency, namely the pursuit of self-interest. He believed that ruler can infuse the
civic virtue with the help of religion as well as good laws.
Machiavelli attached significant importance to the role of lawgiver. The primary
task of a legislator was to enact laws that would guarantee and safeguard liberty.
Rome could achieve greatness because of its continued efforts at introducing new
institutions that made liberty possible. Therefore, Machiavelli assigned an
important position to law-giver and law in his scheme of things. Force, fraud and
fear are no solid foundations for the society and the state and their use by ruler
needs to be reinforced by some force which has a greater appeal to man and
which is law. Law is indispensable for the society and the state. It moulds the
national character of the people. It inculcates moral and civic virtues in
individuals. These virtues are good for all states but are indispensable for
republics. In view of the selfish nature of man, law is the most effective means of
holding the society and the state together because it compels the egoistic
individual to honour his moral obligations. For this reason a wise law-giver is of
supreme importance. He is the architect not only of the state but of society as
well, with all its moral, religious and economic institutions.
8.4.4 Violence
Machiavelli advised the use of violence only for raison d’état of the state i.e. a
republic can be used for its expansion and conquests. But he also perceived
violence as a shock therapy which can cure corruption and rejuvenate civic virtu.
Here once again he upheld that rule of law can maintain peace and stability by
regulating the behavior of the citizens. In turn there would be fewer chances to
apply the force to regulate human behavior. As he had the belief that the
republican form of government, where people’s participation represented a form
of a social power, can reduce the use of violence in a society, if dealt in a proper
manner. He very rightly asserted that only weak regime may need to use violence
and cruelty to bring order of things in state. It’s always better to control the use of
violence and try to minimize the human cost through consensus.

113
BLOCK –IV
MACHIAVELLI the unit.
1. Write down the ideals to secure republic as Machiavelli perceived.
.…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
8.5 LET US SUM UP

The critics have unfortunately laid more stress on the prince where as
Machiavelli can best be understood in the ‘Discourses’. The Prince was written
for a particular object whereas in Discourses one can find him in republican
colors. He clearly says that the government is more stable when it is shared by
many. He prefers elections to heredity. He supports general freedom for
proposing the measures of public good. He permits the liberty of discussions so
that pros and cons of each problem may be heard for implementing any
particular measure. He says that the people must be independent and strong so
that they may acquire warlike qualities. Machiavelli only wanted to revive the
public spirit among the citizens, who put aside their petty interests and assist the
ruler to secure the state from the barbarians. He had only dream to see his native
land in prosperity.
8.6 REFERENCES
Bevir, Mark. (Ed.) (2010). Encyclopedia of Political Theory Vol.2.California:
Sage Publications, Inc.
Bhandari, D.R. (1975). History of European Political Philosophy. Bangalore:
Nelson, Eric. (2006). Nationalism and Multiculturalism in John S. Dryzek,
Bonnie Honig & Anne Phillips (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Political Theory.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Jha, Shefali. (2018). Western Political Thought: From the Ancient Greeks to
Modern Times. Noida: Pearson India Education Services Pvt. Ltd.
Routledge.
Mukherjee, Subrata and S. Ramaswamy. (2011). A History of Political Thought:
114 Plato to Marx. New Delhi: PHI Learning Private Ltd.
Sethi, Yoginder and M.L. Dhawan. (1959). Readings in Political Thought. Delhi: Machiavelli:
Republicanism
Atma Ram and Sons.
Singh, Sukhbir. (1994). History of Political Thought, Vol. I. Meerut: Rastogi and
Company.
Suda, J.P. (1970). A History of Political Thought: From Machiavelli to Burke,
Vol.II. Meerut: Jai Prakash Nath & Co.
Philosophy. URL: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/machiavelli/

EXERCISES
 In General, importance of history for Machiavelli
 Republican government in Rome
 Romans passion for liberty
 Their devotion and patriotism for Rome

 The idea of republic was germinated in late Medieval Europe
 During political churning a number of powerful city-states defined
their own notion of freedom and defied the rule of a few selected
notables and preferred rule by the people of the city.
 Slow degradation of republican institutions.
 Rule of Medici family in 1434-1494

 Civic virtue in ruler i.e. of warlike qualities to defend the state
 Civic virtue in people infuses patriotic values and public spiritedness
that is necessary for the preservation of the state and individual
liberty.

1. Your answer should highlight following points 115
 Corruption
BLOCK –IV
MACHIAVELLI  Mixed Constitution
 Role of Law and Lawgiver
 Violence
116
Machiavelli:
Republicanism
BLOCK V
HOBBES
117
BLOCK –IV BLOCK V INTRODUCTION
MACHIAVELLI
Thomas Hobbes is widely regarded as the founder of modern political science
and rightly credited as one of the earliest theorists of the modern state. His ideas
on human nature, legitimate political authority and sovereignty continue to have
considerable influence on scholarly debates in many fields including political
science, international relations and law. He sets out to create a new science of
politics, greatly inspired by the scientific revolution that was emerging during his
time, inspired by the works of pioneers of modern science like Galileo. Unlike
most of his fellow contemporary supporters of an absolutist sovereign who based
their support on a traditional ‘divine right’ theory of kingship, Hobbes insisted
that the legitimacy of his absolutist sovereign comes out of a social contract
which arises out of the consent of the governed. Hobbes was certainly the first
political thinker to give a structured treatment to the social contract theory and is
the undisputed founder of the modern social contract tradition. However, the idea
that political obligations of a group of people arise out of a covenant or a social
contract between them has a long history in political philosophy whose roots can
be traced to Plato’s famous dialogue Crito. Hobbes also contributed significantly
to the development of a modern theory of sovereignty. He gave a more robust
treatment of the concept of sovereignty in his most famous work, Leviathan.
Hobbes not only defined sovereignty clearly but also spelt out the reasons that
necessitate a sovereign. As a political philosopher, Hobbes justified wide-ranging
government powers on the basis of the self-interested consent of citizens.
118
UNIT 9 HOBBES: SOCIAL CONTRACT⁎ Hobbes: Social
Contract
Structure
9.0 Objectives
9.1 Introduction
9.2 State of Nature
9.2.1 Matter and Motion
9.2.2 State of War and Natural Right
9.3 Social Contract
9.3.1 Laws of Nature
9.4 Legacy of Hobbesian Social Contract
9.5 Let Us Sum Up
9.6 References
9.0 OBJECTIVES
The aim of this unit is to familiarise you with the nature and key aspects of the
social contract as theorised by English political philosopher, Thomas Hobbes.
After studying this unit, you should be able to:
 Know Hobbes’ ideas on state of nature
 Explain Hobbes’ arguments in favour of his proposed social contract
 Examine Hobbes’ views on Natural Rights and the Laws of Nature; and
 Evaluate the nature of Hobbes’ social contract and its legacy
9.1 INTRODUCTION
Thomas Hobbes is an important figure in the history of Western political
philosophy. He is widely regarded as the founder of modern political science and
rightly credited as one of the earliest theorists of the modern state. His ideas on
human nature, legitimate political authority and sovereignty continue to have
considerable influence on scholarly debates in many fields including political
science, international relations and law. Hobbes was born in 1588 CE (died in
1679 CE) in England and spent an important period of his adult life during the
English Civil War of the middle 17th century between the Parliamentarians and
Royalists. The former wanted the Parliament to be given more powers of
governance while the latter were supporters of an absolutist monarchy with
unfettered powers. The conflict between these two groups greatly influenced
⁎
Dr. Abhiruchi Ojha, Assistant Professor, Department of Politics & Governance, Central
University of Kashmir
119
Hobbes’ life and his political ideas. Hobbes would ultimately argue for a strong
BLOCK –V
HOBBES sovereign with absolute powers to prevent anarchy in his most famous work of
political philosophy, Leviathan, which was published in 1651 CE.
Hobbes was an incredibly original thinker. He had little regard for the works of
classical Greek philosophers like Aristotle who were greatly respected by his
contemporaries. He sets out to create a new science of politics, greatly inspired
by the scientific revolution that was emerging during his time, inspired by the
works of pioneers of modern science like Galileo. He was especially influenced
by the geometric method which put high emphasis on building from simple self-
evident assumptions to higher and complex truths. In Leviathan, Hobbes would
build his theory of state in a geometric fashion, starting from seemingly self-
evident assumptions about human nature to a theory of legitimate political
authority based on a social contract. Hence, unlike most of his fellow
contemporary supporters of an absolutist sovereign, who based their support on a
traditional ‘divine right’ theory of kingship, insisted that the legitimacy of his
absolutist sovereign comes out of a social contract which arises out of the consent
of the governed. This was a radical idea for his time and as a result he was
scorned by both the Parliamentarians and the Royalists. For instance, in 1666 CE,
his books were burned in Oxford, which was incidentally his alma mater. The
Parliamentarians loathed his support for an absolutist sovereign while the
Royalists feared him as a radical thinker who rejected the divine right of kings to
rule. Hobbes was, thus, a truly independent thinker whose social contract theory
despite being inspired by the events of his time, transcends the same and
continues to have great relevance.
Hobbes was certainly the first political thinker to give a structured treatment to
the social contract theory and is the undisputed founder of the modern social
contract tradition. However, the idea that political obligations of a group of
people arise out of a covenant or a social contract between them has a long
history in political philosophy. Plato’s famous dialogue Crito, written around 360
BCE, is one of the earliest works of philosophy that discusses the question of
political obligation. In Crito, Socrates argues that there is an implicit contract
between citizens and the state to explain why he is obliged to remain in Athens
and accept the unjust death penalty imposed on him by the Athenian state. He
argues that by having stayed in Athens by choice for long and enjoying the
benefits of citizenship, he implicitly consented to obey the laws of Athens and
therefore, he is obligated to follow them even if it meant death. Epicurus was
another ancient Greek thinker of the 4th century BCE who also theorized justice
as a kind of social contract between people to not harm and not to be harmed. He
believed justice of any kind arises only out of contracts between people and there
cannot be notions of abstract justice. Hence, the idea of a social contract behind
political obligations or justice has a long history in political thought, but it was
Hobbes who gave rise and shape to modern social contract tradition which later
included such key thinkers of Western political philosophy like John Locke,
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Immanuel Kant and more recently John Rawls. In this
120 unit, some of the key aspects of Hobbesian social contract theory are examined.
Hobbes: Social
9.2 STATE OF NATURE Contract
One of the central and foundational concepts in Hobbes’ political theorizing is
the idea of the state of nature which is his conceptualization of the pre-political
society before the emergence of formal state or government. Hobbes constructs
the basic features of his state of nature based on his mechanistic, materialist
conception of nature where everything is reduced to matter and motion alongside
his outlook about human nature. It is fair to say that his views on the state of
nature are built in a geometric fashion from his mechanistic views of reality and
his key psychoanalytical assumptions about human nature. It is useful to expand
on how he does this to better understand his conceptualization of the state of
nature.
9.2.1 Matter and Motion

In the opening chapters of Leviathan, Hobbes seeks to explain perception and
thought in purely materialist terms by arguing that all activity, including human
thoughts, result from material bodies that are in motion colliding with each other.
Human beings sense and perceive things when material bodies interact with their
eyes, ears, body etc. These interactions or collisions set off accompanying
interactions inside human brains which result in imagination which is the
continuing motion inside the brain of the earlier sensory interaction.
Understanding is one type of imagination while memory is another kind of
imagination that recounts interactions from the past. Imaginations can often result
in complex collisions of various interactions, resulting in trains of thought which
may be regulated or unregulated. Unregulated trains of thought include dreams
and hallucinations which are not in the control of the thinker. On the other hand,
regulated trains of thought are a result of the will of the thinker who directs them
and thus, they create useful results like speech, reason, philosophy and science.
In this manner, Hobbes finds a mechanistic, materialist logic to explain human
thought and reason.
Hobbes’ materialist ontology leads him to an interesting epistemological position
which also presages an absolutist sovereign. He argues that speech which
includes language enables us to record and communicate knowledge to others
while also allowing us to communicate our desires and aversions. However, for
speech to be intelligible, there has to be a common standard to determine the
definitive meaning of terms and relations between them. Language as such is
possible only if a group of people agree on the meaning of words, terms and their
relations. Moreover, since human sensory experience is subjective, dependent on
the individual observer’s physical and emotional characteristics, a universal
definition of terms and relations between them is not possible. Sensory
perception is subjective. Hence, common reasoned knowledge is not possible
unless there is a common central authority to adjudicate between competing
reasons and declare authoritatively the definitive meaning of words, terms and
their relations and first principles upon which more knowledge can be built. In
essence, Hobbes is arguing that even to have intelligible language, reason and 121
science, one needs an absolutist central authority who fixes the grammar of a
language and determines the final validity of knowledge claims. Thus, in
BLOCK –V
HOBBES Hobbes’ view, there is a necessity for a central authority for knowledge and
progress to be possible.
Hobbes characterises human beings as possessing two kinds of motions - vital
and voluntary. Vital motions are involuntary, automated biological processes that
happen within human bodies without human intent or consciousness like
digestion or blood circulation. On the other hand, voluntary motions are the
results of human intent based on thoughts and earlier discussed imaginations.
Examples of voluntary motions include speaking, walking and anything that
involves voluntary movement of some kind. Hobbes calls the thoughts which
induce voluntary motions as ‘Endeavours’. Endeavours can be of two types –
appetites and aversions. Appetites are desires one endeavours to possess or
satisfy and thus, constitute the ‘Good’ we seek. Aversions are dislikes or pains
which one endeavours to avoid and thus, constitute the ‘Evil’ we fear. Hobbes
argues that our varied passions and emotions like anger, pride, fear etc., are a
combination of various appetites and aversions. In effect, pleasure and pain
correspond to appetites and aversions respectively and the former can help or
increase our vital motions while the latter may hinder it. Deliberation is a person
thinking to determine whether a particular course of action or a thing is desirable
i.e. if it will increase pleasure or to be averted for it will increase pain. At the end
of deliberation, a person reaches a decision which Hobbes calls as ‘Will’ that
determines their attitude towards that particular course of action or thing. Based
on these mechanistic and psychoanalytical assumptions about human nature,
Hobbes would proceed to derive further insights into human societies.
9.2.2 State of War and Natural Right

Hobbes theorizes how human beings driven by appetites and aversions will fare
in a hypothetical state of nature which is devoid of any government or central
authority. In this state of nature, there is neither independent judiciary nor laws.
With this conceptual tool of state of nature, Hobbes is not seeking to make a
historical argument, but rather a philosophical one, more akin to a thought
experiment to imagine through reason how human beings would behave in a
society without a sovereign. Hobbes argues that conflict will be inherent and
continual in human societies in state of nature because of three reasons arising
out of the interplay between appetites and aversions – competition, insecurity and
a desire to pursue glory. There is competition between human beings to fulfil
their desires and to avoid aversions. Everyone is trying to acquire things which
satisfy their desires and this in, turn makes them come in conflict with others who
are pursuing the same desires. This gives rise to insecurities even in the minds of
those who have the things they desire because of the fear of losing them. Since
there is no sovereign, there are no enforcers of the rule of law. As a matter of
fact, there are no laws in the first place and hence, each individual has to fend for
himself or herself. Moreover, human beings also desire pride and glory which
also makes them enter into conflict with others. Hence, people end up fighting
122
with others, either to gain something they desire or to protect themselves or to Hobbes: Social
Contract
heighten their status to increase their glory.
Ultimately, an endless quest for power between people characterizes state of
nature, because one requires power to satisfy desires, protect oneself and to attain
glory. So, power becomes the ultimate desire of all human beings. This leads to
extreme instability and violence in the state of nature, because according to
Hobbes, all human beings are roughly equal in strength. This is because, Hobbes
argues that even the weakest can kill the strongest of human beings through
trickery or through collusion with others. Therefore, nobody is safe as all are
threatened by death which fosters a sort of natural equality among people. In the
absence of a government, this leads people to constantly seek power to either
aggrandize themselves or simply to protect themselves. Thus, the state of nature
becomes characterized by a ceaseless and unstable quest for power between
people which ends only at their deaths. State of nature for Hobbes is, thus, in
effect a state of war. He describes the miserable state of affairs in the state of
nature in the following famous passage in the Leviathan –
“In such a condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit
thereof is uncertain, and consequently, no culture of the earth, no
navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea, no
commodious building, no instruments of moving and removing such
things as require much force, no knowledge of the face of the earth, no
account of time, 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” (Leviathan, Chapter XIII)
Hobbes indeed paints a pessimistic view of human nature, one in which human
beings are untrustworthy, self-interested, seekers of glory and power while being
plagued by constant insecurities. This logically flows from his construct of
human beings as mechanistically driven by appetites and aversions, devoid of
any larger morality. Good and evil itself is dependent on an individual’s like or
dislike. It is to be noted that such an individualistic atomistic conception of
human beings will form one of the foundations of later liberal political theory. In
the Hobbesian state of nature, morality does not exist as a common, universally
shared conception of right or wrong as it is not possible without a common
sovereign power to determine them authoritatively. Laws, therefore, cannot exist
and justice itself cannot be determined.
Hobbes, however, argues that in the state of nature all individuals have a natural
right to do whatever they deem to be necessary as per their reason for the
preservation of their life. Hence, according to Hobbes, right to self-preservation
is a right that predates the origin of government. It is also a right held by each
individual, a theorization which makes the individual the holder of rights. This
conception of rights which makes the individual the primary holder of rights
would also subsequently greatly influence the liberal philosophical tradition. As a
matter of fact, Leo Strauss (1936) considered Hobbes as one of the earliest
theorists of the modern liberal state. However, the natural right described by 123
Hobbes is not one that imposes obligations on others as any right would in a
BLOCK –V
HOBBES constitutional state. In the state of nature however, there are no laws and
therefore, nobody is under any obligation to respect anyone else’s right. Instead,
what this natural rights entails is that in the state of nature, each individual is at
liberty or have a right to do anything and everything they see as necessary to
preserve their life. However, Hobbes is quick to note that this liberty does not
amount to much in practice as the state of nature is brutal and violent which does
not facilitate any kind of productive activity. People’s lives are constantly
threatened and many die prematurely and violently. It is this utterly horrible and
terrifying reality of the state of nature which would eventually make people
fearful of it and seek to escape it. Reason would show them the way to do it. In
effect, Hobbes argues that reason propelled by fear of violent death would
motivate people to move beyond the state of nature through a social contract.

