Western Political Philosophy

WESTERN
POLITICAL
WESTERN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

PHILOSOPHY
ALL UG COURSES EXCEPT B.A. (HONS.) POLITICAL SCIENCE
SEMESTER-IV
GENERIC ELECTIVE (GE) - POLITICAL SCIENCE
FOR LIMITED CIRCULATION ONLY
GENERIC ELECTIVE (GE)
DEPARTMENT OF DISTANCE AND CONTINUING EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF DISTANCE AND CONTINUING EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI UNIVERSITY OF DELHI
20CUS01308
Western Political Philosophy
For Limited Circulation Only
Editorial Board
Dr. Shakti Pradayani Rout
Content Writers
Dr. Nishant Kumar, Dr. Mangal Deo Singh
Sheshmanee Sahu
Academic Coordinator
Mr. Deekshant Awasthi
Ist edition: 2024

E-mail: ddceprinting@col.du.ac.in
politicalscience@col.du.ac.in
Published by:
Department of Distance and Continuing Education
Campus of Open Learning/School of Open Learning,
University of Delhi, Delhi-110 007
Printed by:
School of Open Learning, University of Delhi
Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

External Review Committee

Dr. Sanjeev Kumar
Corrections/Modifications/Suggestions proposed by Statutory Body,

DU/Stakeholder/s in the Self Learning Material (SLM) will be incorporated
in the next edition. However, these corrections/modifications/suggestions will
be uploaded on the website https://sol.du.ac.in. Any feedback or suggestions
may be sent at the email- feedbackslm@col.du.ac.in
Printed at: Vikas Publishing House Pvt. Ltd. Plot 20/4, Site-IV, Industrial Area Sahibabad, Ghaziabad - 201 010 (1500 Copies) 2024

SYLLABUS
Syllabus Mapping
UNIT I
Classical Political Philosophy Lesson 1: Plato (429-347 BC)
a) Plato (Pages 3-22)
b) Aristotle Lesson 2: Aristotle (385 BC–322 BC)
(Pages 23-46)
UNIT II
Renaissance and Modern Political Philosophy Lesson 3: Machiavelli (1469-1527 A.D.)
a) Machiavelli (Pages 49-62)
b) Hobbes Lesson 4: Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)
c) Rousseau (Pages 63-78)
d) Mill Lesson 5: Jean-Jacques Rousseau
e) Marx (Pages 79-94)
Lesson 6: John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)
(Pages 95-112)
Lesson 7: Karl Marx (1818-1883)
(Pages 113-133)

CONTENTS
UNIT I: CLASSICAL POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY
LESSON 1 PLATO (429-347 BC) 3-22
1.1 Learning Objectives

1.2 Introduction
1.3 What is Classical Political Philosophy
1.4 Important works
1.5 Theory of Forms
1.6 Philosopher Ruler
1.7 Justice in the State and Individual
1.8 Education
1.9 Communism of Property and Wives
1.10 Other Forms of Regimes
1.11 Self-Assessment Questions
1.12 References
LESSON 2 ARISTOTLE (385 BC–322 BC) 23-46

2.2 Introduction
2.3 Important Works
2.4 Aristotle on Virtue and Moral Action

2.5 Theory of the State

2.6 Rule of Law and Constitution
2.7 The Best system of Government (Practicable)
2.8 Nature and Composition of the Ideal State
2.10 References
UNIT II: RENAISSANCE AND MODERN POLITICAL

PHILOSOPHY
LESSON 3 MACHIAVELLI (1469-1527 A.D.) 49-62

3.2 Introduction
3.3 Renaissance and Modern Political Philosophy
3.4 Biography
3.5 Machiavelli’s Key Texts
3.6 Machiavelli as a child of his times
3.7 Factors that Influenced Machiavelli’s Thoughts
3.7.1 Cultural Movement of the Renaissance
3.7.2 Resurgence of Knowledge
3.7.3 Political Situation
3.7.4 Social Condition
3.7.5 Theory of the Nation-State
3.8 Separation of Politics from Religion and Morality
3.8.1 Politics and Religion

3.9 Governance Considerations

3.10 Duties of Prince
3.11 Machiavelli’s Statecraft
3.12 Conclusions
3.14 References
LESSON 4 THOMAS HOBBES (1588-1679) 63-78

4.2 Introduction
4.3 Philosophy and Method
4.4 Human Nature
4.5 State of Nature
4.6 Social Contract: Creation of Sovereign State
4.7 Hobbes on Liberty
4.8 Hobbes and the Idea of Political Obligation
4.9 Individualism vs. Absolutism
4.11 References
LESSON 5 JEAN-JACQUES ROUSSEAU 79-94

5.2 Introduction
5.3 Idea of Equality and Inequality

5.4 On Civil Society

5.5 Social Contract
5.6 Theory of General Will
5.7 Rousseau on State and Sovereignty
5.8 Rousseau on Democracy and Representation
5.9 Views on Education
5.10 Critical Analysis
5.11 Summary
5.13 References
LESSON 6 JOHN STUART MILL (1806-1873) 95-112

6.2 Introduction
6.3 Important Works
6.4 Mill’s Alterations of Utilitarianism
6.5 Mill’s Views on Liberty
6.6 Subjection of Women
6.7 Representative Government
6.9 References
LESSON 7 KARL MARX (1818-1883) 113-133

7.2 Introduction

7.3 Dialectical Materialism

7.4 Base-Superstructure and Economic Determinism
7.5 Historical Materialism
7.6 Alienation
7.7 Theory of Surplus Value
7.8 Commodity Fetishism
7.9 Class and Class Struggle
7.10 State
7.11 Analysis of Capitalism
7.12 Revolution
7.13 Dictatorship of Proletariat
7.14 Communist Society
7.16 References

UNIT I: CLASSICAL POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY
LESSON 1 PLATO (429-347 BC)
LESSON 2 ARISTOTLE (385 BC–322 BC)

Plato (429-347 BC)
LESSON 1 NOTES
PLATO (429-347 BC)

Dr. Nishant Kumar
Structure
1.2 Introduction
1.3 What is Classical Political Philosophy
1.4 Important works
1.5 Theory of Forms
1.6 Philosopher Ruler
1.7 Justice in the State and Individual
1.8 Education
1.9 Communism of Property and Wives
1.10 Other Forms of Regimes
1.12 References
1.1 LEARNING OBJECTIVES
 The lesson would make the students familiar with Western political philosophy
that originated in Ancient Greece.
 The lesson elaborates Plato’s ideas on state and theories of forms.
 It would also discuss Plato’s idea of a philosopher king, education, communism
etc.
Self-Instructional
Material 3

NOTES
1.2 INTRODUCTION
Plato is recognized as one of the most significant political philosophers of Greek Period.
He was a disciple of Socrates and Aristotle’s teacher and founder of the Academy, a
popular institution of learning in Ancient Greece. He was born in an aristocratic family
with parents related to the class of nobles and rulers in Greece. The ideas of Socrates
and Pythagoras had deep influence on his philosophy. A formidable influence was the
political and social context of Greece while he was growing up.. He was born just a
year after Pericles’s death, the great Athenian statesman. This was also the period of
Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta. Sparta finally defeated Athens with
its superior military capacity and Athens faced political chaos that directly impacted
Plato’s thought process and birthed his disdain for democracy. His memory was scared
and affected his philosophy by the execution of Socrates in 399 B.C.
After Socrates’s death, Plato fearing for his life, left Athens and travelled to
places like Italy, Sicily and Egypt. He returned in 388 BC and founded the Academy,
one of the oldest models of universities in Europe. In this institution, students were
trained in several disciplines like biology, politics, astronomy, mathematics and dialectics.
The influence of Socrates and Pythagoras was visible in the curriculum. For example,
mathematics was given so much importance that on the gate of the institution one
could see inscribed, “Those not know mathematics, need not enter here.” Plato was
convinced that his ideas could be translated into real practical world if pursued efficiently.
He had firm faith that his vision of producing a philosopher as a ruler could be actualized
and to test this, he agreed to tutor Dionysius, the new ruler of Syracuse in Sicily.
However, his experiments did not bear the desired outcomes and he returned
disappointed. Later in his writings one could see a drift from this position. In the last
years of his life, Plato spent time lecturing at the Academy and died at the age of 80 in
348/347 BC handing over the responsibilities of the Academy to his nephew
Specesippus.
Self-Instructional
4 Material

Plato (429-347 BC)
NOTES
1.3 WHAT IS CLASSICAL POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY
Classical political philosophy is a branch of political science that discusses the

philosophical foundations of Classical ideas of state, society, way of living and ideal
states. The tradition of Classical philosophy can be traced back to Ancient Greece
and in the writings of Plato and Aristotle. Classical Philosophy tries to decipher the
best form of government and the most suitable political order.
1.4 IMPORTANT WORKS
Plato produced several important works dealing with different subjects. Gorgias dealt
with the question of ethics in society and Meno discussed the nature of Knowledge. In
The Apology he presents the imaginative reconstruction of Socrates’s trial where he
defends himself against the charges of atheism and corrupting young Athenian minds
levelled against him. ; In Crito he substantiates Socrates’ justifications of obeying the
state’s laws. In Phaedo he reimagines the execution of Socrates and discusses theory
of forms, nature of soul etc. He also wrote other texts like Theatetus, Promenades,
Sophist, Philebus, and Timaeus, but his most important philosophical is the Republic,
Laws and Statesman.
Methodology
Plato’s methodology is deductive, teleological, and dialectical. In the Deductive method,

a philosopher first determines the general principles and then connects them with
observations. It is in contrast to the inductive method where the general conclusions
are reached based on observation of phenomenon and its analysis is based on
comparisons with similar occurrences. However, scholars like Nettleship have claimed
that Plato does not stick to the former and appears to use inductive methods as well,
particularly where he derives theory based on practices. However, unlike Aristotle,
there is no consistency in Plato’s use of methodology. Plato also uses teleology in his
thinking. Teleology means “the object with an objective”. It assumes that everything
that exists consistently moves towards the desired goal which is an inherent part of its Self-Instructional
Material 5

NOTES nature. So, the goal being the important aspect here, it defines the trajectory for
philosophical enquiry. This method is easily visible in Plato’s explanation of State.
Plato’s dialectical method was inspired byAncient Greek tradition but more particularly
by Socrates. Constant questioning is an essential part of this method as highlighted in
Plato’s Republic. It flows from the idea that all knowledge is contained in our soul and
the only challenge is to extract it by thinking about the questions being raised.
Socrates and Plato
Death of Socrates had a great impact on Plato. Socrates influenced him to such an
extent that most of his dialogues are written as conversations between Socrates and
other notable citizens of Athens. Socrates is the main protagonist of Plato’s dialogue.
In fact, since Socrates did not leave any writing of his own, much of what we know
today about Socrates is through Platonic discussion or spoken texts.
Plato was deeply influenced by Socrates’s views on virtue and his method of
dialectics, which is explicitly evident in his own writings. Sophists, the main philosophical
rivals of Socrates opined that virtue lied in acquiring pleasurable things like wealth,
honor, status, etc. Sophists also believed that knowledge was an instrument to gain
power that could lead to pleasure. For Socrates, on the other hand, virtue was the
basis of happiness and virtue entailed in developing excellence or the capacity to
achieve higher ends of life. He argued that knowledge gave us that capacity and taught
us how we ought to live our lives and therefore, knowledge was the supreme virtue.
He maintained that it was equivalent to different virtues like courage, wisdom, etc. He
further opined that all knowledge was within us and we require appropriate methods
to access it. Hence, he stressed that there was priori knowledge of all primary virtues
and it could be accessed through dialectics.
George Sabine in his book A History of Political Theory (1973) argued that
the core idea of Republic was inspired by Socrates’s doctrine that virtue is knowledge:
“The proposition”, Sabine wrote, “that virtue is knowledge implies that there is an
objective good to be known and that it can in fact be known by rational or logical
investigation rather than by intuition, guesswork, or luck? The good is objectively real,
whatever anybody thinks about it, and it ought to be realised not because men want it
but because it is good”. By producing Republic Plato gave this doctrine of Socrates a
Self-Instructional
significant place in the history of political philosophy.
6 Material

Plato (429-347 BC)
NOTES
1.5 THEORY OF FORMS
Influenced by Pythagoras, Plato in his philosophy treated the universal as the perfect
and whole truth and placed it above the particular or the part. The principle that
logically follows from this position is that the particular or part is to be viewed within
the perspective of the whole. To comprehend them nature of the whole needs to be
known first. His Theory of Forms or ideas taken from the Greek word “Edios” is
integrally related to his idea of Knowledge. Like Socrates, Plato also held that knowledge
can be attained and that it had two important characteristics: firstly, this knowledge
was certain and infallible; and secondly, it needs to be differentiated from what is only
an appearance. True Knowledge, therefore, was permanent and unchanging, and was
identified by Plato (as in Socrates), with the “ideal” as opposed to the “physical,
material world”. In his view, “Form”, “Idea”, and “Knowledge”- constitute what is
“ideal”, whereas that which we perceive through our normal sense of sight is “actual”.
He differentiates between “ideal” and “actual”, “forms” and “appearances”,
“knowledge” and and “opinion”, and “being” and “becoming”. For him it was the
world of “ideas” or “forms” that was eternal, fixed and perfect.
Plato differentiated between the visible world (doxa) or the world of senses
from the intelligible world (episteme). Doxa was seen as the world of opinions or
becoming, whereas true knowledge lay in the world, or being or form, represented by
episteme. He admits that opinion is above ignorance. Yet, it cannot be equated with
knowledge. Opinions cannot naturally be infallible. Knowledge, on the contrary, is
infallible irrespective of time and space, , it is universally applicable at all times and
territories. Thus, the object of knowledge is the whole truth or reality which is unchanging
and transcends the barriers of time and space. The stages of knowledge development
is explained by Plato through the analogy of the divided line (to be elaborated and
explained in class).
Plato further argues that it is impossible to locate reality in the world of senses
that is subject to change. Transcending the particular , this idea belongs to transcendental
world where it reveals itself as a holistic, endless, indestructible “ideal”. According to
Plato, this eternal and universal idea is the reality around which the process of knowledge
revolves. It is not possible to have this knowledge through sense perception. As Plato
Self-Instructional
Material 7

NOTES comments in Book 6th of his Republic, philosophers are those who were able to grasp
what is always invariable and unchanging. In a way Plato insisted that the journey from
“appearances” to “forms” was only possible through education, the culmination of
which could only be reached by philosophers.
According to Plato, a philosopher was in a constant quest of truth. His earnest
logging and effort to understand truth or reality leads him to develop a theory of knowing
and philosophy begins with what is called epistemology. Thus, according to Plato, a
true philosopher is always in search of what is real or true. On the other hand, ordinary
people, who are not philosophers, treat whatever they perceive through senses as
reality, though it is only apparent reality. Their idea of knowledge is like that of the
group of men in chains confined within a stony cave. Since they are chained, they are
unable to make any movement in body, not even able to shift their shoulder. In front of
them lies the wall of cave and behind them is a burning fire. As an effect of the light
behind, they see shadows on the front wall. As it is not possible for them to cast their
eyes in any other direction, they are compelled to watch these shadows in front and
they continue thinking that the false and illusive shadow as real. However, one prisoner’s
chains break and he try to move around. He feels immense pain. With a lot of efforts,
he tries to escape the cave but the light at the entrance makes him uncomfortable. He
wants to run back and has to be dragged out of the cave. Once he gets out, he is
almost blinded by the light of sun. Hence, he starts looking at shadows of animals and
plants in water and then directly at each of these creations and he realizes truth is
different from what he saw and believed so long inside the cave. At last, he looks at the
sun and realizes that it is the cause of all that we can see, or the highest source of
knowledge. On the basis of this poetic narrative, or allegory of the cave, Plato concludes
that those who are denied philosophical vision are like these men chained and confined
in the cave. On the contrary, to a true philosopher, the process of knowledge begins
by differentiating the real from the apparent and then, to search for a universal idea in
a super-sensible, super-intelligible and transcendental world.
Plato conceived the Forms to be hierarchically arranged. In fact, the whole
perception of Knowledge and process of its attainment is arranged in the form of stairs
that each seeker of true knowledge needs to travel in order to unravel and reach the
zenith, or the supreme form or “form of Good”. This highest level of knowledge, like
the sun in the allegory of the cave, sheds light on all other ideas. This hierarchy of
Self-Instructional
8 Material

Plato (429-347 BC)
different levels of knowledge is explained by him using the Divided Line analogy. In NOTES
this Plato imagines a vertical line divided into four equal parts. The two parts in the
lower section fall in the visible world or doxa. Of these, the lowermost part denotes
eikasia or the field of mistaken beliefs or superficial appearances (example: The
perception that sun rises in east and sets in west). The penultimate plane of knowledge
in the doxa represents the pistis or the world of empirical realities or common sense
developed on sensory experience (example: The realization that sun does not rise or
set, it is earth’s rotation that makes it appear as such). The upper two levels form part
of the intelligible world or episteme. Of these the lower level is of dianoia or the stage
of discursive thought and mathematical reasoning (example: Knowledge of geometry,
arithmetic). The topmost level amongst these four is noesis or the stage of true
knowledge or forms and its pinnacle being the knowledge of “form of Good”. This is
achieved by knowledge and practice of dialectics, which is even more difficult than
mathematical reasoning. Not all people can reach to this stage of true knowledge and
only philosophers have that capacity. Therefore, he is also asserting that only
philosophers are capable of differentiating between true and apparent reality and can
rightfully separate right and wrong.
1.6 PHILOSOPHER RULER
Who is a philosopher?
Plato believed that philosopher was “one who loved wisdom, had a passion for
knowledge, was always curious and eager to learn”. He was a lover of Truth and one
who had raised himself to such a level of consciousness and knowledge that could
never falter from the path of righteousness.
Why should philosophers rule?
“Until philosophers are Kings, or the Kings and the Princes of this world have the
spirit and power of philosophy, and political greatness and wisdom meet in one ....
cities will never have rest from their evils- nor humans, as I believe- and then only this
will our state have possibility of life and behold the light of a day” – Book V of Republic. Self-Instructional
Material 9

NOTES Philosopher as the ruler was the linchpin of Plato’s Ideal State. According to
him, a good ruler was responsible for preservation of the subjects’ lives and also to
transform it. Influenced by the Socratic dictum that virtue is knowledge, Plato believed
that political ills and injustice could be eradicated if knowledgeable people were put at
the helm of city-state politics. They know about good, justice, beauty, truth, courage
and other moral attributes. Forms could only be seen by those with a rational mind as
only they had the potential to reach the highest level of consciousness. Not only did the
philosophers have the right kind of knowledge, but they were also best suited for the
job of ruling because they had no private interests. Plato did not allow his students
anything private and proposed communism of wives and property to keep them free
from corruption or nepotism.
Plato insisted that philosophers should not stay in isolation, but rather be willing
to actively participate in societal activities including politics at a respectable position.
According to him, a philosopher could make a good legislature as he had the idea of
Good and shall frame laws accordingly.
Plato compared statecraft with soul-craft and asserted that politics had to be
ethical, with expertise required in attaining welfare of people. A philosopher by virtue
of his education and training would develop necessary political virtues. They shall have
a calm approach, a sound mind and a good character. They exemplified qualities
necessary for a good ruler like high mindedness, courage, discipline, truthfulness, public
spiritedness, wisdom and were devoid of economic considerations. Plato illustrated
that just like one visits the best doctor during sickness, one needs experts who can
improve the societal condition with their knowledge, training and positive approach.
For Plato, philosophers can be these experts and can, hence, make good rulers.
1.7 JUSTICE IN THE STATE AND INDIVIDUAL
Plato argued that the State was nothing but the ‘individual writ large’. He firmly believed
in an organic theory of the State. Plato took the State as a province of his analysis and
his theory of justice began with an individual. What is the basis of justice in the life of
individual or what makes a man just? It was with this moral question related to individual
Self-Instructional life that Plato began his theory of justice. However, he was convinced that there was
10 Material

Plato (429-347 BC)
no fundamental difference between an individual and the State except that the State NOTES
was a magnified form of the individual. He believed that it was always convenient to
analyse the nature of something when it was larger in size. He picked life of the State
instead that of the individual to answer what justice was.
In the Republic, Plato presents justice as product of a discussion between
different characters like Cephalus, Polemarchus, Thasymachus, Glaucon, Adeimantus
and Socrates. Socrates, as Plato’s representative voice, invites and involves others on
the question and engages them through dialectics. In the process, Socrates is presented
as demolishing the idea of justice presented by others with profound questioning.
Firstly, he denounced the claim of Cephalus and Polemarchus (father-son duo) that
justice was concerned with giving every man his due or “doing to others what is proper”
(as according to Cephalus) or “doing good to friends and harming enemies” (as argued
by Polemarchus). Plato considers that this traditional theory of justice morally
compelled men to pay everyone’s due and lead an ethical life. . But he looks skeptically
at the suggestion that this principle could be always followed. The principles of justice
need to be universal and equally applicable for all and it is here that Cephalus and
Polemarchus’s view had limitations. He also rejected Thrasymachus’s (who was a
Sophist) idea of justice whereby he claimed that justice represented the interests of the
stronger. Similarly, he also refuted the idea of Justice forwarded by Glucon and
Adeimantus. Rather, for Plato, justice was related to inner nature of man and could not
be conformed through external law. Just State, according to Plato, aimed at common
good and therefore should not serve interest of the strong. Justice, in its English
translation, resonates with the Greek word ‘Dikaiosyne’, used by Plato. . This word
has a more comprehensive meaning than that of ‘justice’. . ‘Dikaiosyne’ means
“righteousness” and also reflects a sense of social bonding. Plato’s idea of justice is
neither legal nor judicial, and is not related to concepts like rights and duties as in case
of modern political philosophers. He uses it to connote a definite form of “social ethics”
that he felt was essential for the development of society.
Plato opined that in society there were four primary virtues- wisdom, courage,
temperance and justice. Justice was dependent on the other three virtues. If society
was managed and balanced in a way that the other three virtues are effectively placed,
Justice will be taken care of. Explaining the idea of virtues, Plato starts with individual
as what is good for one shall also be good for the society at large. He is influenced by
Self-Instructional
Pythogras’s idea of three souls and three classes and adopts it to develop his theory of Material 11

NOTES justice. He argued that each human soul had three aspects: rationality, spirit and appetite.
Each of these parts corresponds to a particular kind of virtue. So, the virtue of rationality
is wisdom, the virtue of spirit is courage, and the virtue of appetite is temperance. In
each soul, one of these parts is more dominant than the others and therefore the virtue
attached with that particular part of soul would be more reflective in the nature of that
individual An individual with dominant rational faculty is fit to represent the ruling class,
as he had the competence to comprehend the Good. Similarly, those with dominant
spirit faculty ought to be courageous and therefore were best suited to become auxiliaries.
They were brave, could defend the city, were public spirited, and ready to sacrifice
material interests for the common good of society. Together the ruling class and the
class of auxiliaries, shall constitute the guardian class. The individuals with dominant
appetitive faculty would have a fondness for material things and temperance was their
virtue. So, they were appropriate for jobs like trading, business or manufacturing and
producing sector.
According to Plato, justice at the level of individual meant that everyone does
the job corresponding to their soul’s dominant natural aptitude. Only then he will be
able to perform the job with zeal and would excel in it. Justice meant harmony or
balance of different aspects of an individual’s nature and assigning work accordingly. .
Similarly, Plato argued that Justice at State level meant that the three classes of rulers,
warriors and producers were divided through members’ dominant soul capacity and
ensured smooth functioning without intereferences. Justice was “one class, one duty:
one man, one work”. Interference in others’ work or mobility into the class contradictory
to one’s nature created the conditions for injustice.
The Athenians believed that they were autochthonous, children of the soil they
lived on, and not the descendants of ancestors who came from other lands. It was this
illusion that Plato uses in his myth of the metals in the Republic. He proposed myth of
metals to legitimize his idea of justice. Plato argued that the guardians should spread
this ‘noble lie’ that the earth was their mother, and as the children of earth, they were
born with some metallic components in their bodies. Some were born with gold in
their bodies (those meant to be philosophers or rulers), others with silver (those meant
to be auxiliaries), and some with brass (those meant to be farmers). This ‘noble lie’
would serve two purposes. It would make every man believe that he was part of a
bigger family with all other members being his brothers, and it would lead to everyone
Self-Instructional
12 Material