the unit.
1. According to Hobbes, what are the three main reasons for the ceaseless
quest for power in the state of nature?
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
2. What natural right do all individuals have in the state of nature and what
does such a right entail in the view of Hobbes?
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
9.3 SOCIAL CONTRACT

The seeds of the social contract which would enable people to escape the state of
nature lie within the Hobbesian mechanistic, psycho-analytical understanding of
human nature itself. Self-interest and survival are key human appetites and hence,
124 human beings who are naturally endowed with reason come to see that the
unchecked pursuit of self-interest in the state of nature is counterproductive as
the fear and possibility of violent death, the ultimate aversion, always lurks. It is, Hobbes: Social
Contract
thus, fear of death aided by reason that enables human beings in the state of
nature to seek peace. Fear of death creates the motivation, while proper reason,
which Hobbes calls as philosophy, identifies the laws of nature which offer the
means through which people can escape the harsh reality of the state of nature.
9.3.1 Laws of Nature

Reason dictates human beings in the state of nature to seek peace in order to
avoid violent death and this leads to identification of laws of nature which
Hobbes characterises as theorems of peace identified through reason. The laws of
nature help human beings leave the volatile state of nature and achieve a
relatively peaceful coexistence where productive life is possible through the
establishment of a contract. Hobbes goes on to identify as many as nineteen laws
of nature, which in his view, constitute moral philosophy. There is considerable
debate among scholars whether Hobbes considered these natural laws as merely
prudent precepts arising out of self-interest or eternal laws of immutable moral
stature. Hobbes, himself, leaves scope for both the conclusions in his writings.
He concedes that the term law may be a bit unsuitable for them, because for laws
to exist there needs to be a sovereign, but none exist in his state of nature. These
nineteen laws are rather the results of the application of natural reason. This lends
support to the argument that natural laws are merely prudent principles for
Hobbes. However, in a passing reference, Hobbes contends that since natural
reason was created by God, these laws were in effect expressions of God’s word
and therefore, since God is the sovereign of everything, they can be called as
laws.
“These dictates of Reason, men use to call by the name of Laws; but
improperly: for they are but Conclusions, or Theorems concerning what
conduct to the conservation and defence of themselves; whereas Law,
properly is the word of him, that by right has command over others. But
yet if we consider the same Theorems, as delivered in the word of God,
that by right commands all things; then are they properly called Laws”
(Leviathan, Chapter XVI)
It can, therefore, be argued that morality itself for Hobbes is a product of proper
reason or philosophy, leading to an even more radical claim that only those
precepts which are based on reason are sanctioned by God. Some scholars have
argued that Hobbes makes an obligatory reference to God in order to hide the
truly drastic nature of his claims which prioritize reason over faith or divine
revelation.
The first three of the nineteen natural laws are the most important ones and they
form the foundation of his social contract. Hence, it is important to discuss them
in some detail -
 The first law of nature has two parts. The first part mandates that every
human being has to seek peace as much as possible, provided others
cooperate. However, the second part states that if that is not possible, then 125
each person has the right to pursue war or violence and do anything
BLOCK –V
HOBBES necessary for the sake of self-preservation. The first law of nature,
therefore, is inclusive of the natural right to self-preservation of each
person.
 The second law of nature flows from the first law’s mandate to seek
peace. It states that in order to obtain peace, people should enter into a
contract and mutually divest themselves of certain rights. The only right
which cannot be surrendered is the right to self-preservation, because it is
for self-preservation from the violence of state of nature one even enters
into this contract. Each person agrees to have only as much liberty as he
or she is willing to tolerate in others. Such a contract, once made, creates
moral obligations on the part of those who make it.
 The third law of nature mandates that if one makes a contract, one has to
necessarily adhere to it. Hobbesian idea of justice is based on this law
because before the making of a contract, there can be no single
conception of justice. Hobbes is aware that despite making the contract,
some will try to break it, in pursuit of power or glory. They will be unjust
to do that and this is what necessitates the eventual setting up of the
sovereign to enforce the terms of the contract.
The remaining sixteen laws of nature complement these three fundamental laws
to ensure the smooth functioning of the contract. These include precepts that
include the following - being grateful to those who keep the contract, not
indulging in petty quarrels that threaten the contract, avoiding pride and
arrogance, conceiving justice as corrective rather than retributive, having proper
& independent arbitration, following appropriate procedures while dividing
resources of any kind and pursuing equality & impartiality. These nineteen laws
of nature not only establish the social contract, but also lay out the necessary
moral precepts that need to be followed for the continued preservation of the
contract. Hobbes contends that God’s rule of do not do unto others what you
would not have them do unto you, which is something he derives from the Bible,
nicely sums up his laws of nature succinctly. This way, Hobbes tries to square his
reason identified theorems of peace with divine revelation.
Hobbes’s social contract results in the establishment of a commonwealth or a
state. Hobbes argues that such a contract once made represents all the persons
who consented to its creation. Here, Hobbes makes a distinction between two
types of persons – natural and artificial. A natural person is someone who
communicates with his or her own words, like any human being. So, a natural
person is the author of his or her words and all natural human beings are natural
persons. The persons who create the social contract are all natural persons. On
the other hand, an artificial person is someone whose words are borrowed from
others. Hobbes argues that the commonwealth created by the contract is
representative of the wills of all the natural persons who made it. The
commonwealth is, thus, the unified representation of all their wills. Therefore, the
126 state has a will as spelt out in the words of the social contract, making it a person.
However, since the words are borrowed from those who made the contract,
Hobbes contends that his commonwealth is an artificial person. It is this artificial Hobbes: Social
Contract
person i.e. the commonwealth or state that Hobbes calls as the Leviathan. The
mythical leviathan was a much feared serpent like the dragon described in the
Bible. Hobbes purposefully invokes that fearful imagery because the state needs
to be a powerful artificial person who is feared by everyone because only then
people will follow the rules of the social contract. This was very much in line
with the critical role fear plays in Hobbesian psychoanalytical framework. Fear
of violent death in the state of nature makes people seek peace and therefore they
create the social contract with the help of the laws of nature identified through
reason. Once made, the social contract itself has to be feared for it to be followed
by everyone and hence, the Leviathan or the state is created with the sovereign as
its head. This will be discussed in more detail in the next unit which discusses
Hobbes’ views on sovereignty.

the unit.
1. According to Hobbes, what are the Laws of Nature?
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
2. According to Hobbes, which right alone is not surrendered in any social

contract and why?
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
9.4 LEGACY OF HOBBESIAN SOCIAL CONTRACT

Hobbesian view of human nature as well as his social contract continues to
influence scholars and has been critically examined from different perspectives.
Hobbesian view of human nature has been criticised by Macpherson (1962) as a
characterization of human behaviour in a market society rather than a pre-
political state of nature. Macpherson argues that the competitive and constantly at 127
war human nature described by Hobbes was a feature of the emerging market
BLOCK –V
HOBBES society of his time. Thus, in his view, Hobbes’ social contract was an effort to
stabilize the unstable nature of the emerging market society by suggesting the
creation of a powerful sovereign. Further, the ahistorical nature of Hobbesian
state of nature has also been criticised by many. Hobbes himself concedes in the
Leviathan that the kind of state of nature he spells out is hypothetical and not
historical.
Hobbes’ moral philosophy has also been criticized by many prominent thinkers
like Adam Smith (1759) as well as Leo Strauss (1936). Both of them were critical
of what they saw as a deep seated moral relativism in Hobbes. As discussed
earlier, the good and evil in Hobbesian moral framework is largely equivalent to
appetites and aversions respectively. Adam Smith (1759) especially criticizes
Hobbes for denying the possibility of justice in the pre-civil society state of
nature and thereby, reducing morality as a mere invention of the state, devoid of
higher principles. Thus, his attempt to reduce human behaviour, including moral
precepts to arise from materialistic, mechanistic causal principles has been
questioned by many. However, this view has also been questioned by scholars
like Warrender (1957) who have adopted a deontological view of Hobbes by
arguing that his moral philosophy rests chiefly on natural laws which are
immutable and eternal even in the state of nature, because they arise from God.
One can find evidences to support both these views in Hobbes’ writings.
Questions have also been asked about whether the power hungry and insecure
human beings described by Hobbes in the state of nature can ever come together
to create a social contract. It is doubtful whether the aggressive and violent
human beings of the state of nature will suddenly find reason and establish a
social contract. Moreover, Hobbes has also been criticised for creating an
absolutist sovereign to whom all rights except the right to self-preservation is
surrendered. This criticism will be explored in more detail in the next unit.
Such debates continue to rage about Hobbesian social contract and is a testimony
to the enduring legacy of Hobbes. As discussed earlier, he is regarded by many as
an important contributor to liberal political theory. Similarly, his appetites and
aversion framework clearly influenced utilitarianism. Moreover, aspects of
modern game theory like the famous Prisoner’s Dilemma were influenced by
Hobbesian model of human nature i.e. self-interested individuals seeking to
maximise their gains. Similarly, Hobbesian portrayal of state of nature greatly
inspired the conceptualization of anarchy in Realist International Relations theory
which argues that the modern state system is akin to Hobbesian state of nature
where there is a war of all against all between states because of the lack of a
central authority. These are some examples to highlight the enduring value and
influence of Hobbes. Despite the passage of time, it is undisputable that Hobbes’
social contract theory remains a must read for any student of Western political
philosophy.
128
Hobbes: Social
9.5 LET US SUM UP Contract
Hobbesian view of human nature as well as his social contract continue to have a
rich legacy. Hobbes constructs his social contract in a geometric fashion. Being a
materialist, he begins by explaining human thought from a mechanistic
perspective i.e. as a result of matter and motion. Appetites and aversions dictate
human behaviour as everyone seeks to avoid pain and maximise pleasure. In the
state of nature, where there is no sovereign, this leads to a war of all against all,
as people fight for resources or to gain power or due to insecurities. In the state of
nature, everybody has a natural right to do what they wish to, to defend
themselves. There is no concept of justice or morality in the state of nature
because of the lack of a central authority to adjudicate competing claims. Fearful
of the violent reality of the state of nature, human beings are driven by reason to
seek peace. Reason identifies the laws of nature which are theorems of peace
derived through reason. This leads to people entering into a contract to mutually
divest each other of all rights except for their right to self-preservation. The
social contract, once created has to be compulsorily followed by all those who
agreed to it. The sovereign is, thus, created to enforce the social contract. The
role, duties and the powers of this sovereign will be discussed in the next chapter.
9.6 REFERENCES
Baumgold, D. (2009). Hobbes in Boucher, D. & Kelly, P. ed. Political Thinkers:
From Socrates to the Present. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Duncan, S. (2019). Thomas Hobbes. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. URL:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hobbes/
Hampsher-Monk, I. (2001). A History of Modern Political Thought: Major
Political Thinkers from Hobbes to Marx. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan. Available Online at Project Gutenberg. URL:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3207/3207-h/3207-h.htm
Lloyd, S. &Sreedhar, S. (2019). Hobbes’s Moral and Political Philosophy.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. URL:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hobbes-moral/
Macpherson, C. (1962). The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism:
Hobbes to Locke. Ontario: Oxford University Press.
Martinich, A.P. (2005). Hobbes. New York: Routledge.
Oakeshott, M. (1975). Hobbes on Civil Association. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Pettit, P. (2008). Made with Words: Hobbes on Language, Mind, and Politics.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Sabine, G. (1973). A History of Political Theory. San Diego: Dryden Press.
Smith, A. (1759). The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Available Online at Project
Gutenberg. URL: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/58559/58559-h/58559-h.htm 129
Sommerville, J. (1992). Thomas Hobbes: Political Ideas in Historical Context.
BLOCK –V
HOBBES London: Macmillan.
Sorrell, T. (1986). Hobbes. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul
Sorrell, T. ed. (1996). The Cambridge Companion to Hobbes. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Strauss, L. (1936). The Political Philosophy of Hobbes: its Basis and Genesis.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Skinner, Q. (1996). Reason and Rhetoric in the Philosophy of Hobbes.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Warrender, H. (1957). The Political Philosophy of Hobbes: His Theory of
Obligation. Oxford: Clarendon.
Williams, G. (2020). Thomas Hobbes: Moral and Political Philosophy. Internet
Encyclopedia of Philosophy. URL: https://www.iep.utm.edu/hobmoral/#H7

EXERCISES

 Competition to satisfy appetites and avoid aversions
 Insecurities arising out of fear of death and loss of resources
 Pursuit of glory
 Right to Self-Preservation is the Natural Right
 It means a person in the state of nature is at liberty do anything to
preserve his or her life

 Laws of Nature are theorems of Peace
 They are derived through the exercise of proper reason
 Right to self-preservation alone is not surrendered
 It is not surrendered because it is the reason for which one enters the
social contract
130
Hobbes: Sovereignty
UNIT 10 HOBBES: SOVEREIGNTY
(PRESENTATION THEMES: STATE OF
NATURE, LEVIATHAN, ATOMISTIC
⁎
INDIVIDALS)
Structure
10.0 Objectives
10.1 Introduction
10.2 Hobbesian Sovereignty
10.2.1 Need for a Sovereign
10.2.2 Nature of Sovereignty
10.2.3 Types of Sovereign Power
10.3 Powers and Privileges of the Sovereign
10.3.1 Liberty of the Subjects
10.3.2 Right to Self-Preservation
10.3.3 Religion and the Sovereign
10.4 Legacy of Hobbes’ Ideas on Sovereignty
10.5 Let Us Sum Up
10.6 References
10.0 OBJECTIVES
The aim of this unit is to familiarise you with English political philosopher,
Thomas Hobbes’s conceptualization of sovereignty which is a central idea in his
social contract theory. After studying this unit, you should be able to:
 Describe Hobbes’ views on sovereignty
 Explain Hobbes’ arguments in favour of an absolutist sovereign
 Examine Hobbes’ views on relationship between religion and state; and
 Evaluate the legacy of Hobbesian conception of sovereignty
⁎
131
BLOCK –V 10.1 INTRODUCTION
HOBBES
Sovereignty is quintessentially a modern concept whose origins can be traced
back to the writings of Niccolò Machiavelli (1469 CE – 1527 CE), Jean Bodin
(1530 CE – 1596 CE) and most importantly, Thomas Hobbes. A basic definition
of sovereignty would be, supreme power or authority within a particular territory
or state. In most modern states, there tends to be only one sovereign or supreme
power. This sovereign can be the people in a democratic country like India or the
king in a monarchy like Saudi Arabia. However, such a conception of
sovereignty was unheard of in feudal Europe. During the feudal period, multiple
power structures co-existed within a given territory. This included the king, the
church and many other feudal lords. Thus, it is only in the modern era, the idea of
a supreme sovereign power within a territorial space took shape. One can trace
the emergence of the modern sovereign state system to the Peace of Westphalia
of 1648 CE.
In this context, Hobbes contributed significantly to the development of a modern
theory of sovereignty. It is worth noting that Machiavelli and Bodin had also
offered crucial insights about sovereignty. Machiavelli, in his most famous work,
The Prince(1532 CE), had argued that the Prince should exercise absolute powers
and should not tolerate any kind of factions within his state, be it religious or
aristocratic. However, Machiavelli’s arguments were practical rather than
theoretical. He was a diplomat rather than a philosopher and therefore, he did not
provide a philosophical justification for sovereignty, but rather offered only a
practical justification. For Machiavelli, the prince has to have absolute powers to
maintain a stable and powerful state that can withstand the vagaries of fortune.
In contrast, Bodin’s ideas on sovereignty as spelt out in his most famous work
The Six Books of the Republic (1576 CE) are more systematic despite being
somewhat similar to that of Machiavelli. Bodin defined sovereign power as
‘perpetual’ and ‘absolute’. Perpetuity of sovereign power means that anyone who
is given sovereign power temporarily or for a limited period of time, cannot be
called as a true sovereign. Only those who have sovereign power for perpetuity
without any time limit or threat of removal can be called as sovereigns. The
absolute nature of sovereign power means that the sovereign makes and changes
laws without the need for the consent of anyone. Moreover, sovereign power is
also indivisible and cannot be shared. Hence, it must be with a single person or a
single group of persons. While these views on sovereignty are mostly consistent
with that of Hobbes, Bodin also argued somewhat ambiguously that the
sovereign is bound by the laws of God and nature. It was Hobbes who gave a
more robust treatment of the concept of sovereignty in his most famous work,
Leviathan. Hobbes not only defined sovereignty clearly, but also spelt out the
reasons that necessitate a sovereign.
10.2 HOBESSIAN SOVEREIGNTY

Having carefully constructed his social contract from the beginnings of an
132 anarchic, violent state of nature, Hobbes goes on to propose the need for a
sovereign or supreme power to enforce the social contract. Here again, Hobbes’ Hobbes: Sovereignty
ideas are greatly influenced by his psychoanalytical framework which was
discussed in detail in the previous unit.
10.2.1 Need for a Sovereign

Hobbes anticipates the question that if people voluntarily create a social contract,
then why is there a need for a sovereign power to enforce it. He argues, relying
on his views of human nature that despite the voluntary creation of the social
contract, the power hungry nature of some human beings continues to be a threat
to the social contract. As a matter of fact, the contract itself is sometimes
described by Hobbes as a covenant which is a particular kind of contract where
the people making the covenant promise adherence to it in future. Such an
adherence, however, is not a guarantee that can be merely trusted for that would
lead to instability and unpredictability. Hence, there is a need for the
establishment of a common power or a supreme power to strictly enforce the
contract. This is the sovereign. It is people who establish the sovereign as a
guardian of the social contract. It is worth noting that fear again plays a key
constructive role in the Hobbesian framework. The fear of the violent reality of
state of nature led people to create the social contract in the first place. After that,
the sovereign has to be bestowed with awesome powers such that the fear of the
sovereign ensures that people keep the promise they made to keep the covenant.
There is also a need for a supreme sovereign power to defend the commonwealth
or state from external threats posed by rival states. Hence, Hobbes argues that a
sovereign power is indeed necessary to ensure the stable functioning of the
commonwealth.
10.2.2 Nature of Sovereignty

If the state in totality is an artificial person, the Leviathan, Hobbes says that
sovereignty is the soul of this person with the sovereign being the head. All the
citizens who are party to the social contract make up the body of the Leviathan
with the sovereign being the head who rules over them and sovereignty being the
life giving soul of this artificial person. In other words, without a well-established
notion of sovereignty, a commonwealth will be dead, just like a person who loses
his or her soul. The sovereign, even though created by the social contract, is not
party to the same. Instead, the people making the contract decide to set up the
sovereign to whom they consent to surrender all their rights except the right to
self-preservation. The sovereign, who can be a single person or a group of
persons, is given all the powers needed to enforce the contract by force. Since
people have surrendered their rights voluntarily to the sovereign, all the actions
of the sovereign are in effect authorized by the people themselves.
“The only way to erect such a Common Power, as may be able to defend
them from the invasion of foreigners, and the injuries of one another…is
to confer all their power and strength upon one Man, or upon one
Assembly of men, that may reduce all their Wills, by plurality of voices,
unto one Will: which is as much as to say, to appoint one man, or 133
Assembly of men, to bear their Person; and every one to own, and
BLOCK –V
HOBBES acknowledge himself to be Author of whatsoever he that so bear their
Person, shall Act, or cause to be Acted, in those things which concern the
Common Peace and Safety; and therein to submit their Wills, every one to
his Will, and their Judgements, to his Judgment” (Leviathan, Chapter
XVII)
For Hobbes, sovereign power is perpetual, inalienable, undivided and absolute.
Since the sovereign stands outside the contract, he is not in any way bound by the
contract. Hobbes argues that if the sovereign is bound by anything, then by
definition, he cannot be the sovereign. A sovereign has to have, thus, unlimited
powers. Once established, the citizens have a binding political obligation to obey
the sovereign in all that he commands. Hobbesian sovereign holds his absolute
powers perpetually, i.e. sovereignty cannot be taken away by anyone from the
sovereign. Sovereign power also cannot be shared. The sovereign can appoint
people to help him in governance for convenience, but it can never be shared.
There cannot be more than one sovereign for a commonwealth as that will lead to
anarchy because of competition between them. Hobbes wants to establish the
sovereign as the supreme power within the commonwealth which is able to quash
any other power structures within the state. Hobbes also gives unlimited powers
to the sovereign, because there is no way to know in advance how much power
will be required to achieve total domination of the commonwealth. Any
restriction on sovereign power, thus, is a threat to the stability of the state which
might allow rival power structures to emerge in the state which is a recipe for
anarchy and a return to the violent state of nature. Hence, the Hobbesian
sovereign is neither constrained by the contract nor by any other external force.
Even though, in a general sense the sovereign is obligated to follow natural law
but for Hobbes, it is the sovereign who decides what natural law entails. He is,
thus, the ultimate interpreter of natural law. His word is justice and any
disobedience on the part of citizens is unjust. He enacts the law, but is above law.
He can punish any of his subjects at will. The sovereign in essence retains all the
rights entailed in the state of nature to preserve himself because preserving
himself would mean the preservation of the commonwealth which is of
paramount importance to Hobbes. This is so because, for Hobbes, any state, even
one considered as held together by force or cruelty, is preferable to the violent
anarchy of state of nature.
It is also worth noting that Hobbes talks about two ways in which a sovereign
power might be established. The first is through a contract where people come
together to make a covenant which establishes the sovereign. Consent is the basis
of this sovereignty which Hobbes calls as sovereignty by institution. However,
Hobbes also notes that many a times, a sovereign might forcefully conquer a
people and establish his sovereignty over them. This he deems as sovereignty by
acquisition or force. What is revealing is that Hobbes argues that even such
forceful establishment of sovereignty is legitimate. This is so because the
subjects, driven by the fear of the sovereign, enter into an implicit contract with
134 him whereby they promise obedience in exchange for security. Fear forms the
basis of this sovereignty and for Hobbes, it is equally valid as consent. Hobbes Hobbes: Sovereignty
points out that even the consent of sovereignty by institution is driven by fear
faced by the subjects of each other in the state of nature.
“And this kind of Dominion, or Sovereignty, differs from Sovereignty by
Institution, only in this, That men who choose their Sovereign, do it for
fear of one another, and not of him whom they Institute: But in this case,
they subject themselves, to him they are afraid of. In both cases they do it
for fear” (Leviathan, Chapter XX).
This reveals the core idea of Hobbesian conception of sovereignty with much
clarity. For Hobbes, more than consent, it is the awesome power exercised by the
sovereign which grants it legitimacy. If a person is able to subordinate all other
competing powers within a commonwealth through force, then he in effect is the
legitimate sovereign. This is so because for Hobbes even sovereignty by
institution is made possible firstly by fear of the state of nature and is later made
workable only because of the fear of the power held by the sovereign. Fear is,
thus, a legitimate force in sovereignty by institution and hence, its legitimacy
cannot be logically denied in sovereignty by acquisition. Moreover, fear is
necessary for any commonwealth and thus he writes, “And Covenants, without
the Sword, are but Words, and of no strength to secure a man at all” (Leviathan,
Chapter XVII). A sovereign established by institution is useless, if he does not
have the power to instil fear and thereby, obedience in his subjects. Ultimately, it
is the fear of the power of the sovereign that holds the commonwealth together.
10.2.3 Types of Sovereign Power

Hobbes also talks about three types of sovereign authority that can be instituted
through a contract. Firstly, the sovereign can be a monarch, wherein sovereign
power is given to a single person. The sovereign authority can also be an
aristocracy, wherein sovereign power is given to a small group of people. Lastly,
there is democracy, wherein sovereign power rests with the people. Hobbes
argues that among these three, monarchy is the best possible form of sovereign
power. Hobbes gives many reasons for this contention. He argues that a monarch
will receive better counsel because he can obtain it in private where people speak
without apprehensions unlike in an aristocratic or democratic assembly.
Similarly, a monarchical sovereign will be more consistent because it is just one
person taking decisions unlike an aristocracy or democracy where multiple
people are involved. Hobbes is also fearful that in an aristocracy or democracy,
there can be factionalism leading to power struggles between different groups
which can result in civil wars. The important question of succession is also
complex and can become contested in aristocracy and democracy. On the other
hand, in a monarchy, the king will simply choose the method of succession or
who his successor would be. Thus, for such reasons, Hobbes argues that
monarchy is the best type of sovereign power. However, it has to be noted that
while Hobbes indicates a strong preference for a sovereign monarch in his
writings, his theory of sovereignty can be applied for an aristocratic or
135
democratic sovereign as well without much complications. The absolutist powers
spelt out by Hobbes for the sovereign can also be granted to an aristocratic
BLOCK –V
HOBBES assembly or a democratic assembly. Hobbes just thinks monarchy is the best
among the three options.

the unit.
1. According to Hobbes, why is there a need to erect a sovereign in a
commonwealth?
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
2. In Hobbes’ view, what are the chief characteristics of sovereignty?

Explain them in brief.
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
10.3 POWERS AND PRIVILEGES OF THE

SOVEREIGN
The Hobbesian Sovereign, as noted earlier, enjoys unlimited powers and
privileges. All his subjects owe him unquestioning loyalty and obedience under
the threat of punishment. This political obligation cannot be legitimately removed
from them and any one transgressing the same will be doing something morally
unjust. On the other hand, the sovereign owes nothing to the subjects and cannot
be unjust in any of his ways. He cannot be punished or removed. The sovereign is
the supreme law maker and has the sole authority to interpret natural law. Hence,
the civil law declared by the sovereign cannot be questioned on the basis of any
claim to natural law or justice. The sovereign himself is not subject to any law
because he is the author of laws. The sovereign is also the ultimate judicial
authority in the commonwealth and has ultimate authority to adjudicate any kind
136 of conflict in the commonwealth.
As a matter of fact, the sovereign is the ultimate adjudicator in even scientific and Hobbes: Sovereignty
philosophical debates as he, either directly or through a committee of experts
chosen by him, determines which philosophical and scientific principles are right
and acceptable. Thus, the sovereign is the source of all valid and legitimate
knowledge. This flows from the argument discussed in the last unit regarding
Hobbes’ contention that for knowledge to be possible, a central authority is
needed to authoritatively determine the firm meaning of words, language and
first principles of knowledge. The sovereign power is that authority and
therefore, stable and universally accepted knowledge is not possible without such
a sovereign adjudicator. The sovereign can restrict any behaviour of his subjects
and can also censor any doctrine. He can reward those he wishes and punish
others. He can appoint whomever he wishes to any position in the government
and military. The sovereign is supreme not only in internal affairs, but also in
external affairs. He has the sole authority to declare war with other states or to
make peace with them. It is, thus, clear that the powers and privileges of the
sovereign are absolute in almost every sphere of society. Hobbes does not want
any check on the powers of the sovereign.
10.3.1 Liberty of the Subjects

Hobbes anticipates that his critics might pose questions about the lack of liberty
of the subjects of his absolutist sovereign. He proceeds to discuss the same in
some detail. Hobbes defines liberty as the ability to act in accordance with one’s
will without being hindered physically. Hobbes describes physical hindrance in a
very materialist manner, like literal chains or being behind literal bars in the case
of imprisonment. Since the sovereign does not physically hinder his subjects,
Hobbes argues that subjects enjoy absolute liberty. Hobbes does concede that the
social contract and all the laws imposed by the sovereign are ‘artificial chains’
which restrict the actions of subjects. However, since the subjects either
explicitly or implicitly consented to a sovereign power, Hobbes argues that they
themselves agreed to those chains and hence, therefore, cannot claim that they
infringe on their freedom. Citizens might have consented to the social contract
due to necessity arising out of fear of the state of nature in the case of sovereignty
by institution, or fear of the sovereign himself in the case of sovereignty by
acquisition. Fear and necessity are not constraints on the liberty of individuals for
Hobbes as they are not physical hindrances.
“Fear and Liberty are consistent; as when a man throwshis goods into
the Sea for Fear the ship should sink, he does it nevertheless very
willingly, and may refuse to do it if he will: It is therefore the action, of
one that was Free; so a man sometimes pays his debt, only for Fear of
Imprisonment, which because nobody hindered him from detaining, was
the action of a man at Liberty” (Leviathan, Chapter XXI)
Moreover, Hobbes makes a comparative analysis of the freedom enjoyed by
people under a sovereign and in the state of nature to show that fear does play a
critical role even in the state of nature. Fear of violent death and of more
137
powerful others restricted actions in the state of nature when human beings were
at complete liberty to do anything they wished. People had neither consented to
BLOCK –V
HOBBES nor had any control over the fear they felt in the state of nature. In contrast, the
fear of the sovereign is based on consent and hence, Hobbes argues that true
freedom only exists in a civil society with a sovereign. Under such a system, the
subjects are at least completely free to pursue things which the sovereign has
permitted or has not disallowed. Wherever there is silence of law or sovereign
command, there is more practical freedom for the subjects. Hobbes
acknowledges that this free space might vary from commonwealth to
commonwealth. Yet, the liberty enjoyed is still better from the fear and utter
unproductivity of the state of nature. Hence, in a comparative sense, the subjects
of an absolutist sovereign enjoy more freedom than people in the state of nature.
10.3.2 Right to Self-Preservation

Hobbes gives unlimited powers to the sovereign and does not grant a right to
dissent or rebel to citizens. However, he is mindful of the fact that people agree
to institute a sovereign, either explicitly or implicitly, only to preserve their life.
As noted earlier, the one right which is not surrendered to the sovereign is the
right to self-preservation. Hence, a person is not under any obligation to obey a
sovereign if the latter asks him to kill or injure himself. So, even if a sovereign
deems an individual as a threat to the peace of the commonwealth and wants him
or her to be killed, that person has the right to defend himself or herself. He or
she is under no obligation to obey the sovereign against his or her right to self-
preservation. The sovereign thus, has, to use force to get it done for the benefit of
the commonwealth. Similarly, if a sovereign is not adequately competent to
protect the right to life of his subjects, then also they are under no obligation to
him. For example, if the sovereign is unable to put down a violent rebellion
which endangers the lives of citizens, then he is no longer the sovereign or
supreme power within the commonwealth, which is indicative of the collapse of
the commonwealth. The situation then is akin to the state of nature and each
person is at liberty to protect themselves through whatever means necessary.
10.3.3 Religion and the Sovereign

Hobbes discusses the relationship between religious authority and sovereign
power in detail in Leviathan as it was one of the pressing questions of his time.
He argues that those beliefs which are in the realm of the private conscience of
the individual cannot be anyway compelled by the sovereign. People are free to
have them. However, he insists that those aspects of religion which are publicly
exercised should be under the control of the sovereign. He is critical of any
religion that seeks to compete with the sovereign in exercising control over the
public lives of citizens. This criticism was especially directed against the Roman
Catholic Church of his time which claimed dominion over its followers
irrespective of the state they lived in. This was unacceptable and destabilizing in
the view of Hobbes because a leviathan cannot have two heads. In short, citizens
are bound to follow the lead of the sovereign in religious affairs as well,
especially in public exercise of faith even though Hobbes permits people to hold
138
on to their individual beliefs in private. The sovereign is to be the undisputed
head of religious affairs as well in the commonwealth. Hobbes also tries to apply Hobbes: Sovereignty
his materialist principles and reason to show that many of the commonly held
religious beliefs of his time, like faith in miracles and ghosts, were erroneous. In
his view, true religion will be compatible with reason and philosophy as God is
the author of reason. Therefore, by extension, true religion will also be
subservient to the absolutist sovereign because he is necessitated by reason and
philosophy.