Plato (429-347 BC)
accepting their station in life as natural, and based on the qualities they were born with. NOTES
Therefore, rather than interfering with others or rejecting their occupations, they would
focus on excelling in their respective field of work. The idea about division of soul into
three parts with each exhibiting a particular virtue only substantiated this point.
Part of soul Virtue Class

Rationality Wisdom Rulers
Spirit Courage Auxiliaries
Appetite Temperance Artisans
Plato forwards three important ideas here. Firstly, every individual was a
“functional unit”, who had the quality to perform a particular kind of job for which he
was naturally inclined and that he should focus on performing this job properly and
excel in it. Secondly, he visualizes society as a harmonized entity based on the division
of labour according to one’s natural instinct, the principles of which are intact and
should not be faulted with. Thirdly, based on the above two observations it can be
understood that Plato presented an organic theory of society whereby the functional
specializations should be kept intact and if the units perform well the society remains in
order and progresses.
1.8 EDUCATION
The Ideal State imagined by Plato was to be ruled by the philosopher ruler. One of the
most remarkable features of this state, about which Plato was very particular was the
education system. In fact, the philosopher ruler and the entire guardian class was to
pass through this education system which was to be state controlled and rigorous
based on a diverse curriculum and merit. Education was seen not only as a medium of
socialization but rather of moral reform to transform individuals and provide them right
platform to enhance their capabilities. The theme of education is equivocated in Boks
II, III and X. Through this education system, Plato attempted to mix two contrasting
systems of education ;The Spartan model based on military excellence and discipline
Self-Instructional
Material 13

NOTES with the Athenian model based on creativity and individual excellence. The main
characteristic features of his model of education can be listed as :
 His system of education was only meant for the guardian class, which included
the rulers and the auxiliaries. He completely ignored education of the third class
i.e. producer class.
 He promotes a state controlled and state managed education system.
 The education curriculum was devised to develop the human personality holistically
through a balanced physical, mental, intellectual and moral growth.
 The aim of education system was to produce skilled workforce and to judge
the abilities of individuals so that they could be fixed to the stations that their
natural abilities were most suited for.
 It sought to balance individual excellence and social needs. So, it produced
worthy administrators, sturdy soldiers and excellent manufacturers.
 He proposed same education for both boys and girls.
 Elementary education was for 6-18 yrs. Curriculum included music and gymnastics
to simultaneously inculcate gentle and fierce characteristics. He recommended
stringent state censorship on literature, music and stories audited or read by
children. Sorrowful or lethargic music was absolutely forbidden to prevent
children from getting lazy or fearful of death.
 This was followed by two years of compulsory military training. During military
training self-indulgence and luxury was prohibited and strict discipline was
followed to equip each child with best of capacities to defend their lands when
need be.
 At age 20, everyone was to take a test. Those who fail this test take jobs like
businessman, clerk etc. Those who pass could continue their education.
 Next 10 years those who continue the education are trained in mind and body.
Curriculum included Arithmetic, Geometry, and Astronomy to sharpen mind.
 Again, test was conducted at the age of 30. Those who pass could continue
education. Those who fail at this stage qualify to become auxiliaries.
 For those who continue education, there shall be another 5 years of training in
Self-Instructional dialectics, metaphysics, philosophy and logic. This is the highest level of education
14 Material

Plato (429-347 BC)
and not all are capable to grasp it. At 35 years, the students would be placed at NOTES
junior positions in military and political offices as interns to get first-hand
experience of working in government. They shall work there for 15 years to
achieve first-hand experience and during this period their training and practice
of dialectics shall continue.
 At age 50, according to Plato, the candidates are fully prepared and equipped
to take job of philosopher ruler as they have received the highest form of
knowledge and training.
Criticisms of Plato’s plan of education
The first charge against Plato’s system of education was that it was undemocratic as it
completely ignored the producing class. Further, the focus on mathematics didn’t ensure
a diverse curriculum as it claimed. The training in history and literature was either
overlooked or given less preference. It is also stressed too much on formal education
and consumed the best years of ones’ life. Furthermore, it did not have much scope
for enhancing individual autonomy. In the name of discipline, humans were treated in a
very restrictive way with certain telos in mind thereby rejecting the possibility of
developing one’s individuality.
1.9 COMMUNISM OF PROPERTY AND WIVES
Plato aimed to develop a meritocratic society that was free from corruption, selfishness
and nepotism. He firmly believed that corruption in different forms was the primary
cause of degeneration of societies and therefore this menace needed to be nipped in
the bud by understanding its basic cause. He was inspired by the Spartan society.
Therefore, he wanted to inculcate virtues in the guardian class to prevent diversion
from their goals. He also wanted to avoid concentration of political and economic
power among same people could lead to tyranny. Therefore, he devised principles of
communism of property and wives only for the guardian class to ensure they do not
indulge in corrupt practices.
He proposed that the guardian class would live together in common, like soldiers
Self-Instructional
in barracks. This will give them a feeling of oneness and they will learn to live with Material 15

NOTES minimum possessions. They were not allowed to possess gems, gold or silver, and
were allotted only an essential amount of property. . They were also not allowed
ownership of any property or private space including houses etc. For sustenance and
livelihood, they would receive only a fixed quota of goods from the producing class.
The third class or producing class were allowed to have property, but to a limited
area.. The guardian class would supervise property of the producer class and if the
gap between rich and poor seemed to increase , their property would be seized for
redistribution.
Communism of wives was also applicable only for the guardians to avoid
preferential treatment or nepotism in society. Plato was wary of negative emotions like
selfishness, envy, hatred that institution of family encouraged. He saw the institution of
monogamous marriages as discriminatory against women. He held that both men and
women should be treated equally and argued the even women should even be allowed
to become legislators and rulers. His theory of communism of wives is an attack on
conventional marriage, particularly permanent monogamous marriage. He rejected
the idea that marriage was a spiritual union or sacrament. However, he still believed
that some form of sexual union is important for reproduction and continuity of human
race. He saw marriages as only serving the purpose of sexual intercourse to produce
children. Therefore, he was more concerned about how to produce the best breed of
children and hence proposed controlled form of sexual union. In this only best of men
(brave ones and good at war) and women (beautiful) would be paired. He held that
the best marriageable age was 25-55 for men and 20-40 for women. The entire
system was controlled by the philosopher ruler who shall arrange the pairing through a
system of open lottery but shall manage the pairings internally in such a way that the
best of males ate with the best of females. The secret management is also allowed
because only the philosopher ruler shall know about the relationship of the candidates
in the lottery and shall ensure that son-mother, father-daughter are not paired.
Plato’s permitted all forms of abortion if there were chances of foetus developing
deformities or was a result of sex outside regulated marriages or outside prescribed
age limit. He believed that such children will not be healthy and will be a burden for
society. He also allowed killing of handicapped children. Once a healthy child was
born, he was taken to state-maintained crèches and nurseries and was raised there
along with other children. They never knew about their parents and the mating partners
Self-Instructional
16 Material or the mother or father of a particular child also never knew about their relationship.

Plato (429-347 BC)
This unawareness amongst parents, partners and children for Plato is a bliss because NOTES
he believed that no knowledge about one’s children shall inspire all men and women to
consider all children as their own and love each one equally.
Plato presents a very complicated system in his communism based on his own
perception and understandings. There are several limitations of these understandings.
For example, scholars have pointed that he considers property as an evil, whereas
property can also have a rewarding value as it motivates individuals to work harder.
Similarly, providing the producer class with the right to property can develop jealousy
among the guardians which can have repercussions. Similarly, his views about marriage
in its instrumental form is deeply problematic. It completely overlooks the emotional
bonding among partners and concentrates only on sexual relations. His belief that the
best breed could only be born of marriage between strong males and beautiful females
is deeply flawed and as progress in medical sciences have shown, it is also irrational.
Also, if family as an institution is demolished, it can also affect the balance of society as
family provides the first and most significant stage in socialization process, a point
stressed strongly by Aristotle as well. Furthermore, the if no one knows who their
child is they ought to love all children as their own could also backfire as it was possible
that all children get equally ignored and in absence of emotional bonds they do not
receive proper care.
Based on the fact that Plato suggested some form of communism, some scholars
have tried to compare Plato and Marx. C. C. Maxey has claimed that Plato was
predecessor of all forms of communism. Though there may be some merit in this
assertion, Plato’s comparison with Marx’s idea of communism is quite exaggerated.
Plato provides a theory of communism that was purely political in nature, whereas
Marx’s idea is primarily economic. Secondly, Plato’s communism is limited for the two
classes of rulers and auxiliaries, whereas Marx’s communism aims at fundamental
transformation of entire social order leading to a classless society. For Plato, communism
was a solution to societal corruption. Whereas, Marx sees Communism as a natural
culmination of a society that evolves through the struggle between forces of production
and relations of production and passes through the stages of primitive communism,
slavery, feudalism and Capitalism. Therefore, the idea of communism in Marx’s
philosophy is very different from Plato’s.
Self-Instructional
Material 17

NOTES
1.10 OTHER FORMS OF REGIMES
Plato’s Ideal State had the philosopher ruler, where justice shall prevail and all classes
would be engaged in their respective duties based on their individual virtues. In the
Ideal State, as pointed by Plato, reason shall rule over spirit and appetite. But Plato
also examined other forms of state and the reasons for their instability and decay. He
discussed about four such regimes: timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny. He
argued that each of these regimes, due to their inherent character, was bound to decline
into tyranny. It seems he has listed all these degenerate forms to suggest that if the ideal
state is not respected and firmly established, it can gradually lead people to worse
form of states, thereby trying to legitimize his ideation about the rule of philosopher-
king.
 Timocracy– Timocracy was the first form of degeneration from Ideal State.
Succeeding generations, if lacked talent and did not get educated in the right
spirit, the society was bound to decline along with the quality of ruling class. The
ruling elite in this form of regime, valued wealth and material things above
intelligence and wisdom and soldiers and auxiliaries are valued more than
philosophers.
 Oligarchy– When virtues further decline, and wealth earns centrality, it turns to
be rule of few rich or oligarchy. Gap between rich and poor gradually enlarges,
and the lust for wealth could undermine rule of law. As a consequence, the poor
shall revolt.
 Democracy– it was characterised by license, wastefulness, anarchy, desires
and appetite ruled. It was product of revolt of poor in oligarchy. It was unjust
and Plato equated it with ‘mobocracy’ as people from any walk of life could
participate in politics. Quantity rather than quality was main criterion with respect
to values cherished. Due to excessive lawlessness, it was bound to invite a
central, strong leader to take control and the tyrant shall rise.
 Tyranny– In the name of security and protection, tyrant shall control the life of
people and curtail all liberties. Plato does not suggest any way out of tyranny.
Self-Instructional
18 Material

Plato (429-347 BC)
Was Plato forerunner of modern totalitarianism? NOTES
Many scholars have argued that Plato’s political theory shows early inklings of
totalitarianism. Many of these scholars belong to the traditions of liberal democracy
and uphold the values of rights and liberties and based on these ideals they judge other
writings. The context of most of these commentaries was Nazism in Germany and
fascism in Italy as well as the growth of Communist states in many parts of Eastern
Europe including former USSR. One of the essential features of totalitarianism is its
deliberate denial of the autonomy and dignity of the individual. On this consideration,
many of modern writers have identified Plato as an advocate of totalitarianism. They
argue that separate identity of individual is hardly recognised in Plato’s Political ideas.
According to them, Plato wanted to make political authority indomitable and universally
acceptable.
Crossman (1939) in his book Plato Today argued that Plato’s views and ideas
present a dangerous cocktail that was absolutely threatening during his own times and
also for contemporary period. He argued that Plato aimed to create an ideal society
by reforming the system prevalent in Athens. He identifies many such evils including
class conflict, poor system of education and the loopholes within the political system.
However, Crossman highlighted that Plato had several assumptions that were
problematic like: a) he did not have faith on the wisdom and rationality of masses and
therefore favoured a particular class; b) his belief that philosopher ruler has full
understanding of right and wrong and is infallible ; c) his belief that suppression of
different liberties was important to maintain peace and harmony in society and maintain
a pure social order based on discipline. Crossman therefore claimed that Plato could
be seen as against basic ethos of liberal democracy, like liberty, equality and democracy,
because he did not have faith on the capacity of individuals to balance and contain the
fallouts of these values.
Similarly, Berlin (1969) argued that Plato’s philosophy does not show any respect
for individual freedoms like freedom of opinion, or freedom of choice. He also pointed
that Plato’s views rejected any scope for plural life style by presenting a disciplined
social order where the role and boundaries are well defined for each class.
However, the most scathing attack came from Karl Popper (1945), who in his
book Open Society and its Enemies, accused philosophers like Plato, Hegel and
Self-Instructional
Marx as enemies of open society. An open society, according to him, allowed dissenting Material 19

NOTES views and critical analysis of the political structure and system. It included free thought
and opinion, freedom of action, and open system of education based on liberal values.
It had individual at its core and took care of individual’s rights and liberties. Contrarywise,
as Popper asserts, totalitarian systems reject and is antithetical to the principles of
open society. For him, Plato’s political philosophy and his vision of ideal state, granted
philosopher ruler an absolutism that was non-democratic and reflected a sense of
extreme centralization. Plato further disallows any prospect for social change and
advocated for status quo. Further, Popper points that for Plato ruling elites mattered
the most and all his focus is on guardian class, which is equally non-democratic and
against principles of equality. Based on these observations, Popper claims Plato to be
representing the initial visions of totalitarianism.
On the other hand, there are also scholars like H. D. Ranking who in his work
Plato and the individual argue that it would be unfair to conclude that, in his political
philosophy, Plato totally ignored the individual. Indeed, in his political ideas, there are
several pieces of evidence disproving that he was indifferent to the individual. For
instance, it is around the life of individual that Plato introduced his theory of justice. He
also realised that the welfare of society and the state, on the whole, is dependent on
individual’s mentality, character and physique. Furthermore, he gave due regard to the
diversity of individual nature and character. He admitted that individuals are different
from each other in every respect. Lastly, he not only viewed the individual in the
context of class to which he belonged but also, in some cases, evaluated a class in
terms of individuals included in it.
Joad (1966) comments that although there are many similarities between Fascism
and Plato’s state, they also have fundamental differences. A fundamental difference is
that Plato aims to build a state to uphold the principles of common good and justice,
whereas Fascism was against these ideals. So, Joad argues that it will be exaggeration
to compare modern fascism with Plato.
As is visible, there is a divided house among scholars who comment on and
interpret Plato. But the comparison of Plato’s views with modern forms of totalitarianism
is over exaggerated. Even critics like Popper fail to establish clear links. They primarily
claim that Plato’s views are not supportive of the values celebrated by liberal democracy.
But does not being a supporter of liberal democracy make one a totalitarian thinker?
Self-Instructional
20 Material

Plato (429-347 BC)
There appear severe limitations in these ideas with extreme level of reductionism based NOTES
on creation of a binary between liberal democracy and totalitarianism, which in reality
does not exist. It has to be understood that context of any thinker is important and
therefore to implant or judge a thinker based on modern understanding of particular
ideas and its parameters does not do any justice to his political philosophy and is
bound to fail the test of methodological rigour.
1.11 SELF-ASSESSMENT QUESTIONS
1. What are forms? Discuss Plato’s explanation of the theory of forms using
examples.
2. Who is a philosopher ruler? Why does Plato think that philosophers are the
most suitable to rule?
3. Analyze the idea of Justice as discussed in Plato’s Republic.
4. Discuss Plato’s views on communism of wives and property. Why does he
consider it important for state.
5. Do you think Plato is rightly considered by some scholars as the forerunner of
modern totalitarianism? Give reasons.
1.12 REFERENCES
Kraut, R. 1996. ‘Introduction to the Study of Plato’, in R. Kraut (ed.). The

Cambridge Companion to Plato. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.
1-50.
Reeve, C. 2009. ‘Plato’, in D. Boucher and P. Kelly, (ed.) Political Thinkers:
From Socrates to the Present. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 62-80.
Sabine, George H. 1937. A History of Political Theory. Henry Holt and company:
New York.
Self-Instructional
Material 21

NOTES Mukhopadhyay, A. K. 1988. Western Political Thought: From Plato to Marx. K.

P. Bagchi & company: Calcutta.
Nelson, Brian R. 1996. Western Political Thought: From Socrates to the Age of
Ideology. Waveland press Inc: Illinois.
McClelland, J. S. 1996. A History of Western Political Thought. Routledge: London.
Self-Instructional
22 Material

Aristotle (385 BC–322 BC)
LESSON 2 NOTES
ARISTOTLE (385 BC–322 BC)

Dr. Nishant Kumar
Structure
2.2 Introduction
2.3 Important Works
2.4 Aristotle on Virtue and Moral Action
2.5 Theory of the State
2.6 Rule of Law and Constitution
2.7 The Best system of Government (Practicable)
2.8 Nature and Composition of the Ideal State
2.10 References
 The lesson discusses the relevance of various ideas of Aristotle.

 It would make students understand his idea of theories of state, rule of law and
the typology of states.
 The lesson also elaborates on the best system of practicable government.
2.2 INTRODUCTION
Aristotle was not an Athenian like Plato, although he spent a substantial part of his life
in Athens. He was born in 384 BC in Stagira, a city of Thracia. His father, Nichomachus,
was a physician to the King of Macedon. In early years, he studied medicine under his
Self-Instructional
Material 23

NOTES father. Then, after his father’s death in 366 BC, he went to Athens and joined the
Academy of Plato as his pupil. Plato was much impressed by his brilliance. Naturally,
he developed an intimate relation with his master and remained in Academy for 20
years. When Plato died in 347 BC, he expected that he would be elevated to the post
of master of Academy. But his hopes were belied when the position went to Plato’s
nephew. A disappointed Aristotle then joined the court of Hermias, a tyrant of Atarneus,
as a physician and tutor. But when in 342 BC, Hermias was dethroned and killed by
the revolutionaries, Aristotle lost his job. Soon after, Philip, the King of Macedon,
appointed him a tutor of his adolescent son Alexander. He continued this job until 336
BC and then returned to Athens and founded high school named Lyceum which went
on for 12 years. Then, after death of Alexander, anti-Macedonian riot happened in
Athens and this forced Aristotle to flee Athens and take shelter in city of Chalcis of
Euboea where he breathed his last in 322 BC.
2.3 IMPORTANT WORKS
Metaphysics, Physics, Rhetoric, Poetic, Eudemin Ethics, Athenian Constitution, Politics,

Nichomachean Ethics, De Anima, De Interpretatione
Aristotle’s differences with Plato’s ideas
Though Aristotle was Plato’s student and there were many things common, they differed
in fundamental ways. They both represented similar context and their philosophy aimed
at the idea of common good, they varied in their imaginations about how this ideal
could be achieved. The points of differences can be noted as following:
 Aristotle refused to share the Platonic view that the ideal is to be located only in
the transcendental world. According to him, the ideal is built with multiple elements
of the temporal world. This is why in his Politics, he does not present like Plato
an imaginary ideal state, talks about those earthly objects with which an ideal
state can be constructed.
 Unlike Plato’s claim that all knowledge could be found upon a single set of
axioms and could be reached through dialectics, Aristotle opined that knowledge
Self-Instructional
24 Material

could be productive (based on making of things like rhetoric and poetry), practical NOTES
(focused on action like ethics and politics), and theoretical (based on exploration
of truth as ultimate good).
 He criticized Plato’s theory of forms as he argued that ‘properties’ or ‘forms’
were not outside things and had to be understood in relation to matter (discussed
extensively in the next section).
 Unlike Plato’s radical reforms, Aristotle favored conservation and preservation
of existing tradition and institutions. His ideas of golden mean, protection of
polity, advocacy of mixed constitutions, and his analysis of revolution indicate
this. .
 He argued that Plato’s idea of state overemphasized unity at the cost of harmony
and could lead to regimentation.
 He particularly attacked Plato’s views about communism of wives and property.
o He believed that family was a natural institution and to abolish it could be
detrimental to both individual and society.
o He argued that it was better to be cared for by one’s own father than be
ignored by many fathers.
o Family as an institution was important to inculcate civic duties and personal
love. At the same time, he saw private and public sphere as complementary
and institution of family as significant in ensuring stability of the state. In the
absence of family individuals also lack motivation and inspiration.
o For property, he argued that it was not only necessary for possessive instincts
but also for goodness and philanthropy.
o Common ownership is no ownership. He argued that those who work harder
expect better rewards. This idea is explicit in his theory of distributive justice.
 Other than these, Aristotle also pointed out that permanent rule of philosopher
ruler could create discontent as it prevented circulation of elites.
 A stable polity, according to him, needed to protect and accommodate aspirations
of different claimants and classes, which was not ensured in Plato’s ideal state.
 Further, being a pragmatist, he argued that a good ruler should be wise and
conscious about worldly affairs more than about the world of ideas. Self-Instructional
Material 25