the unit.
1. According to Hobbes, how do the subjects of an absolutist sovereign still
have liberty?
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
2. According to Hobbes, what should be the relationship between religious

authorities and the sovereign in his commonwealth?.
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
10.4 LEGACY OF HOBBES’ IDEAS ON

SOVEREIGNTY
Hobbes’ ideas on sovereignty continue to greatly influence debates on
sovereignty. Some critics like Macpherson (1962) have argued that the perpetual
nature of Hobbesian sovereign means that the contract cannot be revised or
reformed. As a result, the society cannot exercise any control over the sovereign
once he is instituted which for them is problematic. Moreover, the rationale for
political obligation created by such a sovereign is predominantly based onself-
interest and fear of punishment according to scholars like Strauss (1936).
However, others like Warrender (1957) have argued that the civil law 139
propounded by the sovereign in the Hobbesian framework is equivalent to natural
law because the sovereign is supposed to interpret natural law to forge civil
BLOCK –V
HOBBES law.Hence, Warrender argues that the political obligation propounded by Hobbes
is predominantly based on morality. It is worth noting that Hobbes does expect
his sovereign to rule in the interests of the subjects. He wants the sovereign to not
interfere in private affairs, be it economic or otherwise and allow citizens to
operate independently as much as possible. Hobbes is not propagating a wilfully
cruel sovereign but still, he does consider even a cruel sovereign better than the
anarchy of the state of nature. Oakeshott (1975) tries to stake out a middle path
by arguing that the political obligation generated by the Hobbesian sovereign is a
combination of physical, rational and moral obligations. Physical obligation
arises out of the element of force involved, whereas the rational aspect is
emphasised by self-interest and the desire to seek peace.Moreover, for Oakeshott,
moral obligation is also part of it because the sovereign is established by consent.
Even though Hobbes proposes an absolutist sovereign power with a stated
preference for monarchy, he did differ from the other royalists of his time. Most
of them were arguing in favour of the king using chiefly the medieval divine
right theory, whereas Hobbes’ theory of sovereignty is based on a covenant of
consent. Hence, Hobbes was one of the earliest thinkers to delink sovereignty
from its mystical origins by giving it a firm rational foundation. Thus, scholars
like Sabine (1973) have noted that despite his proposal of an absolutist sovereign,
Hobbes is also a great individualist which makes him a distinctively modern
thinker.Each individual gives consent to the social contract based on his or her
self-interest and is under no obligation to kill or injure himself or herself even if
commanded by the sovereign because of his or her inalienable right to self-
preservation. Hobbesian citizens are holders of rights in their self. They are also
rational, equal and self-interested. This atomistic conception of individuals, first
propounded by Hobbes, would later come to dominate liberal political theory. It
is worth nothing thatsuch a construction of individuals has been criticized by
many as being asocial and mechanistic.
10.5 LET US SUM UP

Hobbes, true to his pessimistic view of human nature, argues that reason
demands that an independent sovereign power be established to enforce the social
contract. This is necessary to subdue both internal and external threats to the
commonwealth. Internally, the sovereign will use rewards and punishments to
make sure that citizens follow the contract. Externally, the sovereign will defend
the commonwealth from rival states. The sovereign is established by the contract,
but is not part of the contract and hence, he is not bound by it. Sovereign power
for Hobbes is perpetual, indivisible, inalienable and absolute. The sovereign is
the sole author of laws and also functions as the highest judicial authority in the
commonwealth. He also determines what constitutes as legitimate knowledge and
thereby, is the source of scientific and philosophical progress. He defines justice
for the commonwealth and decides which opinions are to be permitted and which
ones are to be banned. Religious authorities also ought to be subservient to the
140 sovereign as the Leviathan cannot have competing heads. Hobbes notes that three
types of sovereign power can be instituted. They being monarchy, aristocracy and Hobbes: Sovereignty
democracy. Among them, Hobbes argues that monarchy offers the most coherent
and efficient exercise of sovereign power. Hobbes contends that the citizens of
his commonwealth are at liberty because they are not physically hindered by the
sovereign. They have given their voluntary consent for his rule and therefore,
have chosen it out of liberty, even if their choice was necessitated by fear or
necessity. In his view, fear and necessity are not hindrances to liberty. This
argument is further underlined by the fact that Hobbes does allow the citizens to
disobey the sovereign if their right to self-preservation is threatened as that is one
right they have not surrendered to him.
Hobbes put the individual at the centre of his theorizing of the social contract and
bestowsthe individual with an inalienable right to self-preservation against the
society and even the sovereign.This paved the way for later liberal theorists like
John Locke to expand the list of inalienable rights held by individuals against the
society and the sovereign while preserving the same atomistic individualist
framework of Hobbes. His theory of sovereignty greatly inspired subsequent
highly influential theories of sovereignty proposed by scholars like John Austin
and Jeremy Bentham.
10.6 REFERENCES
Baumgold, D. (2009). Hobbes in Boucher, D. & Kelly, P. ed. Political Thinkers:
From Socrates to the Present. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Duncan, S. (2019). Thomas Hobbes. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. URL:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hobbes/
Lloyd, S. & Sreedhar, S. (2019). Hobbes’s Moral and Political Philosophy.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. URL:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hobbes-moral/
Martinich, A.P. (2005). Hobbes. New York: Routledge.
Press.
141
Smith, A. (1759). The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Available Online at Project
BLOCK –V
HOBBES Gutenberg. URL: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/58559/58559-h/58559-h.htm
London: Macmillan.
Sorrell, T. (1986). Hobbes. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul
Sorrell, T. ed. (1996). The Cambridge Companion to Hobbes. Cambridge:
Strauss, L. (1936). The Political Philosophy of Hobbes: its Basis and Genesis.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Warrender, H. (1957). The Political Philosophy of Hobbes: His Theory of
Obligation. Oxford: Clarendon.
Williams, G. (2020). Thomas Hobbes: Moral and Political Philosophy. Internet
Encyclopedia of Philosophy. URL: https://www.iep.utm.edu/hobmoral/#H7

EXERCISES

Internal threats exist because of human nature to seek power and
therefore many might not adhere to the contract
 External threats also exist in the form of rival states
 Sovereign is needed to ensure internal adherence to the contract by
citizens and to defend the commonwealth against external threats
 Sovereign power is perpetual, i.e. once given, it cannot be taken back
 Sovereign power is indivisible and inalienable, i.e. cannot be shared
or divided
 Sovereign power is absolute i.e. there can be no limits on the power of
the sovereign.

 Liberty for Hobbes is absence of physical constraints
 Fear, necessity and even laws do not count as physical constraints and
hence are consistent with liberty
 Citizens enjoy relatively more liberty under a sovereign than in the
142 state of nature
2. Your answer should highlight the following points: Hobbes: Sovereignty
 Religious authorities are to be subservient to the sovereign because

there can only be one head to the leviathan
 The sovereign is the head of any public exercise of religion while
individuals can have private beliefs of their own
143
BLOCK –V
HOBBES
144
Hobbes: Sovereignty
BLOCK VI
LOCKE
145
BLOCK –V BLOCK VI INTRODUCTION
HOBBES
John Locke is an important English political philosopher whose ideas about
natural rights and constitutional government have gone on to greatly influence
not just subsequent political thought but also several constitutions of the world.
He is thus undoubtedly a central figure in Western liberal political philosophy,
although he himself was socially conservative. He is widely seen as the main
inspiration behind the European Enlightenment and also the Constitution of the
United States. Locke’s philosophical thinking was very similar to those who
founded the modern science like Robert Boyle and Isaac Newton. Locke left the
final authority in the hands of the governed, supported rule of law through
impartial judges and also advocated for the idea of tolerance. Locke argued for
toleration of different religious denominations and supported peaceful
coexistence of people of different religions, thus laying the groundwork for
modern toleration of diverse religions within a state. Locke refuted the divine
right theory and argued that natural rights of life, liberty and property predate
society and exist in the state of nature leads him to the conclusion that any
government that is constituted has to function in line with them and not in
violation of them. Hence, such a government first of all has to be setup only with
the consent of the governed which is what necessitates a social contract. The
Lockean concept of sovereignty is radically different from Hobbes. For Hobbes,
the sovereign is the unquestionable, indivisible, absolute, perpetual power who
makes and judges laws, apart from having other powers. There is no comparable
institution or body in the Lockean framework. The only unquestionable, absolute
and perpetual entity in Lockean political philosophy is natural law which is the
legitimate source of any authority for him.
146
Locke: Natural Rights
⁎
UNIT 11 LOCKE: NATURAL RIGHTS
Structure
11.0 Objectives
11.1 Introduction
11.2 State of Nature
11.2.1 Natural Law
11.3 Natural Rights
11.3.1 Justification of Property
11.4 Legacy of Lockean Discourse on Natural Rights
11.5 Let Us Sum Up
11.6 References
11.0 OBJECTIVES
The aim of this unit is to familiarise you with the key aspects of English political
philosopher, John Locke’s ideas on natural rights. After studying this unit, you
should be able to:
 Describe Locke’s conceptualization of state of nature
 Explain Locke’s views on natural rights
 Examine Locke’s justification of property; and
 Evaluate the legacy of Locke’s natural rights discourse
11.1 INTRODUCTION
John Locke is an important English political philosopher whose ideas about
natural rights and constitutional government have gone on to greatly influence
not just subsequent political thought, but also several constitutions of the world.
He is, thus, undoubtedly a central figure in Western liberal political philosophy.
Locke was born in England in 1634 CE (died in 1704 CE) to Puritan parents
whose religious upbringing would greatly influence his later ideas on natural law
and rights. He was studious from childhood and studied diverse subjects
including literature, theology, politics and medicine in Oxford. He had the
fortune of meeting Lord Ashley in 1665 CE, a rich politician who subsequently
⁎
147
invited him to London to be his physician. This gave Locke a rare opportunity to
BLOCK –VI
LOCKE observe English politics closely and interact with many key political figures of
his time.
Locke lived during one of the most consequential centuries in English political
history. 17th century England saw escalating conflicts between the monarchy and
the Parliament that resulted in bloody civil wars. It was also a period
characterised by religious tensions between rival Christian denominations of
Protestants, Catholics and Anglicans. In 1649 CE, the then monarch Charles I
was defeated and executed by Parliamentarians. They established an English
republic which survived till the restoration of monarchy under Charles II in 1660
CE. This, however, did not end the conflict as the monarchy and the Parliament
continued to clash till the Glorious Revolution of 1688 CE which lasted from
1688 CE to 1689 CE. It saw the overthrow of the Catholic monarch James II who
was replaced by his protestant daughter Mary and her husband William. More
importantly, the new monarch signed the Bill of Rights which gave the
Parliament unprecedented powers and this event is now generally considered as a
key milestone in the establishment of a Constitutional Monarchy in England.
Hence, it is no exaggeration to say that Locke lived during a period of great
political churning in English history. He was an avid supporter of the cause of
Parliamentarians and this even forced him to live away from England in
continental Europe at times for fear of his safety. The eventual success of the
Parliamentarians with the Glorious Revolution not only enabled him to return to
England, but it also vindicated many of his ideas.
Locke was an empiricist and he explained his empirical understanding of
knowledge in one of his famous works, An Essay Concerning Human
Understanding which was published in 1689 CE. It is in this book that he put
forward his famous claim that the human mind is a blank state, a tabula rasa, at
birth without any innate knowledge. He argued that all knowledge that one gains
is a result of sensory experience. This book would influence many enlightenment
philosophers like David Hume and remains as one of the key modern texts on
empiricism. Locke’s A Letter Concerning Toleration was also published in 1689
CE and it discusses his ideas on religious toleration. It was written in the
background of the fierce antagonism between Catholics and Protestants in
England and the rest of Europe. Locke argued for toleration of different religious
denominations and supported peaceful coexistence of people of different
religions, thus laying the groundwork for modern toleration of diverse religions
within a state. His ideas on toleration will be discussed in more details in a
subsequent unit.
Locke’s ideas on legitimate government were explained in his work, Two
Treatises of Government which was published in 1689 CE, though written much
earlier. The first treatise was written in response to royalist Robert Filmer’s
influential book Patriarcha which had been published in 1680 CE. Filmer had
argued in favour of the divine right theory of kings by claiming that monarchs
148 were descendants of Adam who was granted the right to rule by God. Locke,
being a supporter of Parliamentarians, rejected this outright by arguing that
Filmer’s ideas would condemn much of humankind to be perpetual slaves to Locke: Natural Rights
monarchs. He dismissed the divine right theory of Filmer as being merely
speculative and devoid of any evidence as it was impossible to trace the lineage
of anyone to Adam. Instead of an all-powerful monarch, Locke contended that
human beings ought to govern themselves in accordance with natural law. The
first treatise, thus, rejects an absolutist monarch, thereby setting the stage for the
second treatise, wherein Locke discusses how natural law and natural rights exist
and are binding even in the state of nature, i.e. the pre–political society before the
emergence of government. Locke goes on to explain his views on legitimate
political authority in detail. The second treatise directly influenced many famous
democratic, liberal constitutions of the world, including that of the United States
and India. It is, thus, one of the most influential books in human history. In this
unit, Locke’s views on natural rights are discussed in detail.
11.2 STATE OF NATURE

State of nature, the pre–political society, the fear of which was used by Hobbes to
justify an absolutist sovereign, is also used by Locke as the starting point of his
social contract theory. However, Locke’s state of nature is not a wholly fearful
and dreadful place where no productive activity is possible as it is in the
Hobbesian conception. This is largely because of Locke’s optimistic
characterization of human nature in comparison to Hobbes. Locke acknowledges
that in the state of nature human beings are free, as there is no government or
higher human authority. However, Locke contends that this freedom does not
mean that state of nature is equivalent to a state of licence to do anything. This is
so because Locke argues that human beings in the state of nature are subject to
natural law.
11.2.1 Natural Law

State of nature is not lawless for Locke, as it is for Hobbes. For Hobbes, it is the
sovereign who can enact laws and therefore, without a sovereign there can be no
binding laws in the state of nature. Even the laws of nature specified by Hobbes
are only dictates of reason which make human beings escape the lawless state of
nature to a lawful political society with a sovereign. In contrast, Locke argues
that human beings living in the state of nature are subject to natural law which is
binding on them. For Locke, natural law is given by God who is a superior
authority, like the Hobbesian sovereign. Hence, the dictates of natural law in his
view are binding on all human beings, who are creations of God. Human beings
are bestowed with reason by God such that they can perceive natural law and act
in accordance with it. Lockean conception of natural law, though ultimately is
from God, is accessible by human reason because, both natural law and reason
are creations of the same God. Locke explains what this natural law entails in one
of the most famous passages of political philosophy -
“The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every
one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but
consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm 149
another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the
BLOCK –VI
LOCKE workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the
servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and
about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are,
made to last during his, not one another’s pleasure: and being furnished
with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot
be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to
destroy one another… Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself, and
not to quit his station wilfully, so by the like reason, when his own
preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to
preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an
offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation
of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another” (Locke, Second
Treatise of Government, Chapter II)
As the above passage shows, Locke believes that all human beings haveto
necessarily adhere to natural law which obligates them to not harm each other
with respect to each other’s life, liberty and property. Locke also contends that
since all human beings are God’s creation, they are equal before him and are
therefore, equal in relation to each other. Hence, there cannot be any
subordination of one by another. While each individual has the right to self-
preservation, this right is not absolute and unlimited as it is for Hobbes. For
Locke, each individual has the obligation to preserve others as well, as long as it
does not come in competition with his or own self-preservation. Moreover, Locke
contends that except to penalize an offense committed by someone, no one has
the right to take away the life, liberty and property of others. Locke does
acknowledge that the lack of government in the state of nature means that there is
no common authority or judge to punish violators of natural law. This fact, in
Locke’s view, makes each individual a judge in the state of nature with the right
to punish violators of natural law. They have the right to punish not just
violations of natural law against them, but even violations in general, with an
obligation that the punishment should be in proportion to the offense. Locke
justifies this claim by arguing that even a foreigner who does not come under the
domestic jurisdiction of the sovereign of a country is liable to be punished by him
for crimes because of natural law, which is universal and accessible to all through
reason.
Thus, for Locke, state of nature is not a state of war or lawlessness but is a state
of “peace, goodwill, mutual assistance and self-preservation” without the
presence of a common authority. Locke makes a distinction between state of
nature and state of war. State of nature exists when people live without a
common authority, but abide by reason which means they follow natural law.
people can live full, productive lives in the state of nature. On the other hand,
state of war happens when reason is abandoned and violation of natural law
happens, resulting in someone getting wronged. This would mean the victim is in
a state of war with the offender till justice is served. In a political society with a
150 judge, such a conflict would have ended with arbitration under the common
authority of a judge. On the other hand, when state of nature descends into state Locke: Natural Rights
of war because of violations of natural law, it ends only when the offender
acknowledges the error and compensates the victim or if the victim manages to
punish the offender. Locke insists that one should not think of state of nature and
state of war as one and same. This is a key difference between Hobbes and
Locke. For Hobbes, state of nature is synonymous with the state of war. In
contrast, Locke’s state of nature is characterized by people living peacefully in
accordance with natural law, despite the absence of a common authority.
Locke did understand that things are not perfect in the state of nature. Human
beings in the state of nature can interpret natural law in different ways,
influenced by their own interests. Since there is no neutral authority to arbitrate,
this can cause conflicts and violations of natural law. The lack of an impartial
judge to adjudicate disputes between two parties can, thus, have adverse
repercussions. Moreover, Locke was also aware that in some instances, it might
not be possible to punish the violator of natural law because he or she might be
strong. It is because of such shortcomings, the state of nature is always under the
threat of descending into a state of war. Locke argues that this is a major reason
why people prefer to establish a civil society with a common authority. The
presence of a common authority established with the consent of the people and
functioning within appropriate limits ensures better stability in society. However,
what are those limits? It is in this respect that Locke’s discussion of natural rights
becomes significant to his social contract theory.