NOTES Aristotle’s Methodology
Aristotle’s methodology could be called scientific, historical, comparative, inductive,

and observational at the same time. Barker comments that Aristotle’s methodology is
scientific, his work is systematic, and his writings are analytical. Plato argued with
conclusions that were pre-conceived, while Aristotle in a scientific way with logic and
analysis arrived at his conclusions. . Empiricism was Aristotle’s merit. His chief
contribution to political science was to infuse politics with methods used in examination
of natural aspects. Aristotle the biologist looks at the developments in political life in
much the same way that he looks at the developing life of other natural phenomena.
Aristotle’s Philosophy and idea of forms
Focusing on the idea of ‘particular’, formerly dismissed by Plato as unreal, Aristotle

developed a philosophy completely different from that of Plato. According to Aristotle,
every object of the world, whether animate or inanimate, has an underlying potentiality.
This potential is the possibility of reaching a level of its final fulfillment that represents
something greater and better then what it is at the moment. Thus, every object
presupposes two stages: the first, is the stage of potentiality and the second, is the
stage of final fulfillment of the potentiality.
Teleology is central to Aristotle’s theory of explanation. Aristotle begins with
four different kinds of causes in his theory of explanation - the material cause, the
efficient cause, the formal cause and the final cause. Consider the case of a seed
developing into a plant: chemical makeup of the seed is material cause of development;
watering and fertilizing it at regular intervals is its efficient cause; its formal cause is the
relationship between the growing seedling’s different parts and the final cause is the
seed’s goal of becoming a plant. While Aristotle does suggest that a full understanding
of anything requires a grasp of all four causes, he also states that it is the final cause that
provides the real explanation of any phenomena. But as evident, these are not mutually
exclusive views.
In Aristotelian metaphysics, although natural substances are compounds of matter
and form, it is their form which is the source or cause of moving or of being at rest.
Their form is the internal source of movement or change, and guides them to the
specific natural end. Thus, Aristotle distinguishes between a statue, which is an artefact,
Self-Instructional
26 Material and an olive plant, which is a natural thing. The form of a statue exists outside of it, in

the mind of the sculptor, whereas the form of the olive plant, that which causes the NOTES
olive seed to strive towards its goal or telos of becoming an olive tree, is internal to it.
From this philosophical premise, Aristotle draws two conclusions. First, every
object, whether belonging to the animate or inanimate world, goes through a journey
from matter to the form or nature, and this journey is fully guided and regulated by the
ultimate destination, that is, the form. Second, this naturally implies that every earthly
object has before it the form or nature to guide itself, that is, every object has before it
a final goal which, in Greek language, is called telos. Therefore, the only criterion to
measure the extent of development and progress is the telos. On the other hand, to
comprehend the characteristics of what is called form, it is imperative to look at the
matter closely and to understand the possibilities inherent in this matter. Aristotle arrives
at his final philosophical position that this world is to be viewed and judged with a
teleological vision. Hence, Aristotle’s philosophy of life and the world is known as
teleological philosophy and it also serves as the basis of his moral and political
philosophy.
2.4 ARISTOTLE ON VIRTUE AND MORAL ACTION
Deriving from his teleological philosophy, Aristotle in Ethics, attempts a moral analysis
of man’s life. His primary premise in his moral philosophy is that whatever we do or
think has a final goal, and good is the final moral end of man’s life. As he says in his
Nicomachean Ethics: ‘In every pursuit and art the chief good is that for the sake of
which all that we do is done’. . Likewise, in moral life, the final goal or telos is happy
life or eudaimonia. It may be possible to attain the goal of a happy life with honor,
wealth and means of fulfilling materialistic needs. . Aristotle does not altogether discard
the necessity of these means. However, he is firm in his opinion that it is only by virtue
that man may fulfill the objective of the highest moral good. This virtue is of different
kinds. But real virtue lies in the middle of two extreme opposites. In other words,
intermediary position is the true index of virtue.
To determine the area of this activity, Aristotle points out that man alone,
abstracted from society, cannot secure happiness for himself because man is a social
animal. An intense desire to associate with others lies within him. As Aristotle says in Self-Instructional
Material 27

NOTES his Nicomachean Ethics, “No one would choose the whole world on condition of
being alone, since man is a political creature and one whose nature is to live with
others”. This association with others and friendship enable one to attain happiness.
Friendship helps man develop sharing skills and inspires him to look beyond his self-
interest. Hence, friendship in social setting is significant to ensure moral happiness.
However, friendship grown on the basis of selflessness is a means to attain
good cannot achieve the highest good because friendship teaches one to be selfless
but not to love oneself. To attain the highest good, man must learn to love himself. This
self-love, of course, does not mean so-called egoism or mean attachment to self-
interest. This love for oneself actually means to discover the best element in oneself
and then to cultivate it with all sincerity. This best element man’s intellect or reason.
Hence, constant development of intellect or reason is the best means to attain the
highest good. Man gets the highest happiness through this intellectual exercise because
it is cultivation of intellect without any ill purposes can be enjoyed for one’s lifetime. .
Aristotle, the calls this intellectual exercise as philosophical exercise.
Aristotle stated three different aspects of what it is to be moral based on rational
intellectual exercise. First, for us to be able to say that someone has acted morally,
there must be some intention to bring about good for others. Moral acts must always
be issued from a choice that is not done impulsively, but after some deliberation.
Volition is a deliberate choice, and the process of deliberation is also important. This
process of deliberation points to the second feature of moral action for Aristotle.
Second, to be moral, an individual must not only have the strength of will, but also the
faculty of right judgment. Aristotle gave the name phronesis to this faculty of right
judgment. Even after deliberation, if we lack phronesis, we might choose a course of
action that will harm others. The third aspect of Aristotle’s theory of moral action has
to do with character. Third, by doing the right action repeatedly and forming good
habits, we can build a character, which will result in right actions.
Aristotle’s claims that man is a political animal, or that the state is a natural
association is hence explained by these rational exercises. Man is a zoon politikon
(political animal) because it is only by living in a political community that he realizes his
true nature, which is to become a moral being. Similarly, the state is an association
natural to man because it is essential for the completion of his nature. According to
Self-Instructional
Aristotle, men are born with the potential of becoming moral, but this potential can be
28 Material

actualized only under the right social conditions. The most important of these social NOTES
conditions is being a member of a political community. Furthermore, only theoretical
understanding might not help in attaining virtuous life. Therefore, Aristotle asserts that
Laws and good education is essential in developing and guiding faculties in an individual
to achieve the goal of a good life. It is for this reason that the state is supposed to
complete the nature of men. The polis can also make its citizens moral only by giving
them the right to make political decisions. The purpose of the polis cannot be realized
without allowing all citizens a share in judicial and deliberative office. All citizens should
sit in the Ekklesia, the principal assembly, and become members of the Dikasteria,
the courts. Therefore, according to Aristotle, the state is an association not merely for
living, but for living a good life.
2.5 THEORY OF THE STATE
Aristotle’s theory of the state was completely based on his teleological philosophy and
moral principles. Therefore, it is commonly known as teleological theory of the state.
This theory reveals that Aristotle viewed the state not only as a human organization but
also as the highest human association. He treats the state as a form or nature or, in
other words, as the final fulfillment of certain inherent human potentialities. Accordingly,
to comprehend nature of the state, he searches for the potentialities, which, when
fulfilled, gave birth to the state. In his Politics to introduce his theory of the state he
begins with an enquiry into the roots of its origin.
Aristotle’s Politics begins with the statement that ‘Every association aims at
some good and the state as the highest association aims at the highest good’. According
to Aristotle, primarily the state comprises two fundamental and natural human relations.
First, the relation between man and woman and, second, the relation between master
and slave. The first is necessary for purpose of reproduction and, thereby, to continue
the human race. The second is necessary to ensure intellectual development of the
human race. According to Aristotle, these two relations together constitute an institution
which is family (he uses the term family interchangeably with household). The goal of
family is only to meet the daily wants of life and it is the most basic unit of co-operation.
It is headed by the citizen and includes children, women, and slaves. This family, the Self-Instructional
Material 29

NOTES basic human institution, undergoes transformation whenever several families are united
together to form a village. Purpose of the village, as compared to the family, is much
greater. It caters to life’s needs beyond the everyday requirements, including economic
needs. But Aristotle argues that all needs of individual are not satisfied at the level of
village. When several villages are united together, it gives birth to a much larger institution,
which is self-sufficient or nearly self-sufficient, and is called the state. Like the earlier
institutions, the state also emerges to meet the necessities of life. However, it is a
unique institution with its final purpose to serve life’s needs and also to ensure a good
life based on moral considerations. Furthermore, the process of evolution through
which various institutions grow reaches its final destination in the birth of the state.
From this account of the origin of the state, Aristotle derives three premises that
together constitute his theory of the state.
 The first premise is that the state is a natural institution. The institutions that
came into existence before the emergence of the state reach their final
development in the state. As in Aristotle’s teleological philosophy, what
represents the final development is the form and is the true essence of the
development.
 Aristotle’s second premise is that man is by nature a political animal, and he
is ordained to be a member of the state. He who is not the member of state
is either a beast or a God. In support of this premise, Aristotle’s argument is
that nature gives man nothing in vain. Nature has given man power of speech
and practical judgment so that he can determine good or bad, justice or
injustice, etc. Since man is endowed with this power of judgment, he was
able to build family, village and the state. In fact, he argues that politics is
nothing but a collective form of “reasoned action” (a collective exhibition of
virtue as reasoned action is an individual virtue).
 Third premise as per Aristotle’s theory of the origin of the state, is that the
family and the village created by men came much earlier than the state.
Therefore, the individual is prior to the state. However, he adds that the
state is above the individual, and is greater than the individual or even family
and village. He argues that the whole is always more important than the part
because the importance of the part is fully dependent on that of the whole.
Self-Instructional
30 Material

For example, human body is the whole of which the hand is a mere part, and NOTES
if the body is destroyed, the hand is of no use.
It is these three premises that together represent the basics of Aristotle’s theory
of the state. He tried to establish that the state, by no means, had come into existence
by use of force nor is it an artificial institution deliberately created by man, as held by
the social contract theorists who came after Aristotle, like Hobbes, Locke, and others.
At the same time, Aristotle believed that man was essentially good and it was function
of the state to develop his faculties for good action and for the common good. So, it
was the state’s duty to inculcate virtues in its citizenry. Similar function is also performed
by the family but its focus is on individual and not on the collective. The state caters to
larger numbers and represents the public arena where citizens, unlike in household,
exercise rationality free of personal determinants.
2.6 RULE OF LAW AND CONSTITUTION
Aristotle took a cue from Plato’s suggestion in the Laws that laws were necessary for
a moral and civilized life. Civility of law was possible if one perceived law as wisdom
accumulated over the ages and generations resulting from customs, both written and
unwritten. Aristotle, unlike Plato, contended that the collective wisdom of people was
superior than that of the wisest ruler or legislator, for “the reason of the statements in a
good state cannot be detached from the reason embodied in the law and the custom of
community rules”.
A constitution, for Aristotle, was not only a basic law determining the structure
of its government and allocation of powers between the different branches within a
government, but it also reflected a way of life. A constitution gave an identity to polis,
which meant that a change in constitution could bring about a change in the polis. In
fact, he says that constitution is like the form in context of the state. The state will grow
in accordance with its constitution . Constitutions had two aspects: the ethical or the
goal pursued by a community; and the institutional order structure of political institutions
and offices and the distribution of power. In ethical sense, a constitution provided
identity of a state, for it examined the relationship between a good citizen and a good
man. Self-Instructional
Material 31

NOTES Constitutional rule had three elements:

a) Common interest of people taken care of.
b) No arbitrary power of the rulers.
c) Consent and not force as the basis of obligation for constitutions.
A constitutional ruler, unlike a dictator, ruled over his willing subjects by consent.
Aristotle was categorical that a rightly constituted law was the final authority. Personal
authority was only desirable if for some reason it was not easy to codify laws that met
all general contingencies. Aristotle’s ideal was constitutionally-based order. Laws were
less arbitrary and fairer, since they were impersonal . He contended that a free political
relationship was one where the subject did not totally surrender his judgment and
responsibility, for both the ruler and the ruled had a defined legal status.
Governments/Constitutions and their classification
Based on a comparative study of 158 constitutions he provided qualitative and

quantitative analysis of different constitutions. It is broadly based on the number of
rulers and the quality of rulership. He believed that as the highest office of the state as
well as the highest political power is held by the ruling class, the character of a government
is determined by the nature of the rulers. This ruler may be just one person or few
people or many people united together. Again, the political rule may be of one ruler’s
interest or by larger public interest. Thus, using the number of the rulers as well as the
purpose of rule as the criterion, Aristotle made a sixfold classification of governments.
For instance, whenever the ruling power lies with one person and it is committed to
serving public interest, it is monarchy. On the other hand, when it is meant to serve the
narrow self-interest of the one-man ruler, it turns into tyranny which represents the
perverted form of monarchy. Furthermore, when a handful of people ruled to serve
public interest, it is aristocracy. Its corresponding perverted form is oligarchy where a
few people rule with the personal intent and interests. On the other hand, when many
people rule with a view to serve general interests, it is called polity. However, when
this mass rule is directed solely towards rulers’ interest, it turns into a democracy that
represents a perverted form of polity. Property both a good and an evil. Distribution of
wealth and property determines character of perverted constitutions as it was motivated
by selfish interests, whereas the duty of state is to protect and promote common good.
Self-Instructional
32 Material

Through this classification of governments, Aristotle makes it clear that in his opinion NOTES
monarchy, aristocracy and polity are three good types of government and tyranny,
oligarchy and democracy are three corresponding bad/perverted forms.
Number of Pure form Perverted

rulers form
One Monarchy Tyranny
Few Aristocracy Oligarchy
Many Polity Democracy
Aristotle hardly discussed the ideal type but was concerned with the best
practicable state. Among the ideal types, Aristotle concentrated on monarchy rather
than aristocracy. Monarchy would be the best form if a wise and a virtuous King could
be found. He firmly believed that it is easier to find one man who could look beyond
self interest and work for common good, than finding few or many people who could
do that. Being a good human, the Monarch ought to be allowed to make laws. It
would be best to allow the Monarch to rule, but Aristotle was not sure whether to
grant anybody the absolute right to rule.
2.7 THE BEST SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT

(PRACTICABLE)
After classification of governments, Aristotle proceeded to determine which among

the six form of government, was the best. At the very beginning of this discussion,
Aristotle points out that his purpose is not to look for a perfectly ideal system of
government. For him, ideally monarchy based on constitutional law is the best form of
government, but the best practicable and stable form of government, according to
him, was polity.
To prove polity as the best form of government, Aristotle relied on the theory of
golden mean, essentially derived from Pythagoras and presented in his Nicomachean
Ethics. For him, organizational structure and social base of the power holders in polity
signified an intermediary position. He pointed out that polity stood just in the middle of
Self-Instructional
Material 33

NOTES the two opposites like democracy and oligarchy as polity represented a mixture of
oligarchy and democracy. Furthermore, the rulers in a polity were neither very rich nor
very poor. They were actually representatives of the middle class. Aristotle further
tried to prove that middle class were best rulers due to following reasons:
 They are not insolent and unruly like the rich nor do they tend to get involved
in violence and crimes like the poor. Naturally, they are answerable to reason.
 The rich are familiar with ruling and domination and are not used to obey.
The poor, on the contrary, know how to obey but hardly know how to rule.
The middle class, on the other hand, knows both to command and to obey.
 The middle class is the best fitted to ensure stability, peace and discipline.
Because, seeing the rich possess and enjoy property , the poor naturally feel
envious of them and become keen on forcibly taking away property from
the rich. This leads to constant instability and indiscipline in society. But as
members of the middle class are neither very rich, nor very poor there is
very little chance of instability and indiscipline in the social life.
 History gave many evidence of the qualitative excellence of middle class.
For instance, the famous lawmakers like Solon, Lycurgus and Charondas,
all emerged from the middle class.
In the organizational structure of Polity, Aristotle combined the components of
democratic and oligarchic systems. This reconciliation may be implemented in various
ways.
 First, it may be done by mixing the rules of oligarchy with those of democracy.
For example, the rule may be made in polity that the poor would be paid for
acting as jury, and the rich would be subjected to fine, if they fail to discharge
the duties of jury.
 Second, by taking a middle position between the standing rules of oligarchy
and democracy, the system of polity may be developed by way of making
an adjustment between the two. For instance, ownership of a small amount
of property may be made a qualification to be a member of the assembly in
a polity.
 Third, instead of combining the rules of oligarchic and democratic systems,
Self-Instructional certain elements may be chosen from each of these systems, and on the
34 Material

basis of such elements, the political framework of polity may be constructed. NOTES
In polity, magistrates may be chosen by vote, as is the practice in oligarchy.
At the same time, the rule may be made, as in vogue in democracy, that to
be a magistrate one would not require any property qualification.
So why Polity is the most suited to be best practicable state?
 Polity is reflective of collective rational wisdom. He uses the analogy of feast
to state that as more people cook, we have many dishes and the feast
becomes better. Accordingly, more decision makers shall result in better
and rational judgment.
 Specialists are neither infallible nor best. So, public control is important.
Here he uses builder-owner analogy. Who is a better judge of how the
house should be built? He claims that neither specialists like builders nor
commoners like owner of house can have complete knowledge. Therefore,
it is best that both work together sharing their respective knowledge.
 Gives stability as middle-class is dominant. Middle class would:
o Follow middle path.
o More likely to follow reason.
o Most likely to incorporate friendship and equality. Neither extremely
arrogant nor fearful.
o Values of shared partnership nurtured.
o Not be opposed by any class. . High class and lower class can identify
themselves with it.
2.8 NATURE AND COMPOSITION OF THE IDEAL

STATE
Although Aristotle disavowed the philosophical tradition initiated by his master, the
ideal valued much by Plato in his philosophy was not an anathema to him. That is why
he did not merely stop at outlining the best practicable state but also depicted in his
Politics what he regarded as an Ideal State. He felt that the Ideal State is composed Self-Instructional
Material 35

NOTES of elements that may be identified in relation to experience. But he was convinced that
the nature of these elements is determined by a fundamental principle guiding the ideal.
For him ideal state was one based on constitutional monarchy.
According to Aristotle, what implied to the individual equally applied to the
state. When moral virtues are fully developed in state’s life on moral criterion it becomes
the best state or in other words, an ideal state. However, these developed moral
virtues must be used in good acts. He warns that the ideal state or happy state cannot
be put into reality through inactivity. The highest happiness may be attained only through
good work. So, Aristotle concludes that an ideal state requires not only statesman but
also thinking philosophers.
For Aristotle, the human element was an important factor in organization of the
state. Hence, he focuses his attention on size of the population enough for an ideal
state. According to him, the desirable population should neither be too large nor too
small. If the population is too large, it is difficult to ensure people’s obedience to laws
of the state. If the territory of state is inhabited by too many people, it is not possible to
maintain discipline, and without discipline it is not so easy to develop allegiance to
state’s authority. On the other hand, if the state has a very small population, it cannot
be self-sufficient. Aristotle suggest people to be courageous and intelligent, like the
Greeks. However, he cautions that being courageous does not be imply being mean to
strangers For him, courage is power of the soul and it is invariably reflected in friendship
and compassion.
On territory of the Ideal State, Aristotle’s suggests that it should help the state to
attain self-sufficiency. Land should be so fertile that it may produce all kinds of crops
in abundance and people should not suffer from lack of food products. Social
composition of the Ideal State, essentially requires (a) food to feed the people, (b)
handicrafts to manufacture various instruments necessary for human living, (c) the
arms required to establish authority of the state and to fight out external aggression, (d)
flow of finance to meet domestic needs and exigencies of war, (e) worship of gods and
performance of religious rites and (f) definitive methods and means to determine public
interest and justice. Corresponding to these six kinds of works, the Ideal State would
have six classes of husbandmen, artisans, warriors, businessmen, priests, counsellors,
and judges.
Self-Instructional
36 Material

Accordingly, people with the highest moral virtue are capable of fulfilling purpose NOTES
of the state. This is why he eliminates artisans and businessmen as citizens of the Ideal
State as they are bereft of moral virtues and their life is lowly and focus only on profit.
Similarly, husbandmen cannot be citizens of the Ideal State as, they are engaged in
agricultural activities and do not have leisure without which moral virtues cannot be
developed. The remaining classes would be the citizens of the Ideal State and all
would have the right of ownership and possession of land.
Household (family)
 Citizen+ women+ children+ property (both animate and inanimate)

 Fulfilled the function of self-preservation+ procreation+ economic needs
 Function of inculcating civic virtues+ moral virtues (through the process of
socialization)
 Considers household as significant part of the polis. The citizen (father) is link
between political community and household.
 Looks at male-female relation as natural biological and children as bond between
them. Women important for social happiness as they educate and train young
future citizens, but they are not part of political process. Without children family
may dissolve so they are also a common good for society.
 In family male are active members, females are passive when seen from lens of
state and politics. Aristotle believed that husbands (male) have natural virtue to
command and wives (female) natural virtue to obey. So, even male child is to be
trained in a way to become citizens and girls should be trained to obey as they
lacked mental capacity to take part in politics.
Property
Aristotle justifies inclusion of property and art of money making in his discussion on
family as they support maintenance of family. According to him, property is an integral
component of the family life. He considered material wealth as important for good life,
but argued that economic activity is subordinate to political activity. He distinguished
between natural and unnatural acquisition of wealth, where the prior included hunting,
grazing, animal husbandry- where nature sets the limits to acquisition, whereas the Self-Instructional
Material 37

NOTES latter it included acquisition through other means like trade etc. and often lead to
excess acquisition. Whenever the amount of property acquired is greater than what is
required for the maintenance of family or when it is earned just with the greed to amass
property, it no longer remains a natural system and ceases to be led by a moral purpose.
Aristotle considers retail trade and usury as unfair and immoral, involving misuse of the
principle of property. Therefore, he prefers barter system as a mean, where one gets
according to their needs and has the option of giving away the excess in mutual exchange.
Aristotle regards it as neither unnatural nor immoral. Simple barter system to exchange
things and fulfil one’s deficiency is innocuous.
Aristotle was thus a proponent of private property system. He naturally opposed
communism or property distribution proposed by Plato. In his opinion Plato’s system
of communism of property is disadvantages and, in fact, impossible for several reasons.
 First, Aristotle believed that, by virtue of his communism, Plato wanted to
establish unity of an extreme extent. However, too much unity is bad for the
state because the state really presupposes plurality. However, extreme unity
destroyed plurality, and as a result, the state no longer remained a qualitative
one.
 Second, in case of property under collective ownership, there may crop up
constant conflict or dispute.
 Third, if property was under private ownership, everyone developed a special
interest in it.When someone knows that he owns a particular property, he
naturally derived a kind of pleasure from his sense of private ownership.
 Fourth, one always derived pleasure from doing charity but having no property
of one’s own hindered charity and, hence, missed the happiness of
accompanying it.
 Fifth, private property was no doubt very much required for comfortable
living. For this reason, Aristotle regarded platonic communism was
unacceptable.
Slavery
Aristotle approached the institution of slavery from teleological and instrumental lens.
Self-Instructional Slavery was practiced in Greece and he tried to defend the system as an important
38 Material

constituent of the household. He characterizes instruments in household as animate NOTES

and inanimate and puts slaves in the category of animate objects. In his view slavery is
desirable and not to be detested.
 First, he argued that a slave had immense contribution in the intellectual and
moral development of his master. It secured sufficient leisure to the slave owner
so that he could achieve moral and intellectual development.
 Second, the system of slavery was wholesome to the slave also. As his moral
and intellectual qualities are inferior he naturally benefitted much from his
subjection to his master, as tame animals are always better off when they are
under the control of men.
 Third, according to Aristotle the system of slavery was verily natural as it was in
conformity with natural law. This was so because the law of nature that applied
everywhere in the world was that some would control and others would remain
under their control. The soul dominated over the body and intellect over appetite,
male over female and men over animals. Thus, it was ordained by nature that
some are born to rule and other to obey.
Aristotle, however, admitted that sometimes there may be an exception to this
natural rule. For instance, sometimes it so happened that someone was born in the
class of slaves with the body and mind of independent citizens. On the other hand,
some among the class of independent citizens were born with the body and mind of a
slave. Furthermore, it is Aristotle’s firm belief that Hellenes could never be slave as
they invariably possessed high intellectual and moral qualities. Despite these exceptions,
Aristotle was convinced that slavery was natural and justified. He, of course, made a
distinction between a natural slave and an artificial slave. This artificial slave was created
by man and hence not ordained by nature. Thus, when the prisoners of war were
forced to be slaves, they became artificial slaves. Naturally, this did not get Aristotle’s
approval. However, he added a provision to it. Whenever the winner in a war was
gifted with a high moral quality, it was not wrong to turn the prisoners of war into
slaves. On the other hand, when the victor in a war was of inferior moral quality, his
victory was far from fair. In such a case, forcing the prisoners of war into slaves was
unfair and immoral.
Self-Instructional
Material 39