the unit.
1. According to Locke, who enforces natural law in the state of nature?
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
2. In Locke’s view, what are the differences between the state of nature and
the state of war?
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
151
…………………………………………………………………………...……
BLOCK –VI 11.3 NATURAL RIGHTS
LOCKE
A central argument made by Locke is that each individual has a natural right to
life, liberty and property, even in the state of nature. These natural rights flow
from natural law and are governed by it. These rights are pre-political and are,
thus, in effect granted by God and held by every individual from birth. Natural
law mandates that everyone respects these natural rights in each other. The only
reason for which one can justifiably violate them is when somebody is
threatening to violate other’s natural rights. Thus, if someone threatens to take
away another person’s life, then that person is justified in taking the offender’s
life, to preserve his or her own right to life. Otherwise, natural law demands that
everybody respects each other’s natural rights.
Lockean natural rights of life, liberty and property are different from the
Hobbesian natural right of self-preservation in several ways. Hobbesian natural
right does not impose any obligation on others towards the holder of the right.
This is so because Hobbes sees the state of nature as lawless with no sovereign to
enforce any obligation. In contrast, Locke argues that natural law obligates that
all respect each other’s natural rights. For Hobbes, right to self-preservation
means one is at liberty to do anything for its sake. In contrast, Locke would argue
that one’s exercise of liberty should be compatible with natural law. Therefore,
one is justified in pursuing their rights only to the extent that it does not violate
other’s natural rights. Hence, in contrast to Hobbesian natural right, Lockean
natural rights framework imposes higher obligations on others and gives less
liberty for its holders, because of the existence of natural law. Despite these
differences, like Hobbes, Locke also contends that people agree to enter a social
contract to preserve their natural rights and therefore, do not give up their natural
rights even when they enter civil society. This will be discussed in more detail in
the next unit. As noted earlier, life, liberty and property are the three natural
rights described by Locke. It is helpful to look at each of them in some detail.
Right to life is synonymous with self-preservation and Locke argues that in the
state of nature one has the right to do anything to preserve themselves within the
bounds of natural law. One is thus, obligated to respect other people’s right to life
as long as it does not come in to competition with one’s own right to life. Further,
right to liberty in the state of nature means one should have the freedom to pursue
their life, ruled only by natural law and not by dictates of others. This is what
Locke calls as natural liberty. Locke recognises that when a person enters civil
society, there might be additional laws enacted by the state. This is where his
concept of social liberty comes into play. Locke contends that a person in civil
society has liberty as long as he lives under laws enacted by institutions to which
he or she has consented. This is what he calls as social liberty. Hence, right to
liberty is a very important right for Locke, in both the state of nature and in
society. Locke argues that people cannot in right reason relinquish their right to
freedom from arbitrary power even if they wish as it is a right bestowed by God,
an inalienable natural right. Thus, for Locke, an institution like slavery cannot be
152 justified on any grounds. Moving further, Locke’s discussion of right to property
is considered by many as one of his most important contributions to political as Locke: Natural Rights
well as economic thought. It, thus, deserves a detailed elaboration.
11.3.1 Justification of Property

Locke considers right to property as an inalienable natural right possessed by all
individuals. To give a philosophical foundation for the right to property, Locke
discusses a theory of property based on labour. His labour theory of property
went on to become a foundational principle in classical liberal economics as well
as in Marxian understanding of the value of commodities. The fact that such
diverse schools of thought came to be influenced by Locke’s theory of property
underlines its great significance.
Locke starts with a simple question, if God gave the whole of earth to be enjoyed
by all human beings, then what justifies private property? To answer this
question, Locke begins by discussing property in a more intimate sense. He
argues that one’s life and body i.e. hands and legs are clearly one’s own property.
It is this characterization of property that would enable Locke at times to collapse
all the rights as encapsulated in the right to property itself as one’s life and liberty
are also one’s property. If one’s life and body are one’s own property, then Locke
contends that the result of one’s labour with that life and body should also by
extension legitimately belong to that person. In effect, this creates a labour theory
of property which posits that whatever one creates with the mixing of his or her
labour, belongs to that person. Thus, uncultivated land might be common
property of humankind, but the moment someone mixes his or her labour to
cultivate it, Locke argues that the land has legitimately become the private
property of that person. This way, Locke has offered a justification for a natural
right to property in the state of nature itself without the need for a government to
legitimize claims of property.
Locke’s right to property is qualified with certain conditions or limitations. The
first one is self-evident from the above discussion i.e. one can appropriate only
that much amount of property as can be utilized by one’s labour. So, if a person
can utilize through his labour only for one acre of land, he cannot lay claim to
more than that. This is sometimes called as the labour restriction. Locke also
suggests that one can only appropriate so much that can be used by a person
without any spoilage. For instance, if a person harvests apples from wild trees,
since he or she mixed his or her labour in collecting them, those apples are his or
her property, but that person should only appropriate as much apples as he or she
can consume without them getting spoilt. This is referred to as the spoilage
restriction. Lastly, Locke also argues that one should leave sufficient resources
for others to survive. One cannot collect all the apples, leaving nothing for others.
This is often called as the sufficiency restriction. Locke argues that these three
restrictions legitimately limit right to property (Macpherson, 1962).
Locke goes on to argue that human beings in the state of nature create money
because it is more efficient than the barter system. Locke is aware that the
introduction of money and a monetary system leads to increased accumulation of 153
property and might lead to increased inequalities. Locke insists that having a
monetary system is still justified, because it is consent based and is ultimately
BLOCK –VI
LOCKE still rooted in labour. Moreover, Locke argues that a monetary system encourages
efficiency and in comparison to primitive societies which rely on barter system,
societies with money develop at a higher rate and thereby increase prosperity for
everyone. So much so that a lowly worker in a country with an advanced
monetary system has a better standard of living than a clan chief of a primitive
society. For Locke, such a monetary system develops in the state of nature itself.
As a matter of fact, the increased accumulation of private property that happens
as the result of money is one reason people eventually agree to enter into a social
contract to protect their property rights. This will be discussed in detail in the
next unit.

the unit.
1. According to Locke, which are the natural rights and why are they called
so?
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
2. According to Locke, what justifies private property in the state of nature?
Are there any restrictions?
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
11.4 LEGACY OF LOCKEAN DISCOURSE ON

NATURAL RIGHTS
Lockean discourse on natural law and natural rights continues to influence many
critical debates in political philosophy. Lockean state of nature has been
criticized as ahistorical and this criticism is especially pertinent because at places
in his writings, Locke does seem to argue that his state of nature is historical.
154
This was probably important for him as an empiricist, but there is no historical
evidence for the kind of state of nature described by him. Locke has also been Locke: Natural Rights
criticized for starting on an optimistic note about the state of nature while
eventually agreeing with the pessimistic outlook of Hobbes. This comes across as
a sleight of hand by Locke. There is also considerable discussion among scholars
about whether Locke prioritized natural rights or natural law. The former would
mean that Locke gave prominence to privileges enjoyed by individuals over
duties, while the latter would mean that Locke prioritized duties over individual
privileges. Scholars like Strauss (1953) argue that Locke privileged rights over
duties as the duties described by Locke are subject to the right of self-
preservation of individuals. On the other hand, scholars like Dunn (1969) and
Ashcraft (1986) argue that Locke prioritizes natural law and duties over rights,
because rights in the Lockean framework largely focus on showing respect for
the life, liberty and property of others, as commanded by natural law.
As noted in the introduction, Locke considered himself as an empiricist and
rejected the idea of innate ideas. However, he has been criticized for not offering
a clear empirical justification for his natural law and natural rights. His
contention at places in his writings that natural law and natural rights are given
by god and accessed through reason appears to go against his belief against
innate ideas. Scholars like Strauss (1953) have concluded from this contradiction
that Locke did not actually believe in a truly God given natural law, but was just
using God’s name as a safe vehicle to give legitimacy to his reason driven ideas.
This would of course make natural law and natural rights arbitrary and not
universal as different people’s reasoning can lead to different conclusions. While
other scholars like Ashcraft (1986) have tried to reconcile this contradiction in
Locke, it has to be admitted that Locke’s theory of natural law and natural rights
is not satisfactorily derived, if one removes God from the equation. As a matter
of fact, Dunn (1969) argues that because of the theistic assumptions behind
Lockean discourse of natural and natural rights, its validity to contemporary
society where many of those theistic assumptions are not shared, is somewhat
limited.
Locke’s theory of property has been criticized by scholars like Macpherson
(1962) of justifying unlimited capitalist accumulation as he accuses Locke of
relaxing his own labour, spoilage and sufficiency restrictions on property
accumulation with the introduction of money. For example, a person with money
can hire workers and through their labour acquire more property, thereby
violating the labour limitation. Money itself violates the spoilage restriction as it
does not get spoilt and can thus be, hoarded without any limit. A property like
land can also be accumulated by a few people through money using hired labour,
thereby leaving nothing to own for others and thereby, violating the sufficiency
limitation. Hence, as the social contract of Locke emerges to protect natural
rights which includes property rights, Macpherson argues that Lockean social
contract serves to protect and justify the accumulated property of the rich.
However, many scholars have rejected this view and argue that there is no reason
to believe that all the limitations suggested by Locke get completely removed
155
with the introduction of money. The spoilage limitation may be is removed fully
by money, but other limitations only get transformed. For example, Sreenivasan
BLOCK –VI
LOCKE (1995) argues that Locke’s argument for sufficiency is about leaving sufficient
means of survival for others, not necessarily leaving some of the same
commodity for others, like say land. So, even if there is no more land to be
owned, people are still paid for their labour which leaves them sufficient income
to live. Since accumulation of money is also rooted in labour, using money to
hire workers does not necessarily violate the labour restriction. While the
spoilage limitation might be violated, the efficiency argument put forward by
Locke is a powerful one. Money allows people to utilize more resources with
more efficiency. For instance, workers can be hired from far to cultivate more
lands which were previously unused. This increases the general prosperity of a
society, benefitting everyone, even if inequalities increase. It also has to be kept
in mind that the monetary system spoken by Locke is also based on consent and
not coercion. Some others have pointed out that when Locke means property, he
means both life and liberty, which is not taken into consideration by Macpherson.
Also, it has to be kept in mind that Locke’s theory of property, even considering
the introduction of money, is ultimately rooted in labour, rejecting aristocratic
privileges towards land or other resources, which was common during his period.
Lockean discourse on natural rights has shaped the evolution of modern
understanding of human rights. The idea that all human beings have certain
inalienable rights from birth has captured the imagination of people everywhere,
thereby influencing transformative movements towards equality and justice
across the world.
11.5 LET US SUM UP

Locke describes the characteristics of the state of nature in a much more
optimistic manner than Hobbes. He argues that the state of nature is not
equivalent to state of lawlessness. This is so because natural law is operative
even in the state of nature. Natural law commands that people respect each
other’s life, liberty and property and everyone aim to preserve not just oneself,
but also others as long as it does come in conflict with one’s own self-
preservation. Locke contends that people can live peacefully in the state of nature
and live fulfilling lives without the presence of a common authority or judge to
adjudicate disputes. The lack of a common judge means, each individual is
empowered to enforce natural law and penalize violations of natural law. Locke
also argues that people have natural rights in the state of nature. These are rights
to life, liberty and property. These impose obligations on the part of others
towards the right holders. Liberty is the right to obey only natural law and no
other man made law without proper consent. Locke also argues that people gain
right to property over something if they had mixed their labour to create it.
Mixing of labour is what creates private property. Locke also talks about life and
liberty as the property of an individual and thereby, extending the meaning of
right to property. Since individuals hold natural rights in the state of nature itself,
Locke contends that they enter a social contract to create a civil society to
156 preserve these rights. The lack of a common judge in the state of nature can lead
to instability and inconveniences which is the reason why people eventually Locke: Natural Rights
agree to set up a civil society.
11.6 REFERENCES
Anstey, P. (2011). John Locke & Natural Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Ashcraft, R. (1986). Revolutionary Politics and Locke’s Two Treatises of

Government. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Chappell, V. (1994). The Cambridge Companion to Locke. Cambridge:

Colman, J. (1983). John Locke’s Moral Philosophy. Edinburgh: Edinburgh

University Press.
Connolly, P. (2020). John Locke. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. URL:

https://www.iep.utm.edu/locke/
Dunn, J. (1969). The Political Thought of John Locke. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.
Grant, R. (1987). John Locke’s Liberalism. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.

Locke, J. (1689). An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Available Online

at Project Gutenberg. URL:http://www.gutenberg.org/files/10615/10615-
h/10615-h.htm
Locke, J. (1689). A Letter Concerning Toleration. Available Online at Library of

Liberty. URL:https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/locke-the-works-vol-5-four-letters-
concerning-toleration
Locke, J. (1690). Second Treatise of Government. Available Online at Project

Gutenberg. URL: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7370/7370-h/7370-h.htm

Mendus, S. (1991). Locke on Toleration in Focus. London: Routledge.
157
Moseley, A. (2020). John Locke: Political Philosophy. Internet Encyclopedia of
BLOCK –VI
LOCKE Philosophy. URL: https://www.iep.utm.edu/locke-po/
Simmons, A. J. (1992). The Lockean Theory of Rights. Princeton: Princeton

University Press.
Sheridan, P. (2020). Locke’s Moral Philosophy. Stanford Encyclopedia of

Philosophy. URL: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-moral/
Sreenivasan, G. (1995).The Limits of Lockean Rights in Property. Oxford:

Strauss, Leo. (1953). Natural Right and History. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Uzgalis, W. (2020). John Locke. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. URL:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/
Waldron, J. (2009). John Locke, in D. Boucher and P. Kelly ed. Political

Thinkers: From Socrates to the Present. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Walsh, J. (2020). Locke: Ethics. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. URL:

https://www.iep.utm.edu/locke-et/

EXERCISES
 There is no common judge to enforce natural law in the state of nature
 Hence, each individual is authorized to act as a judge in case of
violations of natural law, both against themselves and general
violations
 Instate of nature, people are without a common judge but they live in
peace, in accordance to natural law and reason
 In state of war, violations of natural law happens, leading to conflicts.
It ends only when natural law is restored.

158
 Right to Life, Right to Liberty and Right to Property are called as Locke: Natural Rights
natural rights by Locke.
 They are natural rights because, they are pre-political and flow from
natural law.
 Mixing of one’s labour is what creates private property.
 Limitations include – firstly, labour restriction i.e. one has to mix
one’s labour to claim something. Secondly, spoilage restriction, i.e.
one can only appropriate that much which can be consumed without
spoilage. Lastly, sufficiency restriction i.e. one’s appropriation should
leave enough for others.
159
BLOCK –VI
LOCKE
UNIT 12 LOCKE: CONSTITUTIONALISM AND
LIMITED GOVERNMENT⁎
Structure
12.0 Objectives
12.1 Introduction
12.2 Creation of the Social Contract
12.3 Constitutional Limited Government
12.3.1 Role of Consent
12.3.2 Right to Dissent
12.4 Legacy of Locke’s Constitutionalism
12.5 Let Us Sum Up
12.6 References
12.0 OBJECTIVES
The aim of this unit is to familiarise you with the nature and key aspects of
English political philosopher, John Locke’s ideas on constitutionalism and
limited government. After studying this unit, you should be able to:
 Describe the nature of Locke’s social contract
 Explain Locke’s views on limited government
 Examine Locke’s perspective on the right to dissent; and
 Evaluate the legacy of Locke’s constitutionalism and limited government
12.1 INTRODUCTION
John Locke’s discussion on legitimate political authority in his famous work,
Two Treatises of Government (1689 CE) is one of the earliest attempts to sketch
out a liberal, constitutional government that is limited and is also accountable.
Locke’s conceptualization of such a government is very much a continuation of
his ideas on natural law and natural rights which were discussed in detail in the
previous unit. Locke’s belief that natural rights of life, liberty and property
predate society and exist in the state of nature leads him to the conclusion that
any government that is constituted has to function in line with them and not in
⁎
160
violation of them. Hence, such a government first of all has to be setup only with Locke:
Constitutionalism and
the consent of the governed which is what necessitates a social contract. Natural Government
Locke dismisses the idea floated by some of his contemporaries who supported
an absolutist monarch that a monarch’s power is comparable to paternal power
i.e. the power of a father over a child. Locke argues that paternal power applies
only over children and that too only till they reach the age of reason, after which
they can think for themselves and are no longer subject to paternal power. Hence,
it is absurd to justify the political power of monarchs by comparing it to paternal
power because that would rest on the patently false assumption that the subjects
are children who cannot reason. Locke also contends that conjugal power is also
not comparable to the powers of a government because it is restricted to the
domain of family and is not political in nature. Having dismissed such popular
justifications for political power during his period, Locke sets out to detail his
views on legitimate political authority.
12.2 CREATION OF THE SOCIAL CONTRACT

In Locke’s view, the only legitimate political authority is one that is set up
through a social contract that is consented to by the people. However, before such
a social contract and what it might entail can be discussed, Locke has to address a
pressing question, why would people want to leave the state of nature in the first
place? Hobbesian state of nature was a violent mess and thus, it was obvious why
people would be eager to escape it. On the other hand, as noted in the previous
unit, Locke himself contends that peaceful coexistence in accordance with natural
law is possible in his conceptualization of state of nature. If that is the case, then
why is there a need for a social contract and a government?
Locke answers this question by pointing out that the state of nature lacks three
important benefits offered by civil society i.e. “an established, settled, known
law”, “a known and indifferent judge” and the “power to back and support the
sentence”.
“First, There wants an established, settled, known law, received and
allowed by common consent to be the standard of right and wrong… for
though the law of nature be plain and intelligible to all rational
creatures; yet men being biassed by their interest, as well as ignorant for
want of study of it, are not apt to allow of it as a law binding to them...
Secondly, In the state of nature there wants a known and indifferent
judge, with authority to determine all differences according to the
established law: for every one in that state being both judge and
executioner of the law of nature, men being partial to themselves, passion
and revenge is very apt to carry them too far… Thirdly, In the state of
nature there often wants power to back and support the sentence when
right, and to give it due execution” (Locke, Second Treatise of
Government, Chapter IX).
State of nature has natural law, but since it is not established, settled and clearly
known as the written laws of a state, there can be causes for misinterpretation and 161
rival readings. Similarly, while each individual is the executor of natural law in
BLOCK –VI
LOCKE the state of nature, the presence of an independent judge is beneficial because it
brings impartiality and credibility to the execution of laws. Lastly and probably
more importantly, the presence of a common authority in the form of an
executive to implement the law would mean that violators of laws would be
surely punished by the power of the state. Whereas, in the state of nature, if the
violator is powerful, he or she might get away with crimes. Hence, it is in order
to attain these three benefits of civil society, Locke contends that people would
consent to leave the state of nature and create a civil society. It is worth noting
that these three benefits mentioned by Locke roughly correspond to the functions
of a legislature, judiciary and executive. The motivation for relinquishing the
state of nature for the people is to better preserve their natural rights to life,
liberty and property through the above mentioned benefits of civil society. State
of nature due to the lack of such benefits can more easily descend into a state of
war. This is more probable especially after the introduction of money and the rise
of social inequalities. People with property would, thus, want the better
protection offered by civil society. Hence this leads to the creation of the social
contract.
By entering a civil society, Locke argues that people do have to give up some of
the liberties and rights they enjoyed in the state of nature in return for the benefits
enjoyed.In the state of nature, people have the right to do whatever they want
within the bounds of natural law. However, once entering civil society, this
freedom will have to be given up partially because the civil law will have to be
obeyed by everyone and it will likely be stricter and more detailed than natural
law. As noted in the previous unit, natural liberty i.e. obedience only to natural
law, will get transformed into social liberty i.e. obedience to civil laws that come
out of one’s consent.
“The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on
earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but to
have only the law of nature for his rule. The liberty of man, in society, is
to be under no other legislative power, but that established, by consent, in
the commonwealth; nor under the dominion of any will, or restraint of
any law, but what that legislative shall enact, according to the trust put in
it” (Locke, Second Treatise of Government, Chapter IV).
Another power everyone had in the state of nature which has to be fully given up
after entering civil society is the power of each individual to punish violations of
natural law. In a civil society, the power to sentence and punish crimes lies with
the judge and the executive. Hence, individuals cannot be the judge and
executors of the law once they consent to the social contract and enter civil
society.

162 ii) Check your progress with the model answer given at the end of
the unit.
1. According to Locke, what are the three benefits offered by civil society Locke:
over the state of nature? Natural Government
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
2. Which privileges of the state of nature have to be given up partially and
fully once someone enters civil society?
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
12.3 CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITED GOVERNMENT

Having explained the reasons that motivate people in the state of nature to
consent to the creation of a commonwealth through a social contract, Locke
proceeds to show how the commonwealth ought to be structured in order to keep
it limited, efficient and under check.
Locke argues that, once created through consent, key decisions about the
commonwealth will be decided based on the principle of majority and those who
agreed to the social contract and the creation of commonwealth have to consent
to subject themselves to the majority principle. While unanimous consent is
desirable, Locke concedes that it might not be practical in all scenarios. The
legitimacy of the commonwealth will depend on the proper functioning of the
legislative power, the judicial power and the executive power in protecting the
natural rights of the subjects. It has to be noted that unlike in Montesquieu’s later
categorization wherein judicial power is mentioned separately, in Locke’s
formulation, judicial power gets categorized under executive power.
The creation of the commonwealth has to be followed by the majority deciding
on the form of government. For Locke, who or which body exercises legislative
power determines the form of government. This is so because legislative power is
supreme within the government. The majority can choose to establish a
democracy, by which they keep the legislative powers with themselves. They can
decide to establish an oligarchy by giving legislative powers in the hands of a
few or a monarchy by giving legislative powers to a single person. Any form of
163
government is appropriate as long as the legislative body complies with its
mandate and does not exceed its limitations. Locke, however, expresses
BLOCK –VI
LOCKE preference for some kind of elected, representative legislative body and he also
supports experiments in mixed forms of government. Once determined, it is the
duty of this legislative body to enact laws in line with natural law and for the
benefit of the commonwealth. The creation of the commonwealth and the
establishment of the form of government are two separate acts with the former
being a contract and the latter a mere act. This means that the majority can
change the form of government by another act if they find the legislative body
incapable or inefficient or stepping beyond its limits. Thus, for Locke, ultimate
power lies with the people who constitute the commonwealth, while the
legislature is supreme within the government. It is for the same reason the
legislature cannot transfer its power to any other body as the people have given
this power only to them. Locke also suggests some conditions on the nature of
laws that can be enacted by the legislature. Firstly, he argues that the laws put
forward by the legislature must apply equally on all without any partiality. They
should serve the common good. He further contends that the legislature should
not increase taxes on property without the proper consent of the people involved.
Property after all is a natural right for Locke. He also lists several practical
suggestions in order to prevent the legislature from stepping beyond its bounds.
For example, he is concerned about some people serving for a long time in the
legislature, thus resulting in a permanent political class who might start to
consider themselves as different from rest of society. Similarly, he does not think
it is necessary for the legislature to be in session all the time or to even meet
frequently as that might once again tempt them to step beyond their bounds.
The people also set up a federative power whose role is to carry out the external
relations of the commonwealth. With respect to relations with other states, Locke
posits that the commonwealth should be considered a single entity, akin to an
individual. This individual is instate of nature with other states as there is no
common international authority. Hence, as per his conceptualization of the state
of nature, natural law is applicable between states when it comes to international
relations. It is the role of the federative power to conduct the international
relations of the commonwealth with other states. The federative power can
operate in consonance with the executive power.
The people also have to set up an executive power which is charged with the
implementation of the law. The executive can take the shape of a monarchy or
any other suitable form. The executive is charged with both implementation as
well as adjudication of law as judicial power is also categorized under the
executive by Locke. Hence, next to the legislative body, the executive that is the
most important institution in the commonwealth. Unlike the legislative body
which need not be in session often, Locke notes that the executive needs to
function all the time to properly implement the laws enacted by the legislative
body. The executive is subservient to the legislative body and cannot go against
any law enacted by the legislative. However, Locke, having been a close observer
of English politics for a long time, recognises that at times unprecedented and
164 unforeseen situations might arise which are incapable of being addressed in
advance by the legislative. This could also involve aggression by other states. Locke:
Hence, Locke grants prerogative powers for the executive to deal with Natural Government
contingencies that are not explicitly dealt with by the legislature. Where there is
silence of the law, the executive has room to act on its own. On very rare
occasions, the executive can also act against a law which has become detrimental
to the common good due to a changed scenario. Since the legislative body is not
always in session, it might take some time for it to respond to emergencies and
hence, the executive needs these powers to respond effectively to fast moving
situations.
“This power to act according to discretion, for the public good, without
the prescription of the law, and sometimes even against it, is that which is
called prerogative: for since in some governments the law making power
is not always in being, and is usually too numerous, and so too slow, for
the dispatch requisite to execution; and because also it is impossible to
foresee, and so by laws to provide for, all accidents and necessities that
may concern the public, or to make such laws as will do no harm, if they
are executed with an inflexible rigour, on all occasions, and upon all
persons that may come in their way; therefore there is a latitude left to
the executive power, to do many things of choice which the laws do not
prescribe” (Locke, Second Treatise of Government, Chapter XIV)
The executive is also bestowed by Locke with the powers to call and adjourn
legislative sessions. Locke argues that the prerogatives of the executive are based
on a trust that the institution will act in accordance with the spirit of the social
contract for the sake of common good. As long as the executive abides by that
trust, its actions remain legitimate but any transgression can lead the people to
replace the executive. Locke insists that executive prerogative is not a right but a
trust. Lock emphasises this point because an enlightened leader of the executive
might use this trust wisely, thereby expand executive prerogatives. This
expanded executive prerogative might be claimed as an inalienable right by the
successor citing precedent which is want Locke wants to prevent by arguing that
it is not a right, but a trust placed by the people, who can take it away.
The preceding discussion indicates how Locke seeks to achieve separation of
powers between the legislative and executive to maintain a balance of power
within the government. The people who are the authors of the social contract
determine the form of the legislative body and the executive and retain ultimate
authority. Any violation of the constitutional limits set up by the people would
delegitimize the legislative body and the executive. In the larger sense, one also
has to keep in mind that Locke expected the commonwealth to uphold the
principles of natural law and respect the natural rights of individuals. Hence, all
the institutions of the government and the commonwealth have to adhere to
natural law and respect the natural rights of life, liberty and property of all
individuals.
12.3.1 Role of Consent

165
It is important to discuss the role of consent in the Lockean constitutional
BLOCK –VI
LOCKE framework for legitimate government. It is based on individual consent that
people exit the state of nature and create a political society i.e. the
commonwealth. Similarly, Locke also argues that apart from the universal
obligations imposed by natural law on everyone, all other obligations have to be
based on consent. Locke does claim that a person can become a full member of a
political society only giving express consent. However, this becomes problematic
because of the fact that few citizens in real societies have actually expressly
consented to their respective governments. Locke, aware of this problem,
proposes his theory of tacit consent. Locke argues that by continuing to live in a
commonwealth, benefitting from its facilities like roads etc., participating in its
activities and also by inheriting property that is recognized by a particular
government, people give tacit consent to the commonwealth. While most people
might not have expressly consented to the commonwealth, they end up giving
tacit consent which in his view is also valid.
“I say, that every man, that hath any possessions, or enjoyment, of any
part of the dominions of any government, doth thereby give his tacit
consent, and is as far forth obliged to obedience to the laws of that
government, during such enjoyment, as any one under it; whether this his
possession be of land, to him and his heirs for ever, or a lodging only for
a week; or whether it be barely travelling freely on the highway; and in
effect, it reaches as far as the very being of any one within the territories
of that government” (Locke, Second Treatise of Government, Chapter
VIII)
Hence, for Locke, consent might take the form of direct, express consent or
indirect, tacit consent.
12.3.2 Right to Dissent

Legitimate political power for Hobbes is based on consent, given by people
through a social contract for protection of their natural rights. It is exercised
within the limits set by the social contract and exists to serve the common good.
In contrast, tyrannical power is the illegitimate, absolutist power exercised by a
despot over the life and property of his subjects without any regard for natural
law or natural rights. This can happen in a commonwealth by a variety of ways.
The executive or the legislative body might exceed its limit or fail to do its
duties. Whichever way it happens, when people end up with a tyrannical power
that seeks to exercise authority beyond legitimate limits, Locke insists that the
people have a right to dissent, rebel and dissolve that commonwealth.
“Whosoever uses force without right, as every one does in society, who
does it without law, puts himself into a state of war with those against
whom he so uses it; and in that state all former ties are cancelled, all
other rights cease, and every one has a right to defend himself, and to
resist the aggressor” (Locke, Second Treatise of Government, Chapter
166
XIX)
This right comes from the fact that the commonwealth was set up in the first Locke:
place for the protection of their natural rights. Hence, if their natural rights are Natural Government
violated, then there is no reason for people to continue obeying the laws of the
commonwealth because their natural rights would be better protected in the state
of nature itself. Locke argues that people will judge ultimately, if the executive or
the legislature have violated the terms of the social contract. Locke contends that
people even have the right to kill or execute those who transgress the limits of
legitimate government.

the unit.
1. According to Locke, why are executive prerogatives needed?
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
2. According to Locke, when is it justified to dissent?
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
12.4 LEGACY OF LOCKE’S CONSTITUTIONALISM

As noted previously, Locke’s views on constitutional government with limited
powers has influenced many great constitutions of the world. It also inspired
subsequent philosophers and holds a prominent place in liberal political
philosophy. Some of Locke’s ideas have also come under substantial criticism.
For instance, Locke’s idea of tacit consent has been accused by many scholars of
diluting the principle of consent itself, which is a core element of his philosophy.
Simmons (1992) argues that Lockean theory of tacit consent allows people to
give consent even without even being aware of it, which in his view is
unacceptable. In his view, tacit consent is too low a standard.Thus, it is argued
that Locke’s repeated emphasis on consent being critical for legitimate political
authority is greatly compromised by his theory of tacit consent. Dunn (1969), 167
however, argues that Locke uses the term consent to mean lack of unwillingness,
BLOCK –VI
LOCKE rather than a deliberate affirmative consent. Thus, if a person is not unwilling to
continue living in a commonwealth, he or she has given consent. Pitkin (1965) on
the other hand gives a more radical interpretation of Locke by arguing that
consent is not central to the Lockean framework. She argues that the reason
Locke can dilute his theory of consent is because ultimately, a commonwealth is
judged not based on consent, but based on its adherence to natural law. Thus, in
her view, Locke dilutes the importance of express consent because for him
natural law was more important than consent. What constitutes real consent and
its importance for legitimate political obligation continues to be greatly debated.
Further, Locke has also been criticised by socialist leaning scholars like
Macpherson (1962) for prioritizing property rights over other natural rights,
thereby for all practical purposes allowing full membership of the commonwealth
only to those with property. For instance, while discussing representation in the
legislative body, Locke suggests that it can be based on people’s tax contribution
which would in effect mean, people with more property who pay higher taxes
will have higher representation in the legislative body. This lends support to
Macpherson’s criticism. However, it has to be noted that Locke does consider
property as a natural right and hence, even the legislative body cannot violate a
natural right. Hence, as noted earlier, Locke would never support a redistribution
of property without the consent of the people concerned even if the legislative
body wishes it. Moreover, Locke also considers right to property as involving
both right to life and liberty and hence, one can argue that he does support equal
protection of all natural rights. While Locke will not support the arbitrary taking
away of the property of a propertied person, he will equally not support the
arbitrary taking away of the life and liberty of a person without property. It still
might be true that the Lockean commonwealth will serve the interests of the
propertied class more because they have more to be protected than those without
property.
Locke’s theory of sovereignty has also been criticised as being ambiguous and
incoherent. The legislative body is supposed to be supreme within the
government but as noted earlier, Locke lays down conditions that has to be
followed by the legislative body while framing laws. A true sovereign cannot be
subject to conditions. The same principle disqualifies the executive from being
the sovereign. The people who create the commonwealth also do so subject to
natural law. The Lockean concept of sovereignty is radically different from
Hobbes. For Hobbes, the sovereign is the unquestionable, indivisible, absolute,
perpetual power who makes and judges laws, apart from having other powers.
There is no comparable institution or body in the Lockean framework. The only
unquestionable, absolute and perpetual entity in Lockean political philosophy is
natural law which is the legitimate source of any authority for him. Sabine (1973)
points out that Locke has multiple levels of authority. It starts with the individual
and his natural rights. Individuals come together as a community to create the
commonwealth and hence, the community forms the next level of authority. The
168 community, however, cannot violate individual natural rights. The people of the
community, after entering the social contract, create the legislative body which Locke:
makes laws, but is subservient to the community. Further, there is also the Natural Government
executive which has certain prerogative powers, but is underneath the legislative
as well as the community. However, it might not be fair to criticise Lockean
theory of sovereignty from a Hobbesian perspective. Lockean framework of
sovereignty is more in line with scholars like Aquinas who treated sovereignty as
existing in a higher power like god or in natural law and reason. For Locke,
natural law or the power behind it is the ultimate sovereign, not any human
institution. What he seeks to construct is a form of government that will function
without transgressing this higher principle. Hence, Locke’s attempt is to create a
limited government which will not transgress the natural rights of individuals.
For that purpose, it makes practical sense to have multiple levels of authority
with checks and balances, instead of having an absolutist sovereign.
12.5 LET US SUM UP