NOTES Citizenship
According to Aristotle, direct participation in functions of the state is the basis of

citizenship. Thus, in his opinion residence in a particular territory under the jurisdiction
of state does not make one a citizen. Similarly, a person cannot be treated as a citizen
on the ground that his paternal or maternal relative was a citizen. There was no support
for natural citizenship. Only a person associated with functions of the judiciary or with
the deliberative functions of the public assembly is, according to Aristotle, a citizen.
Only adult male members, excluding slaves, are to be recognized as citizens.
After providing a definition of citizenship, Aristotle moves further to settle whether
a good man is necessarily a good citizen, that is, whether good moral obviously gives
one a good political capacity. He tried to establish that the virtues of a good man and
a good citizen are not same.
 His first argument is that a citizen works under a particular constitutional
system. Hence, the virtues of a good citizen are no doubt determined by the
purpose and the goal of constitutional system concerned. On the hand, the
virtues of a good man are always the same, no matter the pattern of the
constitutional system.
 Second, according to Aristotle, even if it is assumed that a good citizen is a
good man, it can hardly be denied that different citizens have to do different
works of the state which require different worth and capability. Good citizens
need to have different types of qualities but the qualities of good men, for
obvious reasons, never vary.
 Third, a state is constituted by different type of citizens. Naturally, in terms
of political capacities, some are superior and others are inferior. Thus,
although they are good citizens, their virtues vary.
Justice
Aristotle’s theory of justice is mostly found in his Nicomachean Ethics and sporadically
in his Politics. For Aristotle, justice is no less significant, for he regards justice as
virtue of the state. It is justice that makes a state, gives it a vision and along with ethics,
it takes the state to heights of all ethical values. Justice saves the state from destruction
Self-Instructional
40 Material

and it makes the state and political life pure and healthy. Ross says: “Aristotle begins NOTES
by recognizing two senses of the word. By ‘Just’, we may mean what is lawful or what
is fair and equal”. For Aristotle, justice is either general or it is particular- a part of
complete virtue if by general justice we mean complete virtue. According to Aristotle,
“General justice is complete goodness… It is complete in the fullest sense, because it
is the exercise of complete goodness not only in himself but also towards his neighbors.”
So general justice includes complete social relationship based on virtue and ethics,
whereas particular justice is primarily its political aspect. Particular justice is of two
types- distributive and corrective. For Aristotle, distributive justice hands out honours
and rewards according to the merits of the recipients – equals to be treated equally
and unequals unequally. The corrective justice takes no account of the position of the
parties concerned, but simply secures equality between the two. It turns the
disadvantaged one into advantaged, provides justice to the wronged and punishes
someone who denied justice. It is also called Rectificatory or remedial justice and is to
be meted out by a judge in matters like contracts or criminal law, where the merit of a
person was not the consideration.
Distributive justice
Aristotle, in his Nicomachean Ethics, premised that equality cannot be the basis of
justice.To treat everyone indiscriminately and as equal cannot be the way to establishing
justice in society. In his opinion, to distribute according to proportion, amounts to true
justice. According to this rule of proportion, those who are really equal in consideration
of worth and ability would have equal shares. As Aristotle says in Book III, Chapter
XII of his Politics, ‘Equals ought to receive an equal share’. But in case of those who
are not equal in ability, shares would be distributed in proportion to their respective
worth and ability. Aristotle believes that a citizen’s worth and ability would be determined
by his contribution to final goal of the state. Distributive justice meant that offices and
wealth, rewards and dues were distributed among different social classes according to
their contributions based on merit, defined in accordance with the spirit of the
constitution. In an oligarchy, merit meant wealth, while in an aristocracy, it was related
to virtue. In an ideal state, merit meant virtue. Since in Aristotle’s perception the objective
end of the state was to ensure and promote good life, the group that contributed most
Self-Instructional
Material 41

NOTES to this end could legitimately claim most of society’s honours. Thus, Aristotle does not
believe in what may be called arithmetical equality. He underscores proportionate
equality by which everyone would get his due on the basis of an estimated contribution
to the telos of the state. As he says in Book VIII, chapter II of his politics, “justices in
an absolute sense consist in proportional equality”.
Aristotle tried to assimilate the two doctrines of distributive justice that prevailed
during his time. One was the democrats’ assertion that equality derived from free birth,
or that each would count for one, and no one for more than one. The other was the
oligarchs’ view that superiority in one represented superiority in others as well. The
two principles of equality and superiority could be made compatible, if both were
subordinated to justice. Distributive justice meant proportionate equality and was linked
to a theory of just rewards or equal shares according to the merit of its recipients.
Even person would be awarded responsibilities as well as financial benefits in proportion
to one’s just deserts.
Revolution
Aristotle’s Politics includes a detailed discussion on revolution. Revolution means,

according to Aristotle, a change in the constitution, or a change in the rulers. For him,
the change from monarchy to aristocracy, a big change, is a revolution; when democracy
becomes less democratic, it is also a revolution, though it is a small change. Aristotle’s
meaning of revolution implies: (i) a change in the set of rulers; (ii) a change, political in
nature: (iii) a palace revolution; (iv) political instability or political transformation; (v) a
change followed by violence, destruction and bloodshed. Aristotle was an advocate
of status quo and did not want political changes, for they brought with them catastrophic
and violent changes. That is why he devoted a lot of space in The Politics to explain
the general and particular causes of revolutions followed by his suggestions to avoid
them.
According to him, revolution may be of different nature depending and its
objective. For instance, in the first place, the purpose of revolution may be to replace
the prevailing political system by a new one, that is, the objective of revolution may be
to bring in a total change. Secondly, keeping the political system intact, the objective
may be only to replace the ruling group. In such a case, the rebels tried to rest political
Self-Instructional
power. Third, without forcing a total change of political system the purpose of revolution
42 Material

may be to make tune of the existing political system more pronounced or to temperate NOTES
former, that is, in the case of revolution arise look for a partial change in the character
of political system. Fourth, revolution may be organized just to create some new wins
in political system or some new offices under it.
While accounting for the roots of revolution, Aristotle gave emphasis on three
factors. First, the psychological state that instigates revolution. Second, the purpose of
fulfillment of goals for which revolution is organized.; Third, the objective conditions
contributing to revolution. In the view of Aristotle, the mental state that provoked
revolution is a longing for equality or inequality (that is, the superior position). The
poor masses take to revolution because they are led by the belief that they are getting
lesser than what they should have . Thus, they start a revolution because they want to
be equal to others. On the other hand, the rich turn to a revolution as they feel that they
unfairly get an equal amount with others despite being superior to the latter. As Aristotle
says in Book VIII, Chapter II of his Politics, “Inferiors revolt in order that they may
be equal, and equals that they may be superior. Such is the state of mind which creates
revolution”. Aristotle’s believes that purpose of revolution is to gain wealth and honour.
However, sometimes people indulge in a revolution to save themselves or their friends
from loss and dishonour. Aristotle argues that there may be various kinds of such
objective conditions. For instance:
 First, the very fact that some people are enjoying greater amount of gain or
honour may generate a feeling of acrimony and resentment among others
and as a result, this may create an objective condition favorable for revolution.
 Second, impudence and indomitable lust for money of public officials may
incite the citizens to resist the political system, and this is how an objective
condition leads to revolution.
 Third, if a person or a group of persons become too powerful at variance
with the nature of the political system concerned, it may create a situation
contributing to revolution.
 Fourth, those who have committed crimes but try to avoid the inevitable
consequences of such crime or those who are anxious to free themselves
from the possible ill effects of injustice may condition a revolution.
 Fifth, just the contempt of the ruled for the ruler may eventually create a
Self-Instructional
situation contributory to revolution. Material 43

NOTES  Sixth, uneven development resulting in the predominant influence of a part

of the state may also give birth to a situation contributing to revolution.
 Seventh, party intrigue and deliberate appointment of person disloyal to
existing political system of the highest state office may create a situation
inviting revolution.
 Eight, indifference to bring in small political changes may lead to a situation
contributory to revolution. Because according to Aristotle, sometimes the
unwillingness to effect a little change in political system may finally generate
an urge to force a total change of political system by way of revolution.
 Finally, the racial and geographical diversity unless harmonized into unity,
may create an environment for explosion of revolution.
To the general causes of revelations, Aristotle adds the particular causes. In
democracy the most important cause of revolution is the unprincipled character of the
popular leaders. Demagogues attack the rich, individually or collectively, to forcibly
resist and cater the emergence of oligarchy. The causes of overthrowing oligarchies
can be, internal, as when a group within the class in power becomes more influential or
rich at the expense of the rest, or external, by the mistreatment of the masses by the
governing class. In aristocracies, few people share honour. When the number of people
benefiting becomes smaller or when disparity between rich and poor becomes wider,
revolution is caused.
After identifying the cause of revolution, Aristotle turns to measures to prevent
it. In this matter, he has following suggestions:
 His first advice is that in all political system care must be taken to ensure
complete allegiance to state laws so that even small matter are given due
care. Because neglect of small instances of violation of law final result in the
ruining of the state. As he says in Book VIII, chapter VIII of his politics,
“transgression creeps in the unperceived and at last ruins of the state just as
the constant recurrence for the small expenses in that time eats up a fortune”.
 Second, measures taken to deceive the people should always be avoided.
 Third, cordial relations with those denied the right of political participation
must be maintained.
Self-Instructional
44 Material

 Fourth, to stall the misuse of power, the term of public official should be NOTES
brief.
 Fifth, it is Aristotle’s firm belief that in the face of impending danger people,
afraid of it, try their best to keep the political system intact. Hence, to diminish
possibility of revolution the ruler should create an atmosphere of fear and
bring the distant danger nearer.
 Sixth, by means of appropriate law the internal dispute and conflict within
the upper class should be restrained so that other classes of people may not
take advantage of this conflict and dispute.
 Seventh, it is necessary to stop the practice of using public office for private
gain and no official should be given disproportionate and excessive power.
 Also, a public official should be given the responsibility to keep a watch on
private life of citizens so that their way of life does not at all have any harmful
effect on the political system.
 Finally, the citizens must be educated in the spirit of political system under
which they live. If thus educated, they will gladly accept their allegiance to
the state not as servitude but rather as a means to guard their interests and
identity. As Aristotle comment in Book VIII, in chapter IX, of his Politics,
“the citizen should live and live gladly in the spirit of the polity, as such a life
ought not to be regarded as a bondage but rather as a means of preservation”.
1. Critically evaluate Aristotle’s views on slavery.

2. Analyze Aristotle’s differences with Plato.
3. Discuss the conception of virtue as elaborated in Aristotle’s Nichomachean
Ethics.
4. Explain Aristotle’s understanding of Citizenship.
5. Why does Aristotle consider Polity as the most Ideal State? Give reasons for
your answer. Self-Instructional
Material 45

NOTES
2.10 REFERENCES
Burns, T. 2009. ‘Aristotle’, in D. Boucher, and P. Kelly, (eds) Political Thinkers:

From Socrates to the Present. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.81-99.
Taylor, C. 1995. ‘Politics’, in J. Barnes (ed.). The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 232-258.
Sabine, George H. 1937. A History of Political Theory. Henry Holt and company:
New York, 1937.
Mukhopadhyay, A. K. 1988. Western Political Thought: From Plato to Marx. K.
Self-Instructional
46 Material

UNIT II: RENAISSANCE AND MODERN
POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY
LESSON 3 MACHIAVELLI (1469-1527 A.D.)
LESSON 4 THOMAS HOBBES (1588-1679)
LESSON 5 JEAN-JACQUES ROUSSEAU
LESSON 6 JOHN STUART MILL (1806-1873)
LESSON 7 KARL MARX (1818-1883)

Machiavelli (1469-1527 A.D.)
LESSON 3 NOTES
MACHIAVELLI (1469-1527 A.D.)

Dr. Mangal Deo Singh
Structure
3.2 Introduction
3.3 Renaissance and Modern Political Philosophy
3.4 Biography
3.5 Machiavelli’s Key Texts
3.6 Machiavelli as a child of his times
3.7 Factors that Influenced Machiavelli’s Thoughts
3.8 Separation of Politics from Religion and Morality
3.9 Governance Considerations
3.10 Duties of Prince
3.11 Machiavelli’s Statecraft
3.12 Conclusions
3.14 References
 Reformation/Renaissance came into the European history at that time

 The lesson would also discuss the political and social conditions of contemporary
Europe.
Self-Instructional
 It will also discuss the statecraft and real politics of Europe that time. Material 49

NOTES
3.2 INTRODUCTION
“The state knows ethics. What it does is neither ethical nor unethical, but entirely
non- ethical.”
–Machiavelli
Machiavelli, the father of modern political science, was born in Italy at a time
when Italy was going through a crisis. He was born in Florence when Europe was in
transition. The circumstances evidently shaped Machiavelli’s understanding of the state
affairs. Europe was also the centre of Renaissance movement. He was interested in
politics since childhood and also held various positions of responsibility. His ideas and
understanding of state, religion, law, nationality and governance are deep rooted in the
socio-economic conditions that had a historical significance.
3.3 RENAISSANCE AND MODERN POLITICAL

PHILOSOPHY
The Renaissance was an intense period of European changes in the polity, society,
culture and spiritual understanding after the Medieval age(The period is between, 15th
century to 18th century.) During the Renaissance the whole idea of Classical philosophy
shifted to scientific understanding of nature, separating politics from religion, and ethics
from politics. It became the foundation of Modern Political Philosophy. The values of
rationality, materialism, and individualism became crucial to understand the Renaissance.
3.4 BIOGRAPHY
Niccol Machiavelli was born in Florence, Italy, on May 3, 1469, into an ordinary
family of ancient Tuscan descent. His father was a lawyer by profession. Machiavelli
began his life as a clerk in 1494, but his talent soon earned him a promotion, and in
four years, in 1498, he became secretary of the ‘Council of Ten’ of Florence, and held
Self-Instructional
50 Material

the position till 1512 AD. After the French defeat in 1509, he was taken prisoner in NOTES
Florence by Spanish supporters for planning against the Medici government in 1513.
But soon after he returned home and engaged in agricultural work. During this time, he
wrote his most famous book ‘The Prince’ and soon after he died in 1527.
Machiavelli was born during the period of Renaissance movement in Florence.
This was an era when the Medieval theory of the ‘religious chief’ was dying out in
Europe and the philosophy of Aristotle had come to light. The discovery of a scholar
named Alchemy also contributed greatly to the Renaissance movement. Machiavelli
was a witness to all these events and thus an imprint is visible in his political thought.
3.5 MACHIAVELLI’S KEY TEXTS
Important works on Machiavelli’s politics are as follows–

1. The Prince
2. The Discourses on Livy
3. The History of Florence
4. The Art of War
‘The prince’ is Machiavelli’s most important work. In this he explained about
the monarchy. While in his book ‘The Discourses’ he commented on the republican
government.
Machiavelli’s depiction of human nature was his basic premise. He vehemently
opposed religiosity, traditionalism, orthodoxy and erudition. His study methods were
historical, observational, and included realistic and scientific features or elements.
3.6 MACHIAVELLI AS A CHILD OF HIS TIME
The influence of his own era and the circumstance of the country is so clearly reflected
in Machiavelli’s political thought that W. A. Dunning stated ‘Machiavelli was the child
of his times’. Every learned and talented person is a child of his era because his thoughts Self-Instructional
Material 51

NOTES are influenced by contemporary circumstances. A thinker closely observes and studies
the problems of his country and time, tries dealing with those problems, assesses them
and tries to solve them. All these traits are found in Machiavelli. In his every thought
and principle, we get a clear glimpse of the immediate conditions of Italy, hence he is
called the child of his era.
3.7 FACTORS THAT INFLUENCED MACHIAVELLI’S

THOUGHTS
Many factors influenced Machiavelli’s thoughts and especially his political thought,
due to which he is not only called the child of his era but is considered as the forerunner
of modern political thought. The reasons are as follows–
Cultural movement of the Renaissance was in those days the forerunner of an ideological
revolution throughout Europe, which was very influential in Italy, especially in Florence,
the birthplace of Machiavelli. This movement showed urged people to gain inspiration
from ideals of the Ancient world by abandoning Medieval theories and trends in field
of art and literature. Philosophy and science were also following the same path. In the
field of policy and religion, originality beyond an orthodox outlook was being encouraged.
Two forces were working together in the time of Machiavelli. First force was the
revival of knowledge and second was of religious reforms. The revival was an important
movement that transformed Medieval Europe into Modern Europe. It originated in
Italy and reached its zenith in the 15th century. The resurrection resulted in the emergence
of a new outlook towards man and the world. It instilled a sense of superior values in
the lives of people. The interpersonal human relations surpassed the issues dealing
with the relation with soul and the God. Machiavelli exhibits spirit of revival in his
writings and thoughts. He adopted a realistic approach with an emphasis on practical
Self-Instructional
52 Material

approach. He questioned roots of church and religion. The culture of Florence pervaded NOTES
Machiavelli. He kept politics away from religiosity, morality, ethics etc.
In the era of Machiavelli, Italy was divided into five kingdoms and many small princely
states, between which there was always the possibility of war. There was also a city in
these states, Florence, where Machiavelli was born. By the end of the 15th century
the influence of the wealthy class was increasing against the feudatories who retained
the king’s power . By this time the church’s supremacy also come to an end, and it
took the form of a national institution. The centre of all political thought in the Middle
Ages was that heaven had an irrational God, represented on earth by the Pope of
Rome, who is insignificant in comparison to God. Machiavelli was also affected by this
contemporary Italian situation . He felt the need for a more powerful ruler for unification
of Italy. H. Sabine writes that “The original aim of Machiavelli was not to formulate
any theory of the state but to solve problems of politics. He was not only a theorist and
philosopher but also a practical realist. Whatever political theories we find in his works
developed while presenting solutions to practical problems related to concrete situations.
The divided Italy was a main concern for Machiavelli. It was fully realized that if a
strong central government was not established in Italy, France and Spain would usurp
it. Therefore, Machiavelli wanted the whole of Italy to be united . He wished for
emergence of an autocratic rule in the country, which would be immersed in principles
of practical politics.
Machiavelli considers his period to be one of misfortune, wherein moral standard of

the people fell . Corruption and anarchy prevailed among the people. Everyone was
engaged in fulfillment of their self-interest. This social predicament had a serious impact
on Machiavelli’s heart. For unification of the country, he became a priest of power and
preached for an autocratic rule with the national army’s help. He also felt the need to
inculcate feeling of nationalism among the people, and tried to instill this through his
works. He blamed the Church for the country’s deteriorating environment because of
Self-Instructional
Material 53

NOTES the Pope’s intervention in every aspect. According to him, “If we, the people of Italy,
have become unrighteous and evil, then our church is responsible for that, the church
has divided our country and is still keeping it.”
The next important aspect of Machiavelli’s life experiences, which is the main theme of
his works, is the theory of nation-state. In the Middle Ages, universal brotherhood of
Christ dominated all institutions in Europe, and allegiance to the Roman Church was
eroding people’s national identity. But a new era emerged during Machiavelli’s youth,
which demanded that along with the influence of religious authority, the nationality of
individuals should be recognized. The differences between English, French, German,
Italian, Spanish etc. was clearly being accepted now in the policy of politicians and
their method of political dialogue. Machiavelli observed this epoch-making trend closely
and expressed it effectively in his works. In fact, the credit of initiating the concept of
nation-state in the history of thought goes to Machiavelli.
Thus, under the aforesaid events, Machiavelli laid the foundation of secular
politics. He was a great political thinker and diplomat. He was an empiricist, and his
beliefs and conclusions were based on psychology. Based on the anarchy prevailing in
Italy, he concluded that the ruler should formulate his policies keeping in mind that
human beings are greedy, selfish and evil by nature. He also placed himself in this
category. According to him, the ruler should protect the life and property of individuals
and he should not take away citizens’ ancestral property . He believed that morality
denoted perseverance and bravery.
Maxie and Dunning both said that Machiavelli was a child of his age. Both say
that there would hardly be any other thinker except Machiavelli who would have
accomplished a corpus of work on the basis of their contemporary times.. According
to Dunning, “This genius-born Florence was truly a child of his times.” Jones writes
that “Machiavelli was the child of Florence and the Renaissance.” He studied Ancient
literature and history and separated politics apart from theology and ethics. Jones said
that “the reflection of the one in which Machiavelli was born is fully visible in his works.
Importance of the individual, of nature and its beauty, the infinite development and
intellectual reasoning of man, study of the world’s realities, and recognition of the
Self-Instructional inductive method characterise his ideology.
54 Material

Machiavelli while analysing the plight of his country realized that the principle is: NOTES
republican system is the best, but for its success, virtuous, honest and patriotic citizens
are needed. However, in reality it is not possible to have all patriotic citizens. To deal
with this reality, he becomes a supporter of totalitarian monarchy. Machiavelli separated
politics from ethics and thus built his ideas on the foundations of realism. Ideals of
politics and goals of man’s ideal politics were realistically suggested by him after drawing
conclusions from historical facts. That is why he is called the first realist in the field of
politics.
Thus, in the light of the Renaissance after hundred years of old Dark Age of
Europe, Machiavelli opened a new era in the history of political thought by reinventing
trends of his time in form of a systematic political ideas. The credit of providing a
historical and realistic basis to politics by freeing it from the paradigms of metaphysics
and theology also goes to Machiavelli. But it cannot be denied that the circumstances
of his country and time were so dominated by Machiavelli’s mind that his thinking
remained confined to its own sphere.
Machiavelli reinvigorated a new philosophy to overcome the plight of his country.
The ultimate goal of his philosophy was in his country’s interest and the citizens.
Therefore, he felt the need to establish, preserve and spread the state. To fulfil this
objective, he separated politics from ethics. He also allowed the king to practice all
kinds of deceit, falsity and devious policy. He considered it necessary for the king to
be cunning because he witnessed cunning autocratic rulers reaching the pinnacle of
success . Therefore, in these circumstances, Machiavelli emerged with his new
philosophy.
3.8 SEPARATION OF POLITICS FROM RELIGION

AND MORALITY
Machiavelli was the first thinker to separate politics from morality and religion. That is
why he is also considered as the first modern thinker. This separation is considered an
epoch-making change in the Western world.
Politics and Ethics– The main reason for Machiavelli’s separation of politics
Self-Instructional
from religion and morality was his personal life experience which completely destroyed Material 55

NOTES his faith in moral ideals. Machiavelli’s approach was based on reality, he wanted to
explore the reality of how man actually acquire and maintain power in practice. That is
why his theories are called realistic and empiricist. He was an Empiricist because his
ideas were not imaginary but based on experience and facts that were historical . He
was interested in real politics and not in ideal politics. He believed that establishment
and protection of a suitable state according to the social conditions is the primary goal
of society. Therefore, in accordance with state’s interest he considered it good to
follow the rules of religion and morality if they were helpful in defense and growth of
the state. He was a great supporter and admirer of power and skill, and supported
unjust means to gain more power. Therefore, he was a great supporter of an
accomplished, notorious and autocratic ruler as Caesar Borgia, who reached the
pinnacle of success with his cruelty and treachery. Machiavelli, as the diplomatic
representative of the Republic of Florence, witnessed success of autocracy in feudal
countries of Germany, Spain and Italy, and was impacted to an extent that he became
a supporter of power. Hence, he insists on politics of power as the state should achieve
its goal by whatever means, whether moral or immoral.
Machiavelli believed that political science and policy science are two different
sciences, with different research areas. He says that political science is concerned with
rules of the state’s conduct, whereas the function of ethics is to examine the rules of
individual conduct. He argued that these two function in opposite directions. Machiavelli
says that the king represents fulfilment of entire society’s interest by eliminating conflicting
interest. Therefore, the criterion to evaluate conduct of a ruler and an ordinary person
will also be different. This distinction is one of Machiavelli’s most important contributions
to political thought. He was primarily concerned with making the king powerful even
at the expense of separating morality from politics. He posited that for a state to
survive for a long time it had to involve in power politics that can never be achieved
morally. . Keeping these objectives in mind, Machiavelli separated politics from morality.
He theorised that for fulfilment of his goal, kings should not pay attention to morality of
the means. To maintain power, a king had the discretion to deploy any kind of immoral
means like murder, dishonesty, deceit and pomp. He writes that “the ruler should mold
his conduct in such a way that he should appeared in public with the qualities of
kindness and righteousness.” However, it would also be unfair to say that Machiavelli
was only a supporter of immorality. He is neither an opponent of morality nor a supporter
Self-Instructional of immorality. He supports immorality only for the purpose of perpetuation of power.
56 Material

Any step should be taken to save the king’s power. As Maxie also writes, “In NOTES
the view of Machiavelli, the state knows no ethics. What he does is neither moral nor
immoral, but absolute virtue is absolute. As far as right and wrong are concerned, the
state belongs to the impotent gender.” Machiavelli writes in his Discourse that when
security of our country is in danger, one should not worry about justice or injustice,
mercy or cruelty, and what is commendable. Leaving aside all other considerations,
we should do only that which can protect the country and preserve its freedom. The
Machiavellian criterion of good and bad and conclusion of his separation theory in
political science from ethics is that the work which increases social welfare should be
done in any possible manner. . According to him, a good deed is solely that which is
done for public welfare. .
In the words of Sabine, “The way in which Machiavelli kept political interest
separate from morality and religion, a close idea is found in some passages of ‘Politics’
written by Aristotle. Aristotle has also discussed the ways of protecting the states
without paying attention to the good and bad of them, however it is not certain that
Machiavelli considered these incarnations as his ideal. It is not possible that he had the
attention to follow anyone. Yes, it may be that there has been some connection between
his secularism and his naturalist Aristoteles which inspired the creation of Defensor
two centuries ago. Like Marsilea, Machiavelli also considered the papacy to be the
cause of Italy’s split. The views of Marsilea and Machiavelli are often the same in
relation to how useful religion is in worldly matters. Machiavelli’s secularism goes
beyond Maurilio’s secularism. Machiavelli is absolutely free from religious ramifications.”
Describing Machiavelli’s theory of separation of political science and ethics,
Sabine writes that “Machiavelli takes the extreme example of double standards in
ethics. One for the ruler (MLA) and the other for the private citizen. The criterion of
the former is its success in maintaining and expanding its authority, while the latter is
judged by the extent to which its conduct provides strength to the social party. Since
the ruler is outside the party or has at least a special relationship with it, he rises above
the morality that must be enforced within the party. As the creator of the state, the ruler
is not only outside the law, but if the law makes the rules of morality, then he will also
be outside morality. There is no basis for evaluating his actions except as to how far his
political tactics were successful in increasing and perpetuating the power of his state.”
Machiavelli was a supporter of republican rule. He says that the inhabitants of Self-Instructional
every nation are not capable of republic because it needs enough ‘virtue’ to maintain it. Material 57

NOTES Increased lack of virtue in the people of a country, will make them more corrupt..
Corrupt people are not capable of running their own government. Therefore, it is
necessary for them to be dominated by an absolute monarch or an autocratic ruler.
Machiavelli was the first political thinker who separated politics from religion and gave
the principle of secularism. He said that religion is concerned with personal life and
religion is completely different from politics. In the Middle Ages, politics was mainly
based on religion. It was believed that the king was completely subordinate to the
Pope. The Pope was the source of power. But all these things were unbearable for
Machiavelli because he wanted to end the Pope’s power , since he was the biggest
obstacle in unification of Italy. Therefore, he refuted Middle Ages notion that the king
was completely subordinate to the Pope and that religion was the source of power. He
said that both politics and religion are different, and they have nothing to do with each
other. In this way, he secularized the state and freed the king from all religious and
moral restrictions. His kingdom was secular with no relation to any divine revelation,
religion or God. But Machiavelli considered religion essential to the state. His kingdom
was purely religious as opposed to the divine or religious state of the Middle Ages.
Considering the state as secular, he had put an end to one of the most important ideas
of the Middle Ages, the divine law. He refused to accept the existence of a divine law.
He separated the temporal from the spiritual and subjugated the spiritual being, while
Medieval thinkers believed that the spiritual was superior to the temporal. Foster
writes of this that “Machiavelli gives religion a prominent place in the state, but the
place is within the state, not above it, not even next to it.” Machiavelli exhorted his king
to respect the religion his subjects followed. Religion teaches good qualities to the
citizens like humility, acceptance of submission, observance of law etc. He says that it
would be appropriate for a good government to take advantage of this powerful tool
instead of neglecting religion and controlling the anti-social tendencies of the people.
In Machiavelli’s opinion, “the best restraint on the evil and anarchist tendencies of man
is religion.” He presented his religious views with example of how Rome’s policy was
Self-Instructional
58 Material

encouraged by taking advantage of the religious sentiments of the masses. Machiavelli NOTES
knew very well that the state could not develop if the citizens obeyed the orders of the
state out of fear and punishment . Machiavelli considers religious sentiments to be an
important instrument of state policy. The king should use religion and religious sentiments
to maintain his power. He wants people to be religious because religious sentiments
can be used for the security of the state.
According to the doctrine of the Middle Ages, the earthly ruler was the custodian
of human law and the church was the custodian of divine law. The function and scope
of these two powers were different from each other. The Church was superior to the
earthly ruler because the supernatural goal of man was more important than his natural
goal. Machiavelli considered the Pope’s authority against the unification of Italy and
for this reason opposed the papacy. Machiavelli criticizes Christian doctrine, saying
that “I think that these principles have made men cowards. Evil people can easily
control them. Cowardly men are always longing for heaven, they bear the brunt, they
do not take revenge.”
3.9 GOVERNANCE CONSIDERATIONS
Like Aristotle, Machiavelli also divided the government into three classes: monarchy,
oligarchy and republic. Similar to the considerations of Polybius and Cicero, mixed
governance is considered to be the best system, because it incorporates the good
qualities of each system of governance and maintains proper balance of power and
control. He only described in detail the monarchy and the republican system of
governance. He discussed monarchy in his book The Prince and republic in Discourses.
Machiavelli believes that neither monarchy or a republic system of government is suitable
for all circumstances. Different systems of governance may be appropriate in different
social and economic conditions. Monarchy is suitable in certain circumstances, republic
in other circumstances.
Self-Instructional
Material 59

NOTES
3.10 DUTIES OF PRINCE
In order to make the system powerful and stable, Machiavelli mentioned the principles
in chapter 18 of The Prince, and he gave following suggestions to the king–
1. Earning Power– The principle of politics is neither religion nor morality. Its
basic mantra is power. Therefore, the king should make continuous efforts to
gain power, maintain power and expand power. Only by being powerful the
ruler can protect the state from external aggression and maintain peace and
order inside the state.
2. Reason of the State– Machiavelli has also propounded the principle called
‘Conscience of the State’. Its essence means that whatever means is appropriate
for the defense and expansion of the state should be adopted. Defining the
‘conscience of the state’ in Discourses, Machiavelli wrote, “In making decisions
for the security of the state, justice or injustice, humanity or cruelty, pride or
shame should not be taken into account.” Keeping all these thoughts aside, only
one question should be considered that ‘what path should be adopted to protect
the life and liberty of the motherland’.
3. The king should inculcate flattery or inveigle, punishment and
dissimilation according to need- The king should be a polymath. He should
display human qualities in front of the public, but he should not be a slave of
virtues.
4. Machiavelli has mentioned ‘Lion and Fox theory’ for the ruler or king, that is,
the ruler should be as strong as a lion and cunning as a fox.
5. The attention of the ruler should be focused on maintaining the unity, security
and royalty of the state.
6. The ruler should not do the task of punishing himself. He should get this work
done by his officials. The benefit of this would be for the ruler as he would get
an opportunity to blame officials for infamy and slander.
Self-Instructional
60 Material

NOTES
3.11 MACHIAVELLI’S STATECRAFT
Machiavelli, considering politics as a matter of power and control, believed that it is

the art of earning, preserving and spreading power. He writes in his book The Prince
that “The function of government is to control the subjects in such a way that no one
can harm you and there should be no reason by which they want to harm you.” He
said that the highest goal of politics is public utility, which should be concerned with
safety and welfare of the community and not for the accomplishment of any extra-
terrestrial end. The state is an end in itself. It cannot be hindered by moral bonds. The
aim of politics is to establish a strong government. Machiavelli argues that when there
is a lack of virtue in people, the king should impart virtue. But when the unity and
integrity of the nation is in danger, he should protect the interest of the nation by
keeping all moral ideals aside. He says that the king should be like a lion in body and
like a fox in mind.
3.12 CONCLUSIONS
Machiavelli’s theory is a remarkable contribution in history of political thought.. Principle

of separation of morality and religion from politics and power propounded by him is
adopted all over the world today. He was the first modern thinker who envisioned a
sovereign, unitary, secular, national and independent existentialist state. He was also
the first modern realist who suggested that the state should survive for itself and should
aim for its own protection and interest. His propounded that primary function of the
government is to protect the life and property of the citizens.. All his ideas were based
on logic and evidence. He is a name to reckon with in pragmatist or realistic politics.
He said that the ruler should adopt all possible means for the security of the state, even
if those means were against religion and morality. He was not against morality and
religion but believed that these should be used for good of the state. The reality is that
Machiavelli’s ideas of religion and morality are certainly an epoch-making change.
Self-Instructional
Material 61

NOTES
1. What were Machiavelli’s view on religion and politics?

2. Machiavelli was the first modern political scientist. Do you agree?
3. Was Machiavelli the child of his time or Renaissance? Explain.
4. ‘Machiavelli was the child of his times’. Whose statement is this?
a. Dunning
b. Hobbes
c. Marx
d. Sabine
5. Which of the following is a book by Machiavelli?
a. Politics
b. Republic
c. The Prince
d. Capital
3.12 REFERENCES
Mukherjee, Subrata., & Ramaswamy, Sushila. .2018. A History of Political Thought:

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

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)
LESSON 4 NOTES
THOMAS HOBBES (1588-1679)

Dr. Nishant Kumar
Structure
4.2 Introduction
4.3 Philosophy and Method
4.4 Human Nature
4.5 State of Nature
4.6 Social Contract: Creation of Sovereign State
4.7 Hobbes on Liberty
4.8 Hobbes and the Idea of Political Obligation
4.9 Individualism vs. Absolutism
4.11 References
 The lesson discusses the philosophy and the method of social contract given by
Hobbes.
 It also helps students analyze glimpses of the state of nature and the creation of
the first modern Sovereign state.
 It also describes the virtues of absolute king and the idea of political obligation.
4.2 INTRODUCTION
Thomas Hobbes is credited as one of the most important English philosophers of all
times. He was born in 1588, the year in which the Spanish Armada, sent by Philip II of Self-Instructional
Material 63

NOTES Spain, who saw himself as the main defender of the Catholic faith in Europe, was
defeated by the Protestant monarch of England. As a student he got selected in University
of Oxford for higher studies and stayed there from 1603 to 1608. After his studies he
went to work with the Cavendish family, as a teacher of William Cavendish. During his
scholarship, he came in close contact with the Royal Society where he engaged in
methodological disputes with Henry Boyle. Later, he also interacted with the famous
philosopher Descartes and all these exchanges had a significant impact on his philosophy.
He enjoyed his privileges during the rule of Charles I autocratic rule due to his differences
with the Parliament. After 11 years of struggle, in 1640, Parliament tried to abolish the
king’s discretionary powers. When Charles I attempted to suspend Parliament in 1642,
the Civil War began. After some reversal, the Parliamentary faction won and Charles
I was executed in 1649 and Charles II was crowned by the Parliament. Hobbes spent
around ten years in exile in Paris due to the Civil war that broke out in England and
returned only in 1651 after Charles II lost power to Cromwell. His most famous work
Leviathan was written during his period in exile.
Hobbes wrote various books which were well regarded, like The Elements of
Law in the 1630, De Cive in 1642 and Leviathan in 1651. Living in England in
turbulent times, Hobbes’s first published an English translation of Thucydides’s History
of the Peloponnesian War in 1628. Hobbes also wrote two tracts: Human Nature,
or, the Fundamental Elements of Policie and De Corpore Politico, or, The
Elements of Law, Moral and Politick although he published them, together, only in
1650. In these writings, Hobbes stressed the need for an absolute sovereignty. He
spent the next eleven years in exile, returning to England only in 1651. During these
years of exile, he wrote De Cive, in Latin, in 1642, which he published in 1651 in
English as Philosophical Rudiments concerning Government and Society. During
his participation in the Royalist circle, he began teaching mathematics to the future king
Charles II, who was also in exile in Paris. It was during these years that Hobbes
produced the masterpiece, which was the last book of his political theory series,
Leviathan, which he published in 1651. Despite reiterating his argument for an absolute
sovereignty, Leviathan (for reasons we will go into later) so offended the Royalist
lobby that they might have killed Hobbes had he not returned to England in 1651 and
sought the protection of the revolutionary government. Having offended
Parliamentarians, the Royalists and the religious establishment, Hobbes led a precarious
Self-Instructional
64 Material

existence in England. The political work that he wrote next, Behemoth, his version of NOTES
the English Civil War, was refused permission for publication, and only came out
posthumously.
His meetings with the mathematicians Mersenne and Gassendi, with Descartes
and Galileo in Europe, as well as his discussions with Francis Bacon in England, had
convinced him of the rightness of his turn away from scholasticism. Hobbes wanted to
construct a theory of politics based on scientific methods. The science that attracted
him most was geometry, and he saw himself proving theorems about politics in
Leviathan. If virtue was the dominant idea of classical and medieval Western political
philosophy, then liberty can be said to be clarion call of modern political philosophy.
Hobbes marks a sharper break from earlier political thought because he not only
foregrounds liberty, but also makes the idea of moral goodness dependent on liberty,
instead of going the other way around.
4.3 PHILOSOPHY AND METHOD
The Hobbesian method is often referred to “methodological individualism” or “scientific

individualism” or “scientific materialism”. He begins his philosophy with the individual.
Hobbes introduced materialism in philosophy under influence of the 17th century scientific
development. His philosophy begins with a materialistic view of the world. Because of
this strictly materialistic view of life, Hobbes naturally discarded Descartes’s philosophy
, which was based on the separation of mind and matter. For Hobbes, the mind also is
a matter. He argued that everything in the world was composed of matter. After
classifying everything worldly as matter, Hobbes proceeded to argue that matter is in
continuous motion. Similarly, Hobbes argues that “when a body is once in motion, it
move, unless something else hinders [sic] it, eternally”. Man, also is matter and hence,
in motion. In the light of this argument, Hobbes points out that matter of the world in
motion awakens the sense organs of man that cause further motions within him which
are his sensations. This is how Hobbes develops his philosophy of materialism along
with his theory of motion, thanks to the influence of Galileo. Hobbes believed that
there were two kinds of motion inherently attached to human beings: vital motions, like
the circulation of blood or the beating of one’s pulse, and voluntary motions. Voluntary Self-Instructional
Material 65

NOTES motions or ‘endeavor’, as Hobbes called them, are basically of two kinds: either
towards an object or away from an object. He was critical of human nature while
asserting that human beings were full of appetites and aversions, and their aim in life
was only to satisfy their desires marked by greed and self-interest.
Being constituted by matter, man is also governed by the rules of cause-effect.
Whenever he does something, some consequences follow. Therefore, when his motion
goes forward towards something, favoring it, then it is called a desire. Contrarywise,
when this motion goes against something, it is man’s aversion. This is how Hobbes
develops his moral principle based on the determination of good and bad. At the same
time, when man is consistently in motion, he chases desires after desires. Even when
one desire is satisfied, he continues to be in motion to achieve or satisfy other desires
and this movement ends only in death. Furthermore, man in order to satisfy his desires,
uses his reason, so for Hobbes, reason is also a slave of desires.
4.4 HUMAN NATURE
In order to develop his political philosophy, Hobbes analysed human nature . He

argued that man consistently worked to satisfy his desires. If he succeeded in achieving
what he desired he calls it pleasure and good, and if he failed, he called it pain or evil.
In order to achieve the desired goals, human beings use their power and continue to
multiply their power (both physical and mental) to assure that they achieve the desire.
So, according to Hobbes life was a “perpetual and restless desire of power after
power, that ceased only in death”. He imagined an essentially negative picture of human
nature which is selfish and governed by desires. On this basis, he differentiated man
from other natural creatures like bees, who stayed in common bonds. Man, on the
other hand, does not stay in society for its sake but because it profited him.
Man’s desires are limitless and resources limited and thus his desires and interests
often come in conflict with those of other individuals. This leads to competition, rivalry,
perpetual insecurity and physical conflict. Hobbes also believes that when the power
of different individuals is compared (both intellectual and physical power together),
they are almost same. He says “nature hath made men so equal, in the faculties of
Self-Instructional
66 Material

body, and mind; as that when all is reckoned together, the difference between man, NOTES
and man; is not considerable”. This makes situation worse because during constant
struggle, including physical conflict, no man is sure of his survival. Hence, there is a
mutual fear of death and concern for self-preservation that also becomes an important
part of a man’s character.
4.5 STATE OF NATURE
After developing an understanding of human nature, Hobbes proceeded to imagine a

time in society where there was no state or sovereign. This is termed by social
contractualists, like Hobbes, as “the state of nature”. According to Hobbes, it was a
state of chaos, lies and insincerity where all individuals served personal interests driven
by desires. Hence, there was no idea of rights or justice in this state of being. He
imagined the state of nature to be such a stage of society where there could be no
place for industry; primarily because “the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently,
no culture of the earth; no navigation; nor use of commodities that may be imported by
sea; …… no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society.”
Limitations of resources along with mutually overlapping interests made it a
state of constant warfare. According to Hobbes, the reasons for this conflict were
three - competition, mutual distrust and desire for glory: “The first makes man invade
for gain; the second, for safety; and the third for reputation”. This fierce competition
among the people, according to Hobbes, resulted in a state of perpetual war or, as
Hobbes said, “A condition of war of everyone against every one”. In this deadly state
of things, all the positive steps of man were inactivated. As a result, amid “this crisis of
civilization”, human life became “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”. So, there
was uncertainty and constant threat to self-preservation.
As a result, reason guides people to find a way out of the state of nature, and
this was only possible through the creation of a sovereign. Notwithstanding the situation
in state of nature, men continued their loyalty to the laws of nature. To Hobbes law of
nature is synonymous with reason. According to him, law of nature or reason instructs
man to avoid those things which are harmful for his life, take away from him the means
Self-Instructional
Material 67

NOTES of self-preservation, and lead him to dismiss whatever is the best way to protect
himself. There are passages in Leviathan, which present the laws of nature as a product
of rational judgment, as rules which guide humans to achieve what one desired. Hobbes
listed nineteen laws of nature, with some of the important ones being the following: The
first law of nature guides men “to seek Peace, and to follow it”. According to the
second law of nature, “a man be willing, when others are so too, as far-forth, as for
Peace, and defense of himself he shall think it necessary, to lay down his right to all
things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men, as he would allow
other men against himself”. The third law suggested men to “perform their covenants
made”; ninth law commanded that “every man acknowledged the other four is equal
by Nature”, and the seventeenth said that “no men be allowed to be charged in his
own case”. If we look at the content of these laws of nature, we can see how Hobbes
argued that human reason is in the form of the laws of nature. He persuaded human
beings to exit the state of nature because a perpetual threat to their lives and well-
being minimized chances of attaining their desires. .
4.6 SOCIAL CONTRACT: CREATION OF

SOVEREIGN STATE
In the post-Renaissance Europe, Hobbes was the first political theorist to introduce
the idea of social contract. Prior to Hobbes only two political theorists discussed the
origin of the state. One was Aristotle and the other was Bodin, but they dealt with this
question completely from different angles. Aristotle enquired into the origin of the state
from through his teleological philosophy. Bodin, on the contrary, was used his method
to provide a theory of the state’s origin . As he believed in the historical method, he felt
that to determine the nature of the state it is necessary to go behind the story, and so he
presented a theory of the origin of the state. To comprehend the nature of the state,
Hobbes goes back to its cause and attempts an analysis of the origin of the state.
After setting the ideational perspective of social contract, Hobbes showed how
men who lived in the state of nature agreed and reached a contract. According to him,
when they felt insecure in the state of war, they realized that the only way to have
Self-Instructional safety and security was to identify a common power stronger than their combined
68 Material

power. Furthermore, the only way for men living in the state of nature to institute this NOTES
common power, which may be constituted by one person or a group or person, was
to surrender. This surrender would be through a contract granted to common power..
In this way, Hobbes contended, the state of nature ultimately came to an end and in its
place emerged a political order with a sovereign power at its top. Speaking about the
mutual promise Hobbes said: “I authorise and give up my Right of Governing myself,
to this Man, or to this Assembly of men, on this condition, that you give up your Right
to him, and Authorise all his Actions in like manner. This done, the Multitude so united
in one Person, is called a Commonwealth, in Latin Civitas”.
Here is another way in which Hobbes talks of social contract: “A
Commonwealth is said to be Instituted, when a Multitude of men do Agree, and
Covenant, every one, with every one, that to whatsoever Man, or Assembly of
Men, shall be given by the major part, the Right to Present the Person of them all, (that
is to say, to be their Representative); every one, as well he that Voted for it, as he that
Voted against it, shall Authorise all the Actions and Judgments, of that Man, or
assembly of men, in the same manner, as if they were his own, to the end, to live
peaceably amongst themselves, and be protected against other men”.
The contract hence reached, produced the civil society and the political authority
simultaneously. Hobbes mentioned some important characteristics of the contract
through which a sovereign power came into existence. These also define the nature
and scope of sovereign’s powers according to Hobbes.
 First, the contract people made to exit the war-torn state of nature was
amongst themselves. Naturally, this contract bound them. However, the
common sovereign power that emerged from it had no obligation whatsoever
to go by the terms of the contract.. Hence, the sovereign had a responsibility
to ensure peace and protection for the people. But in case he could not
discharge this responsibility; nothing could be done against him. People had
no right to rise against him on the ground of breach of contract as he was not
a party to the contract.
 Second, even if people were disgruntled with the functioning of the sovereign,
they had no right to abrogate the contract and make a new contract replacing
the sovereign by a new one. As they voluntarily instituted the sovereign by
means of a contract they consented to, every action of the sovereign would Self-Instructional
Material 69