Locke argues that due to the lack of a settled law, an impartial judge and an
executive with the power to implement the law in the state of nature, people will
be inclined to enter into a social contract that creates a civil society which has
those benefits. By agreeing to the social contract, people partially give up their
liberty to live only in accordance to natural law. By giving consent to the creation
of civil society, people agree to obey civil law, which might be stricter than
natural law. People also fully give up the right to judge others for violations of
natural law which they had in the state of nature. In civil society, judging
violations of law will be the role of the judiciary. Having created a civil society,
people then set up a legislative body to enact laws in accordance with natural
law. They also set up an executive to implement the laws passed by the
legislative. The executive is subservient to the legislative body as the latter is the
supreme power within the government. However, both are subservient to the
people who created them, who have the right to change them if they exceed their
mandate. Thus, Locke also argues that people have a right to dissent and
overthrow a government that does not operate within its limits and transgresses
the natural rights of people. Most contemporary constitutions have adopted the
principle of separation of powers and that is what Locke pioneered by proposing
multiple levels of authority. One could, thus, argue that Locke’s approach has
been vindicated by history.
12.6 REFERENCES
Press.
169
BLOCK –VI
LOCKE University Press.
University Press.
Press.
h/10615-h.htm
Philosophy. URL: https://www.iep.utm.edu/locke-po/
Pitkin, H. (1965). Obligation and Consent—I.American Political Science Review.
59(4): 990–999.
University Press.
Sreenivasan, G. (1995). The Limits of Lockean Rights in Property. Oxford:
Press.
Thinkers: From Socrates to the Present. Oxford: Oxford University Press
170
Walsh, J. (2020). Locke: Ethics. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. URL: Locke:
https://www.iep.utm.edu/locke-et/ Natural Government

EXERCISES
 State of nature does not have an established, settled, known law
 State of nature does not have an impartial judge
 State of nature does not have an executive power to implement law
and punish offenders
 Natural liberty in the state of nature meant one had to obey only
natural law. It is partially given up when entering civil society
because one now needed to obey civil law too which might be stricter
than natural law.
 Right to judge and punish others for violations of natural law is fully
given up when one enters civil society.


Executive prerogatives are needed for the government to act
decisively during emergencies that are unprecedented and unforeseen
by existing laws.
 They are based on trust and are not a right.
 Right to dissent flows from natural law and natural rights which are
supreme in the Lockean framework.
 Since people enter the social contract to protect their natural rights, if
any despotic power arises and violates those rights, people have a
right to dissent.
171
BLOCK –VI
LOCKE
UNIT 13 LOCKE: IDEA OF TOLERANCE
(PRESENTATON THEMES: NATURAL RIGHTS, RIGHT
⁎
TO DISSENT, JUSTIFICATION OF PROPERTY)
Structure
13.0 Objectives
13.1 Introduction
13.2 Locke’s Arguments for Religious Toleration
13.3 Limits of Toleration
13.4 Legacy of Locke’s Views on Toleration
13.5 Let Us Sum Up
13.6 References
13.0 OBJECTIVES
The aim of this unit is to familiarise you with the nature and key aspects of
English political philosopher, John Locke’s ideas on toleration. After studying
this unit, you should be able to:
 Describe Locke’s ideas on toleration
 Explain Locke’s views on the relationship between religion and state
 Examine Locke’s proposed limits of toleration; and
 Evaluate the legacy of Locke’s views on toleration
13.1 INTRODUCTION
Toleration is one of the central tenets of modern liberal political theory. The idea
of toleration is the glue that binds states with citizens from diverse religious
faiths and beliefs. Locke’s views on toleration have contributed immensely to the
liberal debate on religious toleration. It will be helpful to discuss the concept of
toleration in a general sense and also its historical antecedents before proceeding
to discuss Locke’s ideas on toleration.
Toleration as a concept, politically and to a large extent even intellectually,
becomes important only when there are diverse beliefs or practices coexisting
⁎
172
temporally and spatially in a society. There also has to be a certain amount of Locke: Idea of
Tolerance
disagreement between those beliefs or practices, even to the extent that people
belonging to one belief or practice group find the beliefs and practices of others
objectionable or at the least unacceptable. It is this element of objection which
gives rise to the concept of toleration, because one needs to ‘tolerate’ only those
things which one finds disagreeable. If there was agreement or acceptance or
even indifference towards certain other beliefs, the question of tolerance does not
arise at all. Further, toleration also means that the objectionable aspects of a
belief or practice are outweighed by other pressing reasons which enables
peaceful coexistence with disagreeable beliefs or practices. The other pressing
reasons which enable coexistence do not remove one’s problems with those
objectionable beliefs or practices. Instead, they offer more important reasons to
justify the toleration of them. Such reasons might include arguments based on
individual autonomy, right to privacy, right to conscience, religious rights,
multicultural rights or the need for peaceful coexistence which may outweigh
arguments for intolerance, depending on the context.
Hence, toleration of a belief or practice is a result of a judgment one makes about
a particular objectionable belief or practice which leads to the conclusion that
tolerating it for some other pressing reason or reasons outweigh its objectionable
nature. This aspect of toleration in itself underlines the fact that toleration has
limits because at times one’s objections towards a particular belief or practice
might outweigh any reason offered to tolerate it. Some beliefs or practices could
be intolerably objectionable. Hence, toleration is extended only to those beliefs
and practices which are objectionable, but are tolerable because of legitimate
countervailing reasons. For example, a liberal society might decide to tolerate a
religious or cultural practice of a minority which it otherwise finds objectionable
for the sake of respecting the religious or cultural autonomy of the minority
group. However, the same society might decide not to tolerate a belief or practice
because it is extremely objectionable like say female genital mutilation or child
marriage. In the latter case, the belief or practice is not worth tolerating even for
the sake of respecting religious or cultural rights. Toleration is, thus, contextual
and there has to be a weighing of competing reasons to arrive at an informed
judgment. Therefore, toleration on its own is neither right nor wrong and there
can be no universal formula. It might be morally justifiable to tolerate certain
beliefs or practices, but at the same time it might be morally wrong to tolerate
certain other beliefs of practices. It is the context that determines the validity of
toleration. Moreover, toleration needs to be voluntary because if people are
compelled to tolerate other beliefs by force, it is merely compulsion, not true
toleration. Further, there is an element of mutuality in toleration which entails
that toleration cannot be extended to intolerant beliefs or practices. If a belief
does not accept the coexistence of other beliefs, then such an intolerant belief
cannot be tolerated because it is inimical to the idea of toleration itself. Hence,
while there might be exceptions, in general, only tolerant beliefs can coexist
under the framework of toleration.
173
The idea of toleration goes long back in philosophical and political history. As a
BLOCK –VI
LOCKE matter of fact, one can argue that the Socratic dialogical method was premised on
the idea of tolerating objectionable beliefs as Socrates believed that it is only
through a tolerant dialogue between opposing beliefs, true knowledge can be
ascertained. One can also find elements of toleration in the writings of Roman
Emperor Marcus Aurelius (121 CE to 180 CE). Examples of toleration can be
found in Indian history as well. Ancient Indian emperor Ashoka who ruled in 3rd
century BCE, is renowned for his promulgation of religious toleration and so is
sixteenth century Mughal emperor Akbar. Modern debates on toleration,
however, can be traced back to the post–Reformation intellectual discussions of
16th century Europe. The Protestant Reformation of 1517 CE split Catholicism
which was till then the near universal religion of Europe. This resulted in the
emergence of diverse Christian denominations in Europe with competing claims
of divine authority. This led to a series of disastrous religious wars which
continued for more than a century. It is in this context, many influential thinkers
like Milton (1608 CE – 1674 CE) and Spinoza (1634 CE to 1677 CE) started to
discuss the philosophical and political basis for tolerance and coexistence. Locke
comes in this tradition. His famous work on religious toleration, A Letter
Concerning Toleration, was published in 1689 CE. It was written amidst a bitter
power struggle in England between the monarchy and the parliament which also
had religious undertones. There was acrimony between Protestants, Anglicans
and Catholics in England. Locke’s arguments in favour of toleration are aimed at
providing a workable framework for peaceful coexistence of diverse religious
groups which have serious disagreements between them. Locke had strong
religious convictions and hence, this was a topic that was close to his heart. His
particular focus is on the relationship between the government and diverse
religious groups.
13.2 LOCKE’S ARGUMENTS FOR RELIGIOUS

TOLERATION
In many ways, Locke’s arguments for religious toleration can be seen as a
continuation of his ideas about limited government in his work, Two Treatises of
Government. Having the freedom to hold religious beliefs of their choice is the
individual right of people, as part of their natural right to liberty, as long as it
does not interfere with the freedom or rights of others. Locke employs a number
of arguments to argue that the state should tolerate diverse religious faiths and
should not try to impose one religion on all subjects. He argues that “the Power
of Civil Government relates only to Men’s Civil Interests; is confined to the care
of the things of this World; and hath nothing to do with the World to come”. It is
important to examine Locke’s key arguments in greater detail.
The first argument Locke puts forward in support of religious toleration is that
spiritual wellbeing of citizens is not the responsibility of government.
“First, because the Care of Souls is not committed to the Civil Magistrate
174 any more than to other Men. It is not committed unto him, I say, by God;
because it appears not that God has ever given any such Authority to one
Man over another, as to compel any one to his Religion. Nor can any Locke: Idea of
Tolerance
such Power be vested in the Magistrate by the Consent of the People”
(Locke, A Letter Concerning Toleration)
Locke argues that people, while making the social contract, do not consent to
entrust the care of their souls to the government. It is also something which is
impossible to give consent to, because in questions concerning religion, each
individual wishes to believe what they think is true, not what the government
asks or compels them to believe. After all, what is at stake is the salvation of their
souls for eternity. Moreover, Locke argues that God has also not mandated
governments to make sure that people follow the true religion or one religion.
Natural law, which is from God for Locke, does not ask governments to regulate
religion. Hence, neither the people nor God give the state a right to interfere with
people’s religious beliefs. Governments, therefore, have no business in enforcing
the precepts of one religion.
Secondly, Locke notes that the power at the disposal of governments to make
people obey them is essentially force, which is supported by threat of
punishments for disobedience, like imprisonment. Locke contends that force is
not an appropriate tool to make people follow a religion, because spiritual
convictions require “inward persuasion of the Mind; without which nothing can
be acceptable to God”. Thus, the external force exercised by the government
cannot compel people to truly change their minds in a way that is genuine and
acceptable to God. Locke notes that while governments have the power to impose
a whole host of punitive measures including imprisonment to make people follow
a particular religion, but ultimately it will be a futile exercise because true
spiritual convictions have to come from inside and cannot be forced from outside.
One has to keep in mind that Locke was making this argument during a period
when most governments in Europe were imprisoning and even torturing people
for having non-conformist religious convictions. Strict blasphemy laws and
people being punished cruelly for holding supposedly heretical views were
common. In such a historical context, Locke’s contention that governments can
never play a legitimate role in regulation of religious affairs is truly a radical
idea.
Further, Locke argues that even if governments had the power to make people
follow a particular religion, such an arrangement still does not guarantee that
people will end up following the true religion. People might still not be better
placed with respect to their salvation. Locke points out that the leaders of
different countries follow different religions. Hence, assuming that there is only
one true religion, this means that leaders of most governments are actually
followers of false religions. So, if governments were given the power to force
people to follow their respective particular religions, then most people would end
up following false religions due to pressure from their respective governments.
“In the variety and contradiction of Opinions in Religion, wherein the
Princes of the World are as much divided as in their Secular Interests, the
narrow way would be much straitened. One Country alone would be in 175
the right, and all the rest of the World would be put under an Obligation
BLOCK –VI
LOCKE of following their Princes in the ways that lead to Destruction” (Locke, A
Letter Concerning Toleration)
Hence, in Locke’s view, granting governments the power to enforce religious
mandates will turn out to be greatly counterproductive as it will result in a
situation where people will be forced to follow false religions. Instead, leaving
religious beliefs to individual reason is relatively better and beneficial, as
individuals will then at least have the chance to identify the best path towards
their eternal salvation using their reason.
These are the main arguments used by Locke to argue for religious toleration and
non-involvement of governments in religious affairs. It has to be, however, noted
that a key argument which Locke repeatedly employs throughout his writings on
toleration stems from his staunchly Christian beliefs. Based on his Christian
beliefs, Locke cites many examples from the Bible to argue that it is improper
and unchristian to coerce people with respect to their religious beliefs. While this
argument does not have any secular relevance, it does help us to understand the
origins of Locke’s convictions about religious toleration. Moreover, it also
enables us to firmly place Locke’s ideas on toleration in the broader discourse on
toleration which was discussed earlier. It was noted in that discussion that the
need for toleration arises only when there are unacceptable beliefs or practices.
Locke’s strong Christian beliefs indicate clearly that he does not find all religious
beliefs and practices acceptable. Indeed, throughout his life, Locke was a
practicing Christian and his faith influenced many aspects of his political
philosophy. In the earlier discussion on toleration, it was noted that despite some
beliefs and practices being unacceptable, one tolerates them because there are
better reasons which justify toleration of them, instead of censoring or banning
them. In the same way, Locke’s arguments for religious toleration are essentially
reasons that justify toleration of diverse religious beliefs despite his preference
for one religion and disagreements with other religions. Hence, Locke’s ideas
about toleration fit well within modern discourse on toleration.
Locke’s arguments can be said to be driven predominantly by two convictions,
which together shape his ideas on toleration. Firstly, Locke’s views about the
proper role of government strongly influence his ideas on toleration. This is a
political conviction. Locke, as discussed in the previous unit, is a strong
proponent of limited government. Hence, his arguments for religious toleration is
driven by his strongly held conviction that any government needs to perform only
a limited role and has to respect the individual rights of people. Locke sees
freedom to have religious beliefs of one’s own choice as part of an individual’s
right to liberty which cannot be interfered with by government. Secondly,
Locke’s arguments for religious toleration also make it clear that he places a high
premium on genuine religious beliefs as opposed to people following a religion
due to political pressure. He takes salvation seriously and is not convinced that
external compulsions can help one attain the same. This flows from his strong
176 religious conviction, influenced by his religious upbringing, that religious beliefs
have to be truly felt internally and mere outward expressions of religion does not
count for anything. Hence, he ends up arguing that any political pressure to make Locke: Idea of
Tolerance
people choose one religion over another is ultimately a pointless exercise because
it will not help in securing one’s salvation. In this manner, Locke’s arguments for
religious toleration stem from his political as well as religious convictions which
overlap and interlock with each other in this regard, allowing him to make a case
for religious toleration that is political, but also theological.

the unit.
1. According to Locke, why is it pointless to use the force and authority of
government to make people follow one religion over another?
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
2. In Locke’s view, why it will be counterproductive to make people follow
the religion of their governments, even if that was possible?
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
13.3 LIMITS OF TOLERATION