NOTES be treated as their own action. The sovereign, therefore, could not do any
wrong or injustice to them, because an individual would never like to commit
any wrong or do any injustice to himself.
 Third, the subjects had no right to kill the sovereign or give him any
punishment. For that would amount to killing or giving punishment to
themselves.
 Fourth, the sovereign alone had the right to judge what conditions or opinions
were detrimental and what were conducive to maintaining peace.
 Fifth, the sovereign would frame the rules “whereby every man may know
what goods he may enjoy, and what actions he may do, without being
molested by any of his fellow-subjects”.
 Sixth, the sovereign alone had, as Hobbes stated, “the right of judicature,
that is to say, of hearing and deciding all controversies which may arise
concerning law, either civil or natural, or concerning fact”. This meant that
the sovereign would enjoy all judicial powers.
 Similarly, the sovereign only would be the legislative authority. He would be
the maker of all laws. Such laws are his command either written or oral.
Since he is the maker of laws, none, except himself, may abrogate these
laws. On the same ground, he is not subject to such laws. Furthermore,
according to Hobbes the sovereign is armed with extreme coercive power.
The sovereign had fundamental role in society. He was duty bound to govern
the society to protect civil society from disruptions. For this purpose, the sovereign
could rightfully restrict freedom of expression, earmark artificial religion and ban its
practice, censor literature that is harmful for society, limit or seize subjects’ property,
pronounce war on other nations or engage in peace deals, resolve disputes through his
role as judicature, appoint ministers, magistrates, counsellors and other officers.
Furthermore, he had complete authority to distribute awards, honors and privileges as
well as confer punishments. Most importantly, his primary duty was to protect the
people and provide a sense of security and for this it was acceptable to subvert
rebellions. For these functions and Hobbes laid down seven injunctions:
 Firstly, Hobbes claimed that the people had a patriotic commitment to status
Self-Instructional
quo as social changes have a tendency to spill beyond control.
70 Material

 Secondly, he suggested that populist leaders acting as demagogues must be NOTES

resisted.
 Thirdly, the masses should have respect and faith on the established
government.
 Fourthly, Hobbes suggested the need for proper socialization and civic
education.
 Fifthly, the citizens must be disciplined and for this, proper values needed to
be inculcated at home.
 Sixthly, people should be taught about law and order, and not to use violence
or seek private revenge against persons who indulge in dishonor or violation
of his property. Rather they must have faith in the sovereign to serve them
justice.
 Seventhly, Hobbes had deep faith in universities as centers that would help
in educating and training the future citizens in the right spirit. Under the
guidance from the Leviathan only proper training in right spirit and attitude
could inculcate appropriate behavior among citizens.
It can be summed up that according to the social contract theory, the state is not
a natural institution, but one created to fulfill the needs of society. Sovereign, hence
created, was the legitimate authority to exercise power. The contract could not be
revoked because men will return to the state of nature. Furthermore, the rights of the
sovereign guaranteed by the contract were inseparable, undivided and inalienable.
Sovereign became all powerful and his powers were unquestionable.
4.7 HOBBES ON LIBERTY
Hobbes defined liberty as the “absence of external impediments to motion”, and became
the progenitor of, what Berlin later called, the negative theory of freedom. “A Free
Man, is he, that in those things, which by his strength and wit he is able to do, is not
hindered to do what he has a will to”, Hobbes opined. In this definition, Hobbes
distinguished between liberty and power. For Hobbes, the only things one is not free
to do, are those things which the sovereign forbade in his laws. Liberty, then, is the Self-Instructional
Material 71

NOTES silence of the laws. Just as the absence of power does not necessarily mean absence
of freedom, similarly, the presence of fear does not make one devoid of freedom.
Hobbes argued that while establishing a commonwealth, by institution or by acquisition,
the subjects must have consented to the rule of the sovereign through their free will. A
commonwealth is instituted when individuals voluntarily come together in a social
contract. A commonwealth is established by acquisition when it is conquered by a new
sovereign. Even in this case, if the subjects choose to stay in the commonwealth, and
obey the new laws out of fear, they are to be taken as having consented to the new
sovereign.
4.8 HOBBES AND THE IDEA OF POLITICAL

OBLIGATION
According to many theorists, basis of long-term stability of any government is the

obligation people feel to obey its laws. The theory of political obligation that Hobbes
espoused, is an extremely controversial subject. There are several positions on this.
There is the traditional interpretation of Hobbes, associated with Watkins and Nagel,
according to which Leviathan has no notion of moral obligation at all. When Hobbes
wrote that contracts aren’t valid in the state of nature because there is no one to
enforce them, he accepted that contracts are obeyed only when there is fear of
punishment. Therefore, the contract is obeyed for prudential reasons and not because
one feels obliged..
Opposed to this idea, is the Taylor-Warrender thesis. According to this thesis,
Hobbes certainly had a theory of moral obligation, but this obligation was not only
what individuals had agreed to. It was asserted that Hobbes treated the laws of nature
not only as a product of rational pragmatic judgment, but also as set of commands
from God. What obliged citizens to obey the laws of the state, therefore, was not the
promise to obey the sovereign, rather, the laws of nature which commanded them
keep their covenants. All the laws of nature have an obligatory force. Hence, individuals
do not just obey the laws of the state out of fear; they consider it their duty to obey
them, deriving this duty, according to Warrender, from the commands of God. According
Self-Instructional
72 Material

to these scholars, Hobbes is able to sustain the position of the sovereign on the basis NOTES
of a theory of political obligation.
One can list the following basis of political obligation in the theory of Hobbes:
 First, there was a punitive aspect attached with non-obedience. If individuals
disobeyed, they could be punished.
 Second, other than fear of punishment, there was also a moral consideration
attached with the honouring of contract. The first three laws of nature
instructed each individual to follow and obey the contract as others did the
same. In fact, it is also the stated duty of the Leviathan to ensure that all
parties respected the contract.
 Third, there was also a political reason inherent to people’s obedience. Each
citizen had duly consented, voluntarily, to support the sovereign and
authorized him with the powers to act on their behalf, as their savior. So, it
was only politically prudent to respect the covenant.
 Last, Hobbes also presented a religious argument. He opined that there was
no difference between law of nature and the civil law. Consequently, both
were to be obeyed, as laws of nature were in a way presented as commands
of God for building a peaceful and prosperous society.
There has been a lot of disagreement and debate among scholars about the
nature of political obligation in Hobbes’s political philosophy, particularly with respect
to the social contract. For example, Leo Strauss in his book The Political philosophy
of Hobbes opines that Hobbes’s idea of political obligation was primarily physical. He
asserts that the sovereign being all powerful deserved the respect and had the capacity
to force obedience. In case any subject refused, the sovereign had the right to punish
as his authority was legitimate and enforceable.
A.E. Taylor in his famous article The Ethical Doctrine of Hobbes takes a very
different position. He claims that the reason for obeying the sovereign had a more
ethical aspect. He gave a deontological understanding to the subject by arguing that
political obligation was not linked to human psychology but rather flowed from the
principles of natural laws. These laws became the guiding force for obedience and
maxims guiding human behavior under the social contract.
Self-Instructional
Material 73

NOTES Warrender in his book The Political Philosophy of Hobbes reiterates a similar
position. He claimed that Hobbes’s political obligation is not dependent on human
psychology, but rather on the natural laws which Hobbes also presented as the will or
command of God. Warrender argued that in Hobbes’s theory we find motive and
obligation, and each needs to be understood and treated separately. The system of
motive ended when the principle of self-preservation was achieved and when through
social contract escape from state of nature was achieved.. However, obligation or
continued obedience has a logic of its own. It was based on the obligation to obey the
natural law as it guided humans to peace, and was God’s command that needs obedience
at all cost.
Michael Oakeshott refuted that Hobbes’s obligation was primarily based on
individual self-interest. He also disagrees with Leo Strauss. He proposes a different
interpretation whereby he looks at Hobbes’s political philosophy as proposing a mixed
form of obligation consisting of physical, rational and moral obligations. He claimed
that moral obligation was based on obedience to the will of sovereign, not because
it served their self-interest, but because the citizens had voluntarily agreed to the contract.
There was also physical obligation as the sovereign was the legitimate controller of
supreme power conferred upon him by the covenant and could use his authority to
impose obedience, failing which they could face punishment. Furthermore, there was
also rational obligation which was based on rational judgment of individual as he
desired peace and order because their security is of foremost importance as it was the
sole reason for which they agreed to submit all their rights and liberties (other than right
to self-preservation) for the contract.
C. B. Macpherson contended that Hobbes’s view of human nature was based
on a reductive understanding of man’s behavior. Hobbes advocated for materialistic
bourgeoisie society guided by the market forces as is evident in his version of human
individual. He claimed that this vision was not universally valid and hence the claim of
obligation reflected essentially selfish motives of the individuals and was governed by
self-interest.
Pitkin proposes the idea of ‘hypothetical consent’ and claimed that rational
beings based on their rational judgment wished to avoid the state of nature to avoid
anarchy and perpetual war. Following the laws of nature was a rational choice that
Self-Instructional
citizens chose for their self-preservation and everything else followed from this basic
74 Material

understanding. Therefore, according to Pitkin this desire for self-preservation is the NOTES
guiding force behind all forms of obligation and any rational citizen would follow these
principles.
4.9 INDIVIDUALISM VS. ABSOLUTISM
Another important debate regarding Hobbes’s political philosophy was whether he

was an individualist or an absolutist. Individualism assigns primacy to individual human
beings and views any other aspect of political institutions as only flowing from the
needs and choices of individuals in society. Contrariwise, absolutism was a system of
government in which a ruler’s power is not subject to constitutional framework and
presents the sovereign as all powerful. Some scholars have claimed that in Hobbes’s
political philosophy we can find simultaneous presence of the individualist as well as
absolutist understanding of the state.
John Dunn, for example, argued that although Hobbes’s premise was
individualistic and liberal, his conclusions tilted towards absolutism and reflected traces
of centralization of power. Based on this Dunn concluded that Hobbes’s philosophy
contained both liberal and illiberal features. It was liberal because society was conceived
to contain free and equal beings. These individuals were governed by their choices
and desires and acted accordingly. They were pictured as egoistic and selfish but were
under no external compulsion. The illiberal aspect in his theory emanates from the fact
Hobbes advocated that to free themselves from the vagaries of state of nature, these
free individuals would agree to a contract that would seriously limit all their liberties
and rights, thereby producing a sovereign who could provide them security and prevent
anarchy. The rule of this absolute sovereign was legitimized by Hobbes through
construction of various basis of political obligations, simultaneously not allowing any
check and balance to his power. Such a sovereign is believed to have tyrannical
tendencies and smelt of arbitrariness in absence of any effective provision for right to
protest. .
Sabine claimed that absolutism in Hobbes created effective mechanism for self-
preservation by developing an organic community and eliminating the conditions of
anarchy and perpetual war. Social contract that created the sovereign state was only Self-Instructional
Material 75

NOTES meant to make life better. In absence of security and protection of life, it was not
possible for individual to enjoy his rights and liberties or develop individualism in any
constructive way. However, Sabine maintained that Hobbes’s individuals, being selfish
and egoistic, might not enjoy the sovereign rule as there is always a threat to individual
desires being crushed in the interest of the collective.
Scholars like Wolin claimed that Hobbes reflected image of an unadulterated
individualist, who was ready to accept extreme authority to protect individualism.
Wolin views the sovereign only as a byproduct of Hobbes’s commitments to protect
and promote individuality and so cannot be charged of advocating absolutism.
But why Hobbes advocated an absolutely powerful state?
As Bertrand Russell rightly said , “Hobbes...was obsessed by the fear of anarchy”. He

felt that anarchy would severely harm people. Secondly, it may be to show risk to a
man’s life in the absence of a powerful state, Hobbes produced his theory of state.
Thirdly, Hobbes in his theory mainly focused not on the state but on the sovereign of
the state. Among his predecessors, Bodin was the first thinker to lay emphasis on the
concept of sovereignty. He showed that without sovereignty, the state is non-existent.
But he was unable to add sufficient and convincing arguments to prove that the
sovereignty of the state has limitless powers.
In his defense, Hobbes stated that his commonwealth is an absolute but minimal
state. There might not be any unjust laws, -since, justice is defined by law and law is
the command of the sovereign. However, Hobbes did distinguish between good and
bad laws. While answering , “what is a good law?”, Hobbes wrote that “the use of
Law is not to bind the People from all Voluntary actions; but to direct and keep them
in such a motion, as not to hurt themselves by their own impetuous desires, rashness,
or indiscretion, as Hedges are set, not to stop travelers but to keep them in the way”.
Good laws, according to him, are those which do not interfere too much with the
citizens’ life. For instance, in their economic dealings with one another, in how they
educate their children, the institution of the family, etc.
There is no consensus regarding Hobbes’s position on individualism, as the
end he arrived at was a Leviathan, which was an image of sovereign close to an
absolutist. Therefore, Hobbes is not considered to be father of liberalism and rather it
Self-Instructional is John Locke who has been assigned this title.
76 Material

NOTES
1. Explain Hobbes’s views on human nature and state of nature and its relevance
in his theory of state.
2. What according to Hobbes, are the main characteristics of the Sovereign created
through the social contract?
3. Discuss the idea of Political obligation in Hobbes’s social contract theory.
4. Was Hobbes an absolutist or an individualist? Explain.
4.11 REFERENCES
Baumgold, D. 2009. ‘Hobbes’, in D. Boucher and P. Kelly (eds) Political Thinkers:

From Socrates to the Present. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 189-206.
Macpherson, C. 1962. The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism: Hobbes to
Locke. Oxford University Press, Ontario, pp. 194-214.
Self-Instructional
Material 77

Jean-Jacques Rousseau
LESSON 5 NOTES
JEAN-JACQUES ROUSSEAU
Sheshmanee Sahu
Structure
5.2 Introduction
5.3 Idea of Equality and Inequality
5.4 On Civil Society
5.5 Social Contract
5.6 Theory of General Will
5.7 Rousseau on State and Sovereignty
5.8 Rousseau on Democracy and Representation
5.9 Views on Education
5.10 Critical Analysis
5.11 Summary
5.13 References
 The lesson will discuss the idea of equality and inequality described by Rousseau.
 It will discuss various deliberations of Rousseau on state, sovereignty, democracy
and representation.
 The lesson will also make the students understand Rousseau’s view on education.
Self-Instructional
Material 79

NOTES
5.2 INTRODUCTION
The first requirement for studying the great writers and intellectuals of the past is historical
imagination, or understanding the culture in which they lived. Individual contributions
to the knowledge of their periods are made by great men, but they can never transcend
the age in which they live. Their assertions of fundamental problems will always be
related to the customary statements that have been handed down to them; the questions
they strive to answer will always be those that their contemporaries are asking.
Let us discuss about the life history of Rousseau. He was born in Geneva,
which was an independent country. His respect for the country’s republican traditions
formed his political ideology, despite him spending most of his life away from his
hometown. He articulated clearly, nonetheless some people think his political writings
aren’t organised or even logical, even though he is very good at it. The Emile is a call
for “natural” education; the Discourses are a plea for society’s “naturalisation,” and
the New Hélose is a passionate appeal for more “nature” in human interactions. Some
of his most famous writings include “Discourses on the Sciences and Art” (1750),
“Discourses on the Origins of Inequality” (1754), “Discourses on Political
Economy” (1755), “The Social Contract” (1762), “Emile” (1762),
“Constitutional Project for Corsica” (1765), and “The Government of Poland”
(1766). Dependence, the condition of nature, the social contract, the general will, the
law giver, civic religion, and the censorial tribunal are some of his fundamental concepts.
His political philosophy combines classical political thought’s excitement for
civic virtue with modernists’ emphasis on human freedom. He wants to build a republic
based on a social contract where each citizen agrees to be bound by the community’s
general will. When the laws are the citizens’ general will, the law-abiding citizen obeys
his own will and not the commands of anyone else. This means that he is free. This is
the central idea in Rousseau’s political theory. He tried to balance authority and freedom.
Rousseau’s opinions in one book contradict those presented in another, resulting
in a major problem. Even a simple examination of his publications reveal many
inconsistencies. In one paragraph, Rousseau advocates tolerance, while in another, he
excommunicates an unbeliever. Similarly, he insists on individual liberty while pleading
Self-Instructional for complete obedience to the state. Different writers have diverse perspectives on
80 Material

these contradictions, such as Sabine’s assertion that Rousseau had a highly divided NOTES
personality, as Rousseau himself admits: “My taste and thought always seemed to
oscillate between the noble and the low,”. Rousseau, Sabine claims, blamed society
for his terrible temperament. His ideals shifted so drastically that he began to contradict
himself. When he saw the value of society as he grew older, he went to the opposite
extreme, advocating complete subjugation of the individual to the state.
He condemned both the Ancient government and the Enlightenment project
while living in the Age of Reason. By his well-known principles of popular sovereignty
and universal will, he set the ground for democratic rule. He opposed the Enlightenment
in a prize-winning article where he questioned the role of sciences and arts, arguing
that science did not save humanity but rather created moral destruction. ‘Our minds
have been corrupted in proportion to the advancement of the arts and sciences,’
Rousseau claimed. For Rousseau, the highly lauded politeness and crowning glory of
civilised refinement, was a “uniform and perfidious curtain” through which he saw
“jealousy, mistrust, dread, wildness, reverse, hate, and deceit.”
Rousseau had faith in human capacity for self-redemption that began with
reformation of the state’s constitution according to ethical principles. He believed that
man is inherently good, and it is the society which corrupted him. However, the paradox
is that the society itself can redeem him through civic virtue. For this redemption, the
strength of moral character to fight against corruption and oppression is required. In
Discourses on the Sciences and the Arts Rousseau concluded that modern progress
is illusory and the so-called sciences have ruined mankind.
5.3 IDEA OF EQUALITY AND INEQUALITY
Rousseau’s explanation of society and the origins of inequality in his “second discourse”
is a historical narrative. The only justified and natural inequality among men, according
to Rousseau, is that which arises from inequalities in physical capacity. However, later
in modern societies, the formation of laws and private property has generated new
types of inequality, which he labels immoral. Rousseau examines the changing character
of institutionalised inequality, which affects social relations, across several epochs of
human civilisation. Self-Instructional
Material 81

NOTES Rousseau begins his investigation of the human condition with an isolated person
in nature, an asocial state in which humans follow their own interests. According to
Rousseau, invention of property is to be blamed for majority human deprivations and
inequality, as it birthed power and status disparities. There was no such thing as “thine
or mine” before private property. A terrible fight between the rich and the poor erupted
as a result of this. There appeared every societal vice imaginable. Liberty and equality
vanished and living became wretched. . Man’s amour propre (self-interest) is the
improper foundation for society, according to Rousseau, and can lead to conflicts.
Contrarywise, Nature for Rousseau, predestines man to be free and independent in
every way. Ability to act based on instincts seemed to be a natural human right. Our
freedom and humanity, according to Rousseau, are inextricably linked to our ability to
reason and make decisions. We lose our freedom as well as humanity when a king has
unlimited power over us, and we become slaves. The main concept on which The
Social Contract is built in freedom: The essential challenge for Rousseau is how
people can maintain their liberty under a political union. Equality, he believes, is a
prerequisite for maintenance of liberty. He contends in The Discourse on Inequality
that property and material inequality are the primary causes of human pain and evil,
and that severe material inequality will hamper liberty. . According to Rousseau, some
measure of material equality is required to ensure that liberty takes precedence over
profit. The ideas of liberty and equality should be pursued by all legislation. Rousseau
does not mean that everyone should be exactly the same, but that financial disparities
should not destabilise the state.
5.4 ON CIVIL SOCIETY
The genesis of a civil society is through the institution of private property, a fatal
coincidence like Adam’s Biblical fall. Rousseau emphasises a contrast between nature
and human society in which the latter is greatly favoured. While we lose our physical
liberty, which allows us to follow our whims and do anything we want, we gain civic
liberty, which limits our actions to reason and the general good, thereby making us
moral. We take responsibility for our activities in civil society, and as a result, we
become nobler.
Self-Instructional
82 Material

The communitarian viewpoint of Rousseau can be understood by examining his NOTES

contrast between nature and civil society. The freedom we have in nature is the same
as that of animals: unrestricted and illogical. With man, reason was not natural, but
artificial; it was the result of human progress. The presence of reason in the human
mind, as well as the existence of disparities in individual powers, led to one person
owning private property, and subsequently civil society emerged. Rousseau preferred
to judge society’s legitimacy from a moral standpoint rather than from its historical
foundations. We learn to control our instincts and act logically once we enter civic
society. According to Rousseau, rationality and morality distinguish us from animals,
and we can only become human by joining civil society. The community is superior to
the individual, because it is a community of people . Rousseau contrasts civil liberty
(behaving logically) with physical liberty (following our instincts). In civil society, we
learn the importance of self-control. As a result, when we sign the social contract, we
do not give up our freedom; rather, we fully realise it.
5.5 SOCIAL CONTRACT
Link between a person and the state is studied in political science, particularly in
political theory . Rousseau’s main goal was to extract the greatest performance out of
these two characters’ connection. He wanted to balance the individual’s claims with
those of the corporate self to demonstrate that one cannot exist without the other. The
essential difficulty for Rousseau in The Social Contract is to establish an organization
that will defend and safeguard each associate’s individuality and property with entire
common force, while allowing each to obey himself and staying as free as before. The
Social Contract’s stated objective is to determine whether legitimate political
authority—that is, if a state that respects liberty—can exist. Rousseau is a vocal opponent
of the idea that genuine political authority is found in nature. The only natural form of
authority a father has over his child is that which exists purely to protect the child’s
existence. Rousseau believes that legitimate political authority is predicated on a covenant
(a “social compact”) between members of society. Rousseau connects freedom with
moral value, claiming that our actions can only be moral if they are carried out freely.
When we give up our freedom, we give up our values and humanity.
Self-Instructional
Material 83

NOTES Rousseau, like Hobbes, proposes a single contract as a means of establishing

absolute, indivisible, and inalienable sovereignty. Rousseau’s social contract is an attempt
to combat the immorality and degradation that result from constructing a society based
on individual will, with the common good at its core. Rousseau arranged for civil
equality in the social contract, allowing all citizens to participate in the legislative process.
Rousseau, like Hobbes and Locke, begins with a state of nature, but from a different
perspective, in which all men are equal and live in peace, with shared ownership of all
goods. Their lives had not yet been infiltrated by rationality, morality, or artificiality. As
with the last two social contract thinkers, his state of nature is hypothetical, in which
men were merely endowed with gregarious instincts and the ability to learn via experience.
Because private property had not yet been invented, there was no social fighting or
instability. The natural savage had not yet succumbed to civilised evils.
Rousseau’s social contract was a useful tool for escaping this state of nature.
He follows Hobbes’s techniques, where many people sacrifice their liberties to body
politics, believing that individuals become zero when their will is combined with the
society’s will . The Political Society was born when Rousseau linked this with Locke’s
substantial concept. The assent of all members is the foundation of this political society.
The contract substitutes right for appetite and justice for injustice. An individual is now
converted from a foolish and constrained animal to an intelligent entity and a man.. It
provides individuals’ activities a moral aspect; morality is a by-product of the contract.
Participants in Rousseau’s social contract are gainers. Before the contact, they only
had control over their own acts while after the contact, they are equal to every other
individual and can influence others since they are co-sovereign.
Rousseau separated two sorts of will, one related to reason and the other to
passion. It is a man’s personal will when he is affected by impulsiveness and passion,
and it is his actual will when he is dominated by reason. When the actual will is based
on social context, Rousseau considers it to be the general will, which is greater than
the sum of individual wills since it expresses the common good. Moving against the
general will means acting against one’s own true desires. Rousseau is described as an
individualist since he is primarily concerned with an individual’s morals. The individual
and his independence are always Rousseau’s goal. Though community plays an
important role in the moral development and liberation of individuals, the state can
never be more than a means to achieve a goal. It is impossible for the state to become
Self-Instructional
84 Material

an end in itself. The goal of the state is to actively cultivate the moral personality of NOTES
each individual.
Those who are self-serving may try to get all the benefits of being a citizen
without doing any of the work that comes with being a member of a group. Therefore,
Rousseau says that if people don’t want to follow the public will, they should be
“forced to be free.” People who don’t follow the general will be forced to do so by the
rest of the group. This means that they will have to be free. The sovereign effectively
forces its people to keep the civil freedom, that is part of the social contract, by
making them follow it.
5.6 THEORY OF GENERAL WILL
Rousseau’s general will cannot be divided because division signifies end. General will
isn’t something that can be divided or delegated. Any attempt to remove it from the
political body will result in its demise. According to Rousseau, general will is always
correct because it caters the common good . Democracy says that the general will is
just what everyone in a state decides together in their sovereign assembly. According
to another understanding, it is the transcendent expression of everyone’s common
interest, which is independent of what any one person desires. Rousseau’s writings
support both viewpoints.
People see democratic procedures as a means to seek truth about the common
good. The general will is then viewed as a tool to determine what people want and
ensures the state’s authority. There will be less conflict between “democratic” and
“transcendental” ideas if we believe that, with the right conditions and procedures,
citizen legislators will come up with laws that serve the common good. However, if
those conditions and procedures aren’t in place, the state will inevitably lose its legitimacy.
Rousseau could be seen as having some kind of philosophical anarchism that he
started to believe in. . According to this anarchism, it is feasible for one nation to wield
lawful power over its inhabitants in principle, but all real nations, and indeed all states
that are expected to exist in the contemporary age, fail to meet the prerequisites for
legitimacy.
Self-Instructional
Material 85

NOTES In The Social Accord, Rousseau thinks that there are three main types of will at
work, and they are all important.The wills of individuals are private and correspond to
their personal motives as organic individuals. Second, each person, as long as he or
she recognizes the group as a whole and assumes the identity of citizen, wants to put
his or her own interests aside for laws that allow everyone to live together in the same
way. Third, and most important, a person can identify with a group and choose to live
in a way that allows everyone to live together equally.. The general will is both a
collective thing and a thing that each person has because they are a part of a group.
Those who live in a well-ordered society know that both justice and their own self-
interest require them to submit to a law that protects their freedom from private
aggression and personal dominance that would otherwise rule in a well-ordered society.
There is no conflict between private and general will in a well-ordered society. Rousseau,
on the other hand, thinks that many communities would not be able to achieve this
well-ordered nature in real life. Private people can fail if they aren’t smart enough or
ethical enough to accept limits on their behaviour that the common good requires.
Another issue with politics is it being normal for the political society to split into groups
because of a rich-poor divide where one group can make everyone else do what they
want.
A further contradiction exists in the Social Contract between two views of how
the general will develop and its relationship to citizens’ individual wills. Rousseau
occasionally advocates a procedural scenario in which individual self-interest
contemplation (subject to the restrictions of generality and universality, and with
favourable social settings such as general equality and cultural resemblance) leads to
creation of general will in a citizen assembly. There appears to be no necessity for
citizens to possess any particular moral characteristics in this account for creation of
the universal will as the limits on their decision should suffice. Rousseau argues that
simply thinking about one’s own self-interest is insufficient to establish a general will.
This is related to compliance, as self-centred persons, who have the ability to will the
public may nevertheless be unwilling to obey it. Rousseau feels that citizen’s virtue is
prerequisite for establishment of the universal will. This presents him with a problem,
to which one possible answer is his legislative position. Because he believes in the
flexibility of human nature, Rousseau argues that good laws make good citizens. Good
citizens must desire good laws to make them so. They must, however, agree on them
Self-Instructional to validate these laws. This puts him in a difficult situation, because citizens who gather
86 Material

together to form a new state are unlikely to have the moral qualities required to enact NOTES
good laws, having been shaped by unjust institutions hitherto. The legislator’s or
lawmaker’s role is to make people feel that they are a part of something bigger than
themselves. This motivates people to support legislation that will help them and their
children become good citizens in the long run.. The new citizens, lack the ability to
discern justifications for the new laws, therefore the lawgiver must persuade them to
act in their own best interests in non-rational ways.
5.7 ROUSSEAU ON STATE AND SOVEREIGNTY
The state of nature imagined how men would have lived in any civilization without the
power of civil law, state, or political governance. Men have no recognised rights at this
point because they are ruled by natural law. The natural man, according to Rousseau,
is a “noble savage” who lives a life of perfect happiness and primordial simplicity. He
claims that men are self-sufficient and equal in nature, but that with the emergence of
civilization, disparities emerge. Private property emerges as a result of advancement
of the arts and sciences, as does the resulting division of labour. Rousseau’s vision of
civil society is modified in Social Contract, and he strives to defend its existence not
as an expression of social disparities, but as a tool for the protection of liberty. Because
his goal in The Social Contract is to work out how individuals might maintain their
freedom within the confines of political association; the idea of a single king exercising
complete authority over his subjects runs counter to his vision. People can only be
subjected to a sovereign power without losing their liberty if they themselves are that
sovereign power. As a result, Rousseau turns the concept of sovereignty on its head,
stating that the genuine rulers are the people, not the king.
In essence, we can assume that The Social Contract states that each person
must unconditionally yield to the entire society. This social contract creates a society
that is more than the sum of its members’ lives and wills: it is a distinct and united entity,
known as a “republic” or “body politic,” with its own life and will. It is also a “state” in
its passive position, a “sovereign” in its active role, and a “power” in connection to
other states; the people who make it up are “citizens”; they are “subjects” insofar as
they submit to the sovereign. Rousseau favoured popular sovereignty, which he achieved Self-Instructional
Material 87

NOTES by empowering people. Only through entering into the social contract and exercising
popular sovereignty people can achieve civic liberty. According to him, the social
contract was made between people acting in their individual capacities and persons
acting in their corporate capacities. Rousseau means that while people give up their
inherent liberty in their individual capacity, they preserve sovereignty in their corporate
capacity, which is represented by universal will.
The sovereign’s power cannot be transferred to another person or organisation.
It demonstrates the group’s will, which is distinct from any individual’s private will. The
community’s true wishes are in accordance with the general will. If the people have a
powerful and direct political voice, the sovereign can only remain as long as the people
wish it to. Sovereignty is not divided into sections either. The sovereign must always
and only speak for all its people, not just a selected few. The general will is manifested
through law, whereas the specific will is manifested through a legal application. People
do not submit their power or will to the government in the same way that they do to the
sovereign, hence no social compact exists between the government and the rest of the
people. The government is an intermediary body that people can change or abolish..
Rousseau described law as broadly applicable and abstract embodiment of general
wills. The law is simply a record of people’s collective preferences. A law can be
passed only if a majority of people agree to it, and it must apply to everyone. A decree
is a pronouncement issued by the sovereign that exclusively applies to a specific group
of people or things. Someone who constructs a moral code is referred to as a “lawgiver.”
For Rousseau, morality is defined by rationality, that rationality arises from civil society,
and that civil society emerges from a lawgiver .
The contentious problem of civil religion is Rousseau’s final topic for debate.
Rousseau’s concept of civil religion is simply an attempt to resurrect the Ancient concept
of faith as a foundation for good citizenship. Rousseau differentiates between three
types of religion. The first is “man’s religion,” which is a personal religion that connects
an individual to God, but can harm the state; since a healthy state requires citizens who
will suffer and battle to make the state strong and safe, rather than believing in other
worldly blessings. Then there’s the “religion of the citizen,” which is the state’s official
religion, with dogmas and rituals. It also corrupts religion by substituting formal, dogmatic
ceremony for authentic, sincere worship. Finally, there is the type of religion that
Self-Instructional
88 Material

Rousseau links with the Catholic church, among others, and that he strongly criticises. NOTES
Attempting to establish two conflicting sets of laws—one civil and one religious—
creates a slew of inconsistencies that hinder appropriate application of any law.
Rousseau proposes a middle ground between the first two types of religion. As he has
already established, the sovereign’s authority is limited to subjects of public interest.
People are allowed to worship whatever and however they like as long as it does not
interfere with the general good. The sovereign is only concerned with topics of public
importance, and one’s personal faith does not lie under this category.
There are two primary considerations to examine when it comes to Rousseau’s
concept of sovereign-government relations. The first is his political pessimism, which
he displays even in the best-designed and ideal republics. In addition to its members’
individual private wills, the government, like any other group, has a collective will. The
magistrates who will properly manage the republic need to be smaller and more cohesive
as the state grows larger and more dispersed when individuals become more physically
and emotionally separated. As a result, Rousseau believes that this group will eventually
take control and replace everyone else’s business desires with its own. The democratic
aspect of Rousseau’s republic is to be explored. Because the magistrates would retain
the business of setting the assembly’s agenda to themselves, Rousseau occasionally
conjures an image of the people being dominated by the government’s elite. However,
in other situations, he advocated for democratic republic.
5.8 ROUSSEAU ON DEMOCRACY AND

REPRESENTATION
In Rousseau’s opinion, democracy was the best way to acquire freedom, which was
the ability of citizens to directly participate in formulation of laws. Citizens’ right to
make laws is a part of sovereignty that cannot be transferred; citizens who obey their
own laws are obeying their real nature. Rousseau doubts democracy’s long-term
durability. Representative democracy, he remarked, was incompatible with the essence
of democracy. To protect the community’s interests, he believes that each law should
be confirmed by the community itself. Rousseau is credited as a forerunner of
Self-Instructional
Material 89

NOTES participatory direct democracy, claiming that people’s sovereignty not only starts with
them, but also remains with them even after they transitioned from the state of nature
to civil society. On representation, Rousseau contended that so-called representative
systems merely place the will of a few individuals as the will of the entire society. He
came to the conclusion that they are subservient to a foreign will after electing their
formal representation.
“There has never been a true democracy, and there will never be,” Rousseau
claims. States, by their very nature, tend to have a smaller number of people in command
of their operations. Rousseau pushed for a political system in which the legislative and
executive powers were firmly divided. When the government and the sovereign are
one and the same, there’s a good chance that the legislative and executive powers will
be united, corrupting the laws and leading to the state’s destruction. A good democracy
would have to be small, with citizens who are honest and truthful, without ambition or
greed. Due to its intrinsic volatility, democracy is prone to civil strife. While Rousseau
believes that freedom is desirable, he agrees with Montesquieu that it is not feasible in
all circumstances. Rather than discussing economics, Rousseau analyses climate, soil
types, and the people who live in different parts of the world. Closer the government’s
relationship with the people is, the less the government’s taxes will damage the people.
Where there is a small excess, democracy can exist, but monarchy thrives where there
is a large surplus. As a result, Rousseau proposes that climate influences the government
to a large amount. Northern countries with a smaller surplus can support democracy,
but southern ones with a larger surplus can support monarchy. Aristocracy, according
to Rousseau, is an excellent type of government. It is preferable to have a small group
of the best men govern rather than everyone trying to govern together regardless of
credentials.
5.9 VIEWS ON EDUCATION
Emile focuses mostly on Rousseau’s pedagogical ideas. In this book, he advocates

the idea of “negative education,” which is a sort of “child-centred” education. To the
extent practicable, his basic idea has been that education should be carried out in
Self-Instructional
accordance with the development of a child’s natural capacities through a seemingly
90 Material autonomous discovery process. This is in contrast to the traditional educational system

where the teacher is a competent authority figure and imparts information and skills NOTES
according to a specified curriculum. Rousseau’s educational programme is founded
on his thesis of natural goodness, which comprises both the protection and development
of the child’s innate goodness over time, as well as the isolation of the child from other
people’s overpowering wills. Until adolescence, the tutor’s instructional curriculum
consists of a succession of environmental manipulations. The child is not told what to
do or think; instead, it is encouraged to derive conclusions based on carefully
orchestrated discoveries. Rousseau’s primary goal in the first stage of the programme
is to avoid instilling the idea that human relationships are primarily ones of dominance
and submission, an idea that can be too easily reinforced in the child by a combination
of parental support and the ability to attract attention by wailing. Though the newborn
infant should be protected from physical harm, Rousseau argues, rather than being
restrained or controlled, the kid should be permitted to use his or her bodily powers as
much as possible. Around the age of twelve, the programme encourages learning
abstract talents and concepts. Rather than using books or formal classes, this is
accomplished through real experience. The third stage of education begins in
adolescence and early adulthood. The child’s period of solitude comes to an end, and
he or she begins to exhibit an interest in people (particularly those of the opposite sex)
and how they are perceived. The tutor’s job is to make sure that the pupil’s interactions
with others are mediated first by a passion for pitié (compassion). This way the pupil
can find a safe place to acknowledge his own moral worth, where his amour propre
is built on a non-competitive basis, while considering others’ suffering, concern, and
gratitude. Throughout the final stage of schooling, the tutor transforms from a
manipulator of the child’s environment to a valued counsel to the adult. The young,
self-sufficient adult seeks for a companion who can provide a reliable, non-competitive
source of recognition. This third section also covers Rousseau’s political philosophy
ideas as well as teaching within the nature of the social world.
5.10 CRITICAL ANALYSIS
Benjamin Constant and Friedrich Hegel were one of Rousseau’s early detractors.
Rousseau’s conception of the universal will, Hegel maintained, will certainly lead to the
Self-Instructional
Reign of Terror because it lacks an objective ideal of reason. Constant also criticised Material 91

NOTES Rousseau for critique of French Revolution where he rejected the citizen-subjects’
absolute obedience to the people’s will . Rousseau’s “universal will” was defined by
Jacob Talmon in 1952 as heading to a totalitarian democracy since the state, Talmon
believed, subjugated its citizens to the purportedly infallible will of majority. Bertrand
Russell stated that “the idea of general will... facilitated the mystic association of such
a leader with his people, who has no need of validation so by mundane equipment as
the voting box.” Other significant detractors include Isaiah Berlin, who contended that
Rousseau’s linkage of liberty with submission to the General Will enabled authoritarian
leaders to justify persecution in the name of liberty, thereby transforming Rousseau
into “one of the most insidious and formidable adversaries of liberty in the entire history
of human thinking.”
5.11 SUMMARY
The contributions of Jean-Jacques Rousseau in political philosophy and moral

psychology, as well as his effect on subsequent philosophers, ensure that he will always
hold a prominent place in the annals of philosophy. Rousseau had a very negative view
of psychology and philosophy. He thought they were post-hoc rationalizers that
promoted self-interest, apologists for different kinds of despotism, and participants in
the modern individual’s separation from humanity’s natural instinct to be kind. Rousseau’s
main concern is to discover a means to preserve individual liberty in a society where
people have become increasingly reliant on one another to meet their wants. This issue
has two aspects: material and psychological, the latter being more important. Human
beings evolved to acquire a sense of self based on other’s opinions in the modern
world, a fact that Rousseau views as corrosive to freedom and harmful to individual
authenticity. In his later works, he primarily examines two paths to obtaining and
protecting freedom: the first is a political one aimed at establishing political institutions
that allow for the coexistence of free and equal individuals in a community where they
are co-sovereigns; the second is a child development and educational project that
fosters autonomy while avoiding e growth of harmful types of self-interest. Despite the
fact that Rousseau believes that human beings can coexist in equal and free relationships,
Self-Instructional
92 Material

he is persistently and overwhelmingly pessimistic about humanity’s ability to escape a NOTES

nightmare of alienation, tyranny, and unfreedom. Along with his philosophical
achievements, Rousseau was a composer and a music theorist, a pioneer of
contemporary autobiography, a novelist, and a botanist. Because of his love of nature
and emphasis on how important feelings and emotions are, Rousseau was a major
influence on the Romantic movement. Rousseau’s contributions in ostensibly non-
philosophical fields often help to explain his philosophical commitments and arguments,
and his interest and worries that characterise his philosophical work and often impact
his other hobbies to a large extent.
1. “Rousseau’s political philosophy was so vague that it can hardly be said to point
in any specific direction”- G.H. Sabine- Comment on the statement.
2. “Man is born free but is found everywhere in chains”. Examine Rousseau’s
effort to bring attention towards the state of nature and the changed world after
Social Contract.
3. Discuss Rousseau’s idea of General Will.
4. Bring out Rousseau’s theory of Social Contract and compare and contrast it
with Hobbes and Locke.
5.13 REFERENCES
Benewick, Robert, and Philip Green. 2002. The Routledge dictionary of twentieth-
century political thinkers. Routledge.
Bhargava, Rajeev. 2008. Political Theory: An Introduction. Pearson Education
India.
Self-Instructional
Material 93

NOTES Boucher, David, and Paul Kelly, eds. 2017. Political Thinkers: From Socrates to
the present. Oxford University Press.
Gauba, O. P. 2013. An Introduction to Political Theory. Macmillan.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. 2004. The Social Contract. Penguin Books.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. 2008. The Social Contract and the First and Second
Discourses. Yale University Press.
Scruton, Roger. 2007. The Palgrave Macmillan dictionary of political thought.
Springer.
Self-Instructional
94 Material

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)
LESSON 6 NOTES
JOHN STUART MILL (1806-1873)

Dr. Nishant Kumar
Structure
6.2 Introduction
6.3 Important Works
6.4 Mill’s Alterations of Utilitarianism
6.5 Mill’s Views on Liberty
6.6 Subjection of Women
6.7 Representative Government
6.9 References
 The lesson will make students understand the principle of utilitarianism suggested
by J.S. Mill.
 It will also make the students know about the idea of liberty, representative
government, view on women and reforms suggested by Mill to Utilitarianism.
6.2 INTRODUCTION
J. S. Mill was son of famous historian James Mill and student of Jeremy Bentham. At
age of three he started learning Greek, at eight he read Greek and Roman classics and
was taught Newtonian physics at eleven years of age . His teacher wanted to produce
a brilliant and well-educated disciple and forced him to study political economy and
legal philosophy at age ten years after which he was trained in metaphysics. Jeremy Self-Instructional
Material 95

NOTES Bentham, father of Utilitarianism, had strong impact on his thought process. Bentham
along with James Mill formed the Philosophic Radicals group, and organized it as a
political party, that wanted to rationalize law and legal institutions, argued for universal
male suffrage, and politics advocated by human happiness and not natural rights. In
1840 Whigs and Radicals joined to form Liberal Party.
Meanwhile J. S. Mill, under pressure of performance underwent mental crisis in
his twenties. During this period, he came closer to philosophy of Romanticism through
works of Coleridge and Wordsworth. Therefore, he began searching for new form of
radicalism which could be sensitive to reform limits imposed by culture and history.
With Bentham’s death in 1832 and James Mill’s death in 1836, he gained more intellectual
freedom. In 1830 he met Harriot Taylor. After two decades of platonic relationship,
he married Taylor in 1851 after her husband died. Taylor expired in 1858. Between
1826 and 1857 he worked with the East India Company. After death of his wife, he
got elected to Parliament. Though not very successful, he tried to initiate two important
changes through private member’s bills: 1) Inclusion of women in voting; 2) He headed
Jamaica Committee and pushed unsuccessfully for opposition against trial laws against
local protest. As the British society was still very conservative, these moves for reforms
were not appreciated and he failed to get re-elected. After that he stayed aloof of
politics with Harriot Taylor’s first daughter till his death.
6.3 IMPORTANT WORKS
 The Subjection of Women (1869)

 On Liberty (1859)
 Systems of Logic (1843)
 Principles of Political Economy (1848)
 Considerations on Representative Government (1861)
 Utilitarianism (1863)
Self-Instructional
96 Material

NOTES
6.4 MILL’S ALTERATIONS OF UTILITARIANISM
Mill significantly revised the Utilitarian position, partially to defend it from its critiques
who were raising fundamental issues about some of its assumptions, but more so due
to his personal dissatisfaction. He claimed, unlike the earlier utilitarian position, that
there was qualitative difference between different kinds of pleasures and that some
pleasure could be ranked higher than others. Bentham had always maintained that
“quantity of pleasure being equal, pushpin is as good as poetry.” It meant that Bentham
believed that it was only the quantity of pleasure produced that mattered. Mill significantly
differed from this position and held that people who experienced different kinds of
pleasure could easily differentiate between higher and lower forms of pleasure earned
by ones’ engagement in different kinds of acts.
To justify his position, Mill begins by agreeing with critiques of Utilitarianism
that pleasures could not be objectively measured. He believed that the felicific calculus
was not completely based on objective reality and generally one relied on the opinions
of “those most competent to judge”. Contrarily, Mill proposes that one pleasure could
be qualitatively ranked higher if it promoted the sense of dignity in man. He argues that
Human pleasure is much superior than animalistic pleasures. True happiness for human
beings is determined by our higher faculties. On the question about how to differentiate
higher quality from lower quality pleasure, he claimed that people would choose a
higher form of pleasure over others and would not be ready to exchange it with other
forms of pleasure even if other pleasures were in higher quantity. Furthermore, people
would be ready to embrace higher forms of pleasure even if it accompanied discomfort.
He was confident that if given equal access to all kind of pleasures, people would
prefer those that appealed to ‘higher faculties’. Even if he has to suffer more in life, a
person with higher faculties would never choose a lower existence, instead, would
choose that which protects and promotes his dignity. Therefore, the criterion of
goodness is no longer determined by the principle of Utility. We must now say that
those actions that produce a higher sense of dignity in man are ranked qualitatively
higher than others.
Self-Instructional
Material 97