While Locke supports broad religious toleration within a state, he does not
advocate toleration in an unconditional and universal manner. He does propose
certain limits on toleration, which in his view, are needed for the smooth ordering
and functioning of society. Again, the limits he proposes are influenced by his
political and religious convictions.
Firstly, Locke argues that beliefs and practices which are extreme, morally
bankrupt and dangerous to the preservation of human societies and functioning of
civil government should not be tolerated - “No Opinions contrary to human
Society, or to those moral Rules which are necessary to the preservation of Civil
Society, are to be tolerated by the Magistrate”. As noted earlier in the general
177
discussion of toleration as a concept, toleration is often not extended to those
beliefs or practices that are deemed as intolerable. While toleration is desirable,
BLOCK –VI
LOCKE every belief or practice does not deserve toleration. Locke is making a similar
argument here when he says that destructive beliefs and practices should not be
tolerated. For Locke, any belief or practice which goes against the natural law
and infringes on the natural rights of people is ultimately intolerable. Such beliefs
or practices are inimical to moral behaviour and thereby, harmful to human
societies. Moreover, as discussed in the previous unit, natural law and natural
rights form the basis of the commonwealth for Locke. Hence, beliefs or practices
that go against them will threaten the preservation of the commonwealth itself.
Secondly, Locke contends that a state should not tolerate people who swear
allegiance to a political authority beyond the one created by the social contract
because of their religious beliefs or due to any other reason. Locke gives the
example of Islam of his time, in which he claims that a higher allegiance was
owed to the Mufti of Constantinople. However, while Locke does not state it
directly, it is clear from his writings that he is predominantly concerned about
Catholicism which has its own figurehead who demands a higher allegiance in
the form of the Pope. The papacy, during Locke’s time and for much of the
medieval period, claimed civil authority as well as religious authority. It was
deeply involved in European political conflicts. The catholic church of Locke’s
time claimed authority from God to appoint and remove rulers across Europe.
Therefore, Locke came to believe that Catholicism demanded the loyalty of its
adherents even if that meant non-compliance with the civil government of one’s
own state. This was unacceptable and intolerable for Locke as it threatened the
commonwealth itself.
“Dangerous to the Commonwealth, is, when men arrogate to themselves,
and to those of their own Sect, some peculiar Prerogative, covered over
with a specious shew of deceitful words, but in effect opposite to the Civil
Right of the Community… For they declare all that are not of their
Communion to be Heretics, or at least may declare them so whenever
they think fit. What can be the meaning of their asserting that Kings
excommunicated forfeit their Crowns and Kingdoms? It is evident that
they thereby arrogate unto themselves the Power of deposing Kings:
because they challenge the Power of Excommunication, as the peculiar
Right of their Hierarchy… These therefore, and the like, who attribute
unto the Faithful, Religious and Orthodox; that is, in plain terms, unto
themselves; any peculiar Privilege or Power above other Mortals, in Civil
Concernments; or who, upon pretence of Religion, do challenge any
manner of Authority over such as are not associated with them in their
Ecclesiastical Communion; I say these have no right to be tolerated by
the Magistrate”(Locke, A Letter Concerning Toleration)
Locke’s views here are greatly influenced by the continued infighting between
Catholics and other denominations in England during his lifetime. Catholics were
accused by many of caring more about Papal interests rather than English
178 interests. Locke questions whether followers of such religious beliefs which
demand a higher loyalty to a religious authority that transcends the
commonwealth will be loyal in case of a war between the commonwealth and Locke: Idea of
Tolerance
another state which is supported by their religious authority. Locke contends that
even during times of peace, people with such divided loyalties might be a source
for tensions and factionalisms within the commonwealth, leading to instability.
Hence, Locke concludes that such people and such beliefs are dangerous to the
commonwealth and should not be tolerated. Moreover, Locke also contends that
such beliefs or practices are deeply intolerant of others as they claim to be
superior and infallible. Therefore, one cannot tolerate intolerance.
Lastly, Locke argues that atheists who do not believe in God should not be
tolerated in any manner. This argument flows from Locke’s firm belief that
morality is dependent on having a religious belief. Natural law for Locke was
God’s law revealed through reason. Therefore, for Locke, if one does not believe
in God, he or she cannot be bound by natural law considerations, nor will such a
person respect the natural rights of others. In Locke’s view, atheists are by
definition immoral and lawless. Morality is a vital backbone in the Lockean
commonwealth as it is bound by a social contract i.e. a covenant of trust. In
Locke’s view, no covenant can bind an atheist because he or she is not bound by
morality and therefore, cannot be trusted to keep whatever promises they make.
“Those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the Being of a God.
Promises, Covenants, and Oaths, which are the Bonds of Humane
Society, can have no hold upon an Atheist. The taking away of God,
though but even in thought, dissolves all. Besides also, those that by their
Atheism undermine and destroy all Religion, can have no pretence of
Religion whereupon to challenge the Privilege of a Toleration” (Locke, A
Letter Concerning Toleration)
Locke believes strongly that atheism is a recipe for amoral behaviour and
therefor, atheists are a threat to a commonwealth that is based on a covenant.
While Locke is willing to tolerate other religious beliefs which he might not
agree with, he thinks atheists are morally anarchistic and hence, do not deserve to
be tolerated. Locke also argues in some of his other writings that the existence of
God is not only a matter of faith, but also a fact of reason which can be proven
rationally. Hence, in his view, atheists lack reason as well because of their
inability to comprehend God. So, he does not want to tolerate those who lack
such a fundamental reason and are therefore, a threat to the commonwealth.

the unit.
1. According to Locke, why having any higher loyalty that transcends the
commonwealth disqualifies one for toleration?
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...…… 179
…………………………………………………………………………...……
BLOCK –VI
LOCKE …………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
2. According to Locke, why shouldn’t atheists be tolerated?
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
…………………………………………………………………………...……
13.4 LEGACY OF LOCKE’S VIEWS ON

TOLERATION
Locke’s views on toleration continue to be widely debated. They have influenced
subsequent political as well as intellectual discourses on toleration. His views
have been criticized for being too dependent on his Christian faith which limits
their scope. For instance, this dependency has meant that he fails to acknowledge
or discuss in depth non-religious reasons for which toleration might not be
preferred by rulers. Locke writes that use of force is pointless when it comes to
enforcing a single religion because true religious belief is based on inward
persuasions. This might be true with respect to true religious belief. However,
what if a ruler is not concerned about true religious belief, but is only concerned
about consolidation of his political power by forcing people to convert to a
religion and it does not matter to him if people convert truly or not. Such an
exercise will not be futile or pointless from a political perspective. Since Locke
focuses chiefly on a religious perspective, he fails to discuss such scenarios.
Similarly, as noted before Locke also argues that having people follow the
religion of their state might be counterproductive because most states might not
be following the true religion, leading to many failing to even have the chance to
identify the true religion. Here too, he once again misses the political reasons for
which states might try to make people follow a single religion, without any
regard for their salvation. Thus, Locke’s views on toleration has been criticized
for not anticipating diverse reasons for which the state may compel religious
conformity (Waldron, 1993). Hence, one can argue that Locke’s arguments for
toleration are more theological than political which kind of limits their
applicability and potency.
Moreover, Locke’s argument that one cannot bring about inner persuasions
through force has also been questioned by many including one of his
contemporaries, Jonas Proast. In his response to Locke’s arguments, Proast
180 argued (1690) that force can make people give due consideration to ideas which
they otherwise might not consider and in that manner, it can play an indirect role Locke: Idea of
Tolerance
in bringing people to the true religion. Proast’s argument highlights a critical
weakness in Locke’s argument. Locke assumes futility of force in bringing inner
persuasions in people but that need not be the case all the time. Hence, many
cotemporary commentators shift the focus to Locke’s emphasis on limited
government and argue that what is more important is Locke’s contention that
people have not given consent to the government interfering in religious affairs.
For example, Wootton (1993) argues that since the likelihood of governments
being wrong about religion is high and the futility of using force to change inner
persuasions is also high, it is sensible on the part of people to not consent to
religious interference by governments.
Further, Locke’s proposed limits of toleration have also been widely debated. His
contention that religious beliefs that demand a higher allegiance beyond the
commonwealth should not be tolerated is really an assertion of the sovereignty of
the commonwealth with respect to civil affairs. Hobbes, while not writing on
toleration in particular, also wants religious authorities to be subservient to the
political sovereign. Hence, Locke’s argument has to be seen in the historical
context of the emergence of sovereignty, whereby in modern states, political
sovereignty became centralized and emerged superior to other kinds of claims of
loyalty, be it feudal or religious. It is worth noting that today nearly no religion,
with maybe some minor exceptions, demands the kind of higher loyalty which
Locke wrote against. It is a broadly accepted principle today that people’s first
loyalty has to be to their respective states. Locke’s views on atheism and his
advocacy of intolerance towards atheists is clearly influenced by his religious
convictions which are clearly outdated in today’s context.
On the whole, Locke’s ideas on toleration were highly radical and forward
looking for his time. However, it is true that some of his arguments, like his
views on atheists, have not aged well. Moreover, it has to be noted that Locke’s
views are greatly influenced by his religious beliefs which does limit their
applicability. He certainly does not offer the kind of secular, unapologetic, full
throated defence of tolerance of diverse views and practices offered by Mill in his
work On Liberty (1859 CE).
13.5 LET US SUM UP

Locke’s views flow from his political as well as religious convictions. He argues
that people have not given consent to regulation of religion by governments. The
proper role of governments is to take care of the civil interests of citizens, not
their spiritual interests. He also argues that religious belief is contingent on
genuine inner persuasions which cannot be brought about by force. Also, Locke
contends that most governments anyway are not following the true religion and
therefore, giving the power to interfere in religion to governments may be
counterproductive for the salvation of citizens. Altogether, it is better for
governments to stay away from religion as long as they do not interfere with their
functioning. Locke’s support for toleration does have limits. In Locke’s view,
181
beliefs or practices which are destructive and harmful to human societies and to
the commonwealth should not be tolerated. He also argues strongly that religious
BLOCK –VI
LOCKE beliefs which demand from its adherents a higher allegiance to any authority
above the commonwealth on civil affairs should not be tolerated. Lastly, Locke
contends that atheists should also not be tolerated because in his view, they are
immoral and therefore, cannot be trusted to keep promises and uphold oaths
which will be detrimental to the commonwealth. Despite their limitations, it is
undeniable that Locke’s views on toleration have been highly influential in
shaping the debate on religious toleration.
13.6 REFERENCES
Press.
University Press.
University Press.
Press.
h/10615-h.htm
Philosophy. URL: https://www.iep.utm.edu/locke-po/
Proast, J. (1690). The Argument of the Letter concerning Toleration Briefly
Considered and Answered, in The Reception of Locke’s Politics. Available
182 Online at Early English Books Online. URL:
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=eebo;idno=A55925.0001.001
Locke: Idea of
Tolerance
University Press.
Waldron, J. (1993). Locke, Toleration, and the Rationality of Persecution.
inLiberal Rights: Collected Papers 1981–1991, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Thinkers: From Socrates to the Present. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wootton, D. (1993). John Locke: Political Writings. London: Penguin Books.
Walsh, J. (2020). Locke: Ethics. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. URL:
https://www.iep.utm.edu/locke-et/

EXERCISES
True religion is contingent on genuine inner persuasions
External Force, in Locke’s view, can never bring about genuine
convictions
 Therefore, using force is futile in matters concerning religious beliefs
 Most governments themselves are following false religions
 If governments are allowed to force religious beliefs on people, then
most people will only be misled
 It is better for people to use their individual reason to identify the true
religion than to rely on governments

Owing allegiance to a higher authority transcending the state can
undermine the sovereignty of the commonwealth
 It can cause instability and factionalism within the commonwealth
183
 In Locke’s view, atheists are immoral and do not subject themselves
BLOCK –VI
LOCKE to natural law
 Atheists cannot be trusted to keep promises and thus cannot be
tolerated in a commonwealth that is based on a social covenant
184
Locke: Idea of
SUGGESTED READINGS Tolerance

New Delhi: Pearson Education.
Press.

Badie, Bertrand et. al. (ed.). (2011). International Encyclopedia of Political

Science Volume 1. London: Sage Publications.
Ball, Terence. (1995). Reappraising Political Theory. Oxford University Press:

Oxford.
Berlin, Isaiah. (1969). Four Concepts of Liberty. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.
Boucher, D. & Kelly, P. (ed). (2003). Political Thinkers: From Socrates to the
Present. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Bevir, Mark. (ed.) (2010). Encyclopedia of Political Theory Vol.2. California:

Sage Publications, Inc.
Bhandari, D. R. (1975). History of European Political Philosophy. Bangalore:



University Press.
Dunn, J. (1969).The Political Thought of John Locke. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Political Thinkersfrom Hobbes to Marx. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.


Jha, Shefali. (2018). Western Political Thought – From Ancient Greeks to

Modern Times. Noida. Pearson India Education Services Pvt Ltd. 185
Julia Annas. (2003). Plato: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford
BLOCK –VI
LOCKE University Press.
K.R. Popper (1945). The Open Society and Its Enemies. Oxon: Routledge.



Routledge.

Mukherjee, S & Ramaswamy, S. (2011). A History of Political Thought: Plato to

Marx. Delhi. PHI Learning Private Limited.

Philosophy.
Nelson, Brian. R. (1996). Western Political Thought – From Socrates to the Age
of Ideology. Illinois. Waveland Press Inc.

Press.
Plato (1945). The Republic. New York. Oxford University Press. (Original Work
360 B.C.).
Richard Kraut. (ed.). (1992). The Cambridge Companion to Plato. Cambridge

University Press.
Scruton. Roger. (2007). The Palgrave Macmillan Dictionary of Political

Thought. Hampshire. Palgrave Macmillan.
Sethi, Yoginder and M.L. Dhawan. (1959). Readings in Political Thought. Delhi:
Atma Ram and Sons.
186
Singh, Sukhbir. (1994). History of Political Thought, Vol. I. Meerut: Rastogi and Locke: Idea of
Tolerance
Company.



London: Macmillan.
Sorrell, T. (ed.). (1996). The Cambridge Companion to Hobbes. Cambridge:

Press.
187

CPP Ignou

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

CPP Ignou

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BPSC-111

CLASSICAL POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

CBCS CORE COURSE (B.A. HONOURS)

SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES

COURSE PREPARATION TEAM

COURSE COORDINATOR & EDITOR:

BLOCK 1 TEXT AND CONTEXT 09

Unit 1 Text and Context: Reading and Interpreting a Text 11

Unit 2 Theory of Forms and the Idea of Philosopher King 29

Unit 5 State and Good Life (Endaemonia) 63

Unit 7 Politics and Morality 95

BLOCK 5 HOBBES 117

Unit 9 Social Contract 119

BLOCK 6 LOCKE 145

Unit 11 Natural Rights 147

SUGGESTED READINGS 185

TEXT AND CONTEXT

1.2 WHY WE READ TEXTS? WHY WE RE-READ

Check Your Progress Exercise 1

1.3 STRATEGIES OF INTERPRETATION

Check Your Progress Exercise 2

1.4 MEANINGS AND CONTEXTS

Check Your Progress Exercise 3

1.5 DIFFERENT SCHOOLS OF INTERPRETATION

1.5.1 Marxian Interpretation

1.5.2 Totalitarian Interpretation

1.5.3 Psychoanalytic Interpretation

1.5.4 Feminist Interpretation

1.5.5 Straussian Interpretation

1.5.6 Postmodernist Interpretation

1.5.7 Cambridge New ‘History’

Check Your Progress Exercise 4

1.6 MYTHOLOGIES OF READING A CLASSIC

1.6.3 Mythology of Prolepsis

Check Your Progress Exercise 5

1.7 LET US SUM UP

1.9 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

THE IDEA OF PHILOSOPHER KING⁎

2.2 THEORY OF FORMS

2.2.1 Allegory of Cave

2.3 THE IDEA OF PHILOSOPHER KING

2.3.1 Who is a Philosopher King?

Check Your Progress Exercise 1

2.3.2 Ideal State and the Role of Philosopher

Check Your Progress Exercise 2

2.4 LET US SUM UP

2.6 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

3.2 PERSPECTIVES ON JUSTICE BEFORE PLATO

3.2.1 Traditional View

3.2.2 Radical View

3.2.3 Pragmatic View

Check Your Progress Exercise 1

3.3 PLATO’S CONCEPT OF JUSTICE

3.3.1 Three Classes and Three Souls

Figure 1 - Plato’s Three Classes and Their Virtues

3.3.2 Communist Principles

3.3.3 Justice at Individual and State Level

3.3.4 Critical Assessment

Check Your Progress Exercise 2

3.4 PLATO AND INDIAN POLITICAL THINKERS

3.4.2 Socrates, Plato and Gandhi

Check Your Progress Exercise 3

3.5 LET US SUM UP