NOTES Mill opines, “it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied;
better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are of
different opinions, it is because they only know their side of the question.”
Thus, only those people are best judge of a pleasure’s quality who have
experienced both higher and lower qualities of happiness. Hence, one needs to have
broad range of experiences to really judge quality of pleasures.
Mill further claims that conception of a good human life is more important than
a happy life. Moral ends of life are valued higher than a life seeking happiness. He
takes the example of a martyr’s sacrifice. A martyr sacrifices his happiness for some
greater end, in this case, it is for the happiness of other people. Mill admits that the
willingness to sacrifice one’s happiness for that of others is the highest virtue. Only
criterion here is that it should promote the happiness of others. In this way, he further
transformed the Utilitarian position by introducing the moral criterion. He further extends
this argument to institution of the state. He claimed that the state was a moral institution
and had a moral duty defined not in terms ofU tility but rather in terms of promoting
and inculcating virtues in individuals. The state could achieve this through a well-structured
framework of law and education. Highest virtue for Mill lay in being ready to sacrifice
one’s happiness for the sake of others. He argues that other than external sanctions,
there were also significant other forms of sanctions like peer pressure (the fear of their
disapproval), or divine pressure (fear of God’s wrath), and also sanctions internal to
individuals (stemming from one’s own conscience) that keeps a man on the right track.
Internal sanctions are more powerful that external ones and consists of feelings in
one’s mind that creates discomfort when one violates duty. He is sure that such feelings
of internal sanctions could be cultivated in humans through socialization and through
law. It is explicit from the above discussion that Mill fundamentally transformed the
entire Utilitarian position propounded by Jeremy Bentham.
Mill’s re-invention of Utilitarianism could be summed as:
 He restated the whole doctrine of Utilitarian philosophy in his book
Utilitarianism.
 Bentham’s formula of ‘felicific calculus’ only accepted a quantitative basis of
evaluating pain and pleasure. Mill introduced significant changes to this vantage
point:
Self-Instructional
98 Material

o Firstly, he held that pleasure differed not only in quantity but also in quality. NOTES
He holds that men would prefer smaller amount of a superior pleasure
over large quantity of lower pleasures. He differentiates between pleasure
based on ‘lower faculties’ and higher faculties’.
o Secondly, he narrowed the gap between individual’s self-interest and social
or general happiness. Hence, the aim of utilitarian philosophy should be to
harmonize the good of individual with common good. Laws, social
arrangements and education should aim at this end.
o Thirdly, Mill held that a ‘good life’was more pious and important to personal
happiness. Moral ends are placed above pursuit of happiness in a narrow
individualistic sense.
o Fourthly, unlike Bentham who had faith in only external sanctions over
individuals to promote greatest happiness of greatest number, Mill
recognizes both internal and external sanctions as important. Moral
obligation, therefore, is very important for Mill.
o Fifthly, he believed that virtues aiming for pleasures based on a higher
faculty could be imbibed in individuals and it was moral duty of the state to
achieve this end through law and education.
6.5 MILL’S VIEWS ON LIBERTY
In the introduction of his magnum opus On Liberty, Mill claimed that although the
threat to individual’s liberties is primarily located in the institution of the state and the
government in particular, more threatening was social control and tyranny of the majority.
He, therefore, aimed to protect individual’s liberty from “the tyranny of the prevailing
opinion and feeling”. He argued that such tyranny, that was exercised by “society
collectively, over the separate individuals who compose it was even more oppressive
than many kinds of political oppression”, because unlike political oppression by
government, there were no institutional mechanism to safeguard them. The tyranny of
public opinion was held by Mill to be so dangerous because it completely stifled their
individuality, and their potentiality and capacity to develop their own tastes and develop.
Self-Instructional
Material 99

NOTES He, therefore, sought to demarcate a wide range of private conduct in which individuals
could be completely free from those areas of his conduct where state could legitimately
intervene based on certain universal principles of application. The principles that he
derives would therefore, firstly, set the boundaries between individual’s freedom and
social or state interference and secondly, ascertain that in their private sphere of action,
the individuals remain completely free from the government’s controls or social pressures.
In developing his own definition of liberty, Mill started with what is popularly
known as the negative conception of liberty which referred to freedom of an individual
to do or be as he wished without any interference or constraints. This was essentially
based on the assumption that individuals being rational beings had the capacity to
judge what was best for them and therefore should have freedom of choice. Any
interference from any individual or agency is seen as a threat to his/her freedom. From
this classical liberal starting-point, however, Mill moved towards a more positive notion
of freedom as human self-development. In this view, liberty was not only seen as an
ability to do as one wished but rather as conditions necessary for individual’s wholesome
development of personality, which included cultivation and realization of individuality
and one’s moral, intellectual and cultural development.
Moreover, Mill’s view of liberty as a vital means of individual’s personality growth
and his/her intellectual development was closely attached to his understanding of human
nature and the way in which liberty could refine it. It is from this subtle ethical perspective
that Mill proceeds to argue in On Liberty that other individuals or society could only
justifiably interfere with individual’s freedom to act as he/she wishes, if his/her actions
produce direct harm to others. Mill develops this ‘harm’ principle further in terms of a
distinction between self-regarding actions and other-regarding actions. Self-regarding
actions are those acts which affect only the individual and Mill claimed that over such
acts people should have supreme control and be free from any interference. Other-
regarding actions, on the other hand, are those acts which affect others as well, and if
it adversely affected other people’s interests it could be interfered with. Mill explains,
however, that both the ‘harm’ principle and this consequent distinction could only be
relevant for what he termed to be “civilised community”, or to people who are mature
in their faculties, “who have reached the capacity of being guided to their own
improvement by conviction and persuasion”. The principle and distinction are thus not
Self-Instructional
100 Material

applicable, in his view, on children or invalids, whose behaviour needs regulating by NOTES
others, or on members of backward races.
Mill develops his argument further by identifying three areas of human conduct.
These areas fall exclusively within the definition of self-regarding actions. Use of freedom
in these areas should be completely beyond the control of society or the state. The first
area of such action is the exercise of freedom of thought and expression. In Mill’s own
words, this area related to one’s inner domain of consciousness, embracing “liberty of
conscience, in the most comprehensive sense; liberty of thought and feeling, absolute
freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects, practical or speculative, scientific,
moral or theological”. The second and third areas of self-regarding conduct identified
by Mill are “liberty of tastes and pursuits”, including freedom to pursue lifestyle and
taste according to one’s own likings; and liberty of association, including freedom to
associate with other individuals who “unite for any purpose not involving harm to
others”.
Freedom of opinion and expression
In Chapter 2 of On Liberty Mill develops a closely reasoned case for the first of these
three liberties of self-regarding conduct- freedom of thought and discussion. He begins
by affirming his belief in absolute freedom of opinion or principle and by denouncing all
suppression of freedom of discussion in these eloquent terms:
“If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the
contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person,
than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”
Moreover, Mill pointed out that freedom of thought and “the liberty of expressing
and publishing opinions” were “practically inseparable”. Defending freedom of private
thought and belief protected freedom of expression in its various forms including freedom
of speech and publication. The urgency of that task was, in Mill’s view, underlined not
just by the historical experience of persecution and suppression of heretical, subversive
and unconventional thought, but also by the contemporary threat posed by “the tyranny
of the prevailing opinion and feeling” in mid-nineteenth-century England.
The primary defense of freedom of thought and discussion by Mill was based
on his view that this freedom was an essential means to discover truth and advancements
Self-Instructional
Material 101

NOTES in understanding and knowledge that are both intrinsically valuable and beneficial for
society at large. That conviction leads him to deploy three particular arguments against
the suppression and toleration of opinions that may conflict with received or established
majority opinion. These three arguments are as follow:
 First, minority opinion might be true while the majority opinion might be
false. “Every age”, Mill observed, had held many such views which
“subsequent ages have deemed not only false but absurd”. For example, the
belief that the Earth is flat was punctured by scientific discoveries in later
ages. Moreover, many ideas were rejected initially as heretical or dangerous
for society but were later found true and then embraced by later generations.
Socrates and Jesus, for example, were condemned and put to death for
promoting allegedly subversive or blasphemous views or doctrines yet were
later revered as great moral teachers.
 Second, Mill advances for freedom of thought and discussion as means to
discovery of truth is that while a minority opinion may be false, the process
of engaging with that opinion and refuting it allows for reinforcement of the
right opinion and further advances its validity. Suppression of minority view
will deprive those with true opinion to test validity of their view and to verify
reasonability of their claims. Moreover, the process of examining and
discussing fully and frequently even a true opinion will prevent it from
degenerating in time into “a dead dogma, not a living truth”.
 Third, the argument rests on recognition that an opinion could be partially
true. It may be a mix of falsehood with some elements of truth. To engage
with such opinion would allow the disentanglement of elements of truth from
falsehood and using it in our pursuit towards complete truth. Only free debate
and discussion, Mill contends, will make this possible, thereby correcting
existing, partially true or valid views or beliefs.
He argued for toleration of novel or unconventional opinions and beliefs.
Furthermore, he also propounded toleration for an attitude of open-minded skepticism
towards existing orthodoxies, however widely held and propagated. A constant process
of free discussion and debate, he maintained, would result in “wrong opinions and
practices gradually yield[ing] to fact and argument”. Such an outcome, Mill argued
Self-Instructional from his revised and refined utilitarian standpoint, would be beneficial both for the
102 Material

individual, in his intellectual and moral development, and for society in its epistemological NOTES
and cultural progress.
Mill on the importance of individuality
The “free development of the individuality”, Mill declared, was “one leading essentials
of well-being”. This form of freedom amounted to freedom of individuals to act according
to their opinions and choices “without hindrance, whether physical or moral, from their
fellow-men, so long as it is at their own risk and peril”. It, thus, constituted the second
area of self-related conduct that Mill is intent on defending from collective interference.
Like freedom of thought and expression, Mill considered freedom of tastes and pursuit
as beneficial for both individual and society. According to him, the diversity in opinions,
beliefs, tastes and lifestyles produced the opportunity to strive for and discover more
satisfying forms and ways of living.
By exploring his own tastes and pursuits, the individual is exercising his capacity
for free choice and independent judgment. He is fostering moral, intellectual and aesthetic
self development. Yet such individuality was also, Mill stressed, good for others in
society as a freely developed individual, develops new ways of behavior and lifestyle.
Therefore, he could offer fresh and previously unknown ways of being and “set the
example of more enlightened conduct, and better taste and sense in human life”. Even
though Mill’s main concern was protection of exceptional individual’s free development
, it is explicit that he believed it as an important freedom all mature adults should enjoy.
Individuality was thus, in Mill’s view, a strong defense against those social forces
that enforced uniformity, conformity and “collective mediocrity”. Forces that considered
differing or dissenting opinion and way of living as a potential threat to society and
hence treated it with great suspicion and contempt. The reality was, for instance, “that
individual spontaneity is hardly recognised by the common modes of thinking as having
any intrinsic worth ... but is rather looked on with jealousy”. The result of these
conformist pressures, Mill wrote, was that “the despotism of custom is everywhere
the standing hindrance to human advancement”.
Throughout his discussion of individuality, Mill drew a sharp distinction between
the passivity and inertia of these forces of custom and conformity, on the one hand,
and the active, energizing effects of innovation and originality, on the other. The individual,
he stressed, was a living being, not an inert object molded by custom or convention. Self-Instructional
Material 103

NOTES He or she was not formed mechanically but rather developed organically, like a tree,
“according to the tendency of the inward forces which make it a living thing”. For Mill,
liberty of personal tastes and pursuits - the individual’s capacity for freely choosing
how to lead his life- was a necessary, vital condition of his all-round human development
morally, intellectually and aesthetically.
Liberty of association
Mill forwarded three arguments in defense of liberty of association:

 Firstly, “when the thing to be done is likely to be done better by individuals than
by government, speaking generally, there is no one [as] fit to conduct any business,
or to determine how or by whom it shall be conducted, as those who are
personally do interested in it”.
 Secondly, even if individuals came together and tried to do something, but were
not able to do it as efficiently as the government would have done, it still helped
in making those individuals more matured and experienced and shall help in the
development of their mental faculties as failure also teaches us to improve.
 Thirdly, if we let the government do everything, then there we facilitate in
aggrandizing its power. Mill argued that: “If the roads, the railways, the banks,
the insurance offices, the great joint-stock, the universities, and the public charities,
were all of them branches of the government; if, in addition, the municipal
corporation and local boards, with all that now devolves on them, became
departments of the central administration; if the employees of all these different
enterprises were appointed and paid by the government, and looked to the
government for every rise in life; not all the freedom of the press and popular
constitution of the legislature would make this or any other country free otherwise
than in name”.
Limits to freedom of expression and action
Mill devoted a large part of On Liberty in exploring the question of legitimate extent
and limits of individual’s liberty of action. Mill believed, society or the state had the
right to intervene, for “as soon”, he wrote, “as any part of a person’s conduct affects
prejudicially the interests of others, society has jurisdiction over it”. Whilst he claimed
Self-Instructional
104 Material

passionately against any interference with individual’s freedom of thought and NOTES
expression, Mill thus cited, at the beginning of Chapter 3, an example where freedom
of expression could have harmful effects and restriction might be justified . He also
argued that society’s interference with one’s freedom of action is justified if that
individual’s actions produced harmful effect on others’ interests, especially certain
rights-based interests, like that of personal safety and security, which were also
protected by law and recognized by society as important for all. Such interests might
include, for instance, the right to retain one’s private property in the face of another
person’s attempt to acquire it by force.
Mill underlines and summarizes this crucial point in Chapter 5 of On Liberty by
restating his “one very simple principle” in the form of “two maxims which together
form the entire doctrine of the Essay”. These, he writes are: “first, that the individual is
not accountable to society for his actions, in so far as they concern the interests of no
person but himself...”; and “secondly, that for such actions as are prejudicial to the
interests of others, the individual is accountable, and may be subjected either to social
or to legal punishment, if society is of the opinion that the one or the other is requisite
for its protection”.
In exploring this distinction, Mill cites various examples of moral policing in
society where some people consider themselves entitled to interfere with liberties of
any individual claiming that his conduct was offensive or harmful to society’s interest or
personally distasteful to others. In none of those instances, Mill argues, does the fact
that certain individuals or groups find others’ behaviour morally repugnant constitute
grounds for the suppression or limitation of those practices. Underlying his argument
at this point is the clear contrast he draws between objective injury, that may be
inflicted by other-regarding actions, and subjective offence, which is largely based on
some individual’s claim of getting offended even with such acts that may otherwise fall
in category of self-regarding actions.
In defending his all-important distinction between self-regarding and other-
regarding actions, and in thereby reaffirming the “harm” principle that underlay it, Mill
rejected any interference by society or state with individual’s freedoms on frivolous
paternalistic grounds. Society or the law should intervene to promote what society or
the state considered to be in the individual’s best interests, morally or physically is not
Self-Instructional
Material 105

NOTES acceptable. He also ruled out any collective interference on moralistic grounds . He
refuted that some acts are inherently unethical or immoral in society’s perspective and
needed to be restricted or interfered with regardless of its effects.
Barker calls him prophet of “empty liberty” because he does not see that all
liberties are enjoyed in its social context. He stresses too much on individual freedom.
Further, his idea is discriminatory and not inclusive as limits his theory to ‘civilized
communities’ which is exclusionary in nature. Also, the difference he wants to pose
between self-regarding and other regarding action is largely untenable.
6.6 SUBJECTION OF WOMEN
Mill began The Subjection of Women with a claim that the principles that regulated
the relationship between the two sexes were fundamentally wrong as it allowed for the
subordination of one sex by the other thereby causing hindrance in improving human
society. His ready reference for legal oppression of women in England was the mid-
19th century law that did not allow married women to own property in their name, and
even if parents transferred the property to them, it legally belonged to their husbands.
Not only this, even her earnings belonged to him unless they were separated and even
the legally recognized guardian of their children was the husband.
Mill found it paradoxical that in modern times, when human civilization was
celebrating the values of liberty and equality women were being denied these basic
rights. The reason why women’s subjection, unlike slavery or political absolutism, was
not opposed Mill argued, is that in the past only owners of slaves and the tyrants were
interested in keeping the system impact as it benefitted them directly. In the man-
woman relationship all men gained from the subordination of women and therefore
had no intention to change the power relations. Their self-esteem got a boost from the
mere sense of being male, as they could control the labour and resources of another
human being. Women, on the other hand, did not have a choice but to suffer in silence
as they consistently feared that if they protested or even complained their situation will
only worsen. This did not mean that they accepted their subordinate position voluntarily.
Mill claimed that the socialization process had inculcated in women a belief that “their
Self-Instructional ideal of character is the very opposite to that of men; not self-will, and government by
106 Material

self-control, but submission, and yielding to the control of others”. Hence, it was put in NOTES
their minds that they were inferior to the other sex and gradually lost confidence to
speak up for their own causes.
Mill talked about how society would benefit, in four different ways, if women
were to be granted equal rights. These advantages are as follow:
 The first advantage was that it would fundamentally change the nature of
family and it would not be seen as “a school of despotism”. Patriarchal
structure in the family compelled all members to adjust in hierarchical
relationships as power was held by male members of the family and females
were expected to only obey them. According to Mill, such family structure
was an anachronism in the modern democratic culture which promoted values
of liberty and equality. Members of such families could never be good citizens
as they do not know or learn to treat all citizens equally. If democracy is a
form of self-government, it assumes its members to be free citizens who
participate in this self-government. Freedom is to be defined such that the
liberty of one is consistent with the liberty of others. Therefore, if women are
to be as free as men, they must first enjoy equality with them. For women to
be free, they must enjoy an equal legal status with men, and have an equal
access to education and employment. Mill claimed that ensuring equality to
women in family could contribute in our efforts to develop the ideals of
democratic citizenship.
 Another benefit of women’s equality, Mill opined, could be the “doubling of
the mass of mental faculties” available in society. Society would benefit not
only because there would be more doctors, engineers, teachers and scientists,
but he thought that in presence of potent competition from female counterparts,
performance of men in these professions would also enhanced.
 Thirdly, Mill maintained that in the relations of subordination, women have
to resort to perverse means to assert their will. If they were treated equally,
they would no longer do this and it shall have positive influence on mankind.
 Lastly, Mill held that giving women their due rights was also in accordance
to Utilitarian philosophy as it would increase happiness of women and hence
the net happiness of society shall go up manifold and satisfy the dictum of
“greatest happiness of the greatest number”. Self-Instructional
Material 107

NOTES In arguing for women to enjoy the same freedoms as men, the freedom to vote,
to attend university, to go to work, to do what they willed with their earnings, Mill
linked up the idea of freedom to other ideas important to him, like the ideas of equality,
democracy and utility. Only when women accessed same privileges as men, would
democracy be strengthened. Mill was not saying that the democratic project was
incomplete because half the population was not being allowed to participate in the
project of self-government. Rather, he claimed that the patriarchal family needed urgent
reform for men to know how to be truly democratic. Democracy in the political/public
sphere would remain faulty unless democratic citizens were brought up and created in
egalitarian families. He therefore consistently struggled for equal status of women in
society in three basic aspects: a) Right to vote; b) Right to equal opportunity in education;
and c) Right to employment.
6.7 REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT
Freedom of association is one of the central tenets of modern democracies, and it

seems obvious that liberties of individuals would find most protection in a democratic
form of government. Surprisingly, here, Mill warns about democracies by arguing that
civil liberties were under greater threat in democracies than in tyrannical regimes. In
the tyrannical regimes of the past, the ruler’s interests were seen as mutually exclusive
to that of the subjects, who remained vigilant therefore about their freedoms and rights
being encroached upon. In the modern democracies, people believing in self-
government, are not vigilant about possibilities of their rights being encroached. Mill
warned against this laxity and argued that individuals had to be more conscious and
vigilant about threats to their liberties. This threat was posed not only by the government
but also by society in name of traditions and morality.
However, as long as the citizens are vigilant, democracy, or in Mill’s words,
‘representative government’, is the best form of government. Mill began Considerations
on Representative Government by claiming that the best form of government could
only be adjudged based on examination of form of government that most efficiently
Self-Instructional
108 Material

and effectively fulfilled duties of the government. These included performing two NOTES
important functions:
 Firstly, it must contribute in expanding and developing the intellectual and
moral qualities of the citizens.
 Secondly, it must use these qualities of citizens for the larger interest of
society.
Mill was confident that only a representative government, based on a combination
of dual principles of competence and participation, was most ideally suited to perform
these functions, and hence qualified to be the best form of government. He was certain
that every individual and every class was conscious and the best judge of their interests.
He did not agree that some individuals might not be aware of their real interests, and
needed to be guided accordingly. Based on this firm belief in human rationality and
everyone being masters of their interest he proposed that each individual should have
a say in the government, which is largely expected to protect the citizens’ interests.
This, according to him, gave them greater opportunity to protect their interests and on
this very basis he justified his demand about voting rights for women. He advocated
that barring those who were illiterate, did not pay taxes or were bankrupts or lived on
subsidies from the state, everyone be allowed to vote. He was also concerned about
the interests of the minority communities and believed that special provisions should
be made to ensure their representation in the government so that they get adequate
opportunity to protect their interests.
Mill recommended widening of electorates and franchise. Furthermore, he
advocated the idea of plural voting based on relative competence of the electorates. In
fact, for him franchise could only be widened after plural voting being introduced.
Plural voting meant that although each voter would be allowed one vote, some would
have more than one vote because they were more qualified. He proposed “a graduated
scale of educational attainments, awarding at the bottom, one additional vote to a
skilled labourer and two to a foreman, and at the top, as many as five to a professional-
men, writers as artists, public functionaries, university graduates and members learned
societies”. Plural voting, according to Mill, could ensure that the votes of the better
caliber, or more competent deputies carrying more weight would protect social interest
even if the quality of members of Parliament was poor.
Self-Instructional
Material 109

NOTES Mill further wanted to amend and replace the secret ballot system of voting
with open voting. This would ensure that everyone knew how one had voted. Franchise
for Mill was a trust and a public duty whereby citizens chose those representatives
whose actions and policies seemed to be in larger interest of society. It should therefore
not be used arbitrarily but rather through proper judgement. It was in this way, Mill
believed combination of the principle of participation and competence in suffrage could
ensure greater moral and intellectual growth of the citizens who voted.
Thus, it is seen that he identifies certain conditions for the success of representative
political system. These conditions are:
 First, according to him if the citizens are passive and not active, the
representative government cannot be successful.
 Second, if the citizens do not have sufficient worth and if they do not have
the will to keep intact the representative institutions, the representative
government is likely to fail.
 Third, Mill was somewhat influenced by Tocqueville’s idea of tyranny of the
majority. Hence, he had misgivings about the majority: rule as in vogue in a
representative political system. According to him, the essence of democracy
lies in ties equality. He believes that if in a system any class, by virtue of its
immense numerical strength, ignores the political importance of other classes
and exercises legislative and executive power to serve only their own interests,
then it is not ideally the best democratic system. This is why, to ensure equal
political participation of all, he recommends the introduction of universal
adult franchise at a time when his country was yet to embrace it. To maintain
minority representation, he prescribes proportional representation.
As Mill has made various proposals to make democracy more agreeable,
similarly he discusses how democracy may be endangered from various directions:
 According to him, the first kind of danger is that those who rule in a
democracy may be generally ignorant and they may not have the necessary
capability. In such a case, democracy is in danger.
 Second, if they seek to serve interests adverse to the general good of the
society, then also democracy is at peril.
Self-Instructional
110 Material

For the sake of success of democracy, Mill prescribed non involvement of NOTES
some sections of people the right to participate in the democratic process. These
people were:
 First, in his view those who do not pay local taxes are not entitled to political
participation.
 Second, those who live on financial public assistance have no right to
politically participate.
 Third, those who are declared by law as insolvent and those who are liquor
addict should not have a right to participate in the democratic process.
Mill is a pure supporter of democracy. He is a democrat because he believes,
as did Bentham, that each individual’s rights and interests are best defended by himself.
He is also a democrat because he believes, as Bentham, that freedom is the means to
prosperity and that without prosperity there can be no happiness. But surprisingly,
finally he digresses from generally accepted ideas of democracy. This is why some
scholars like C. L. Wayper called him a ‘reluctant democrat’. This epithet is, of course,
no exaggeration. For instance, in his On Liberty, he seems very much committed to
universal suffrage. But in his Representative Government, he clearly departs from
this stand. Here he added caveats to idea of universal franchise dismembering certain
individuals from the right to vote. At the same time, he advocated the idea of plural
voting based on qualification, which in no way can be considered inclusive.
1. What is Utilitarianism? How does Mill transform the basic ideas of the utilitarian
philosophy?
2. Write an essay on J. S. Mill’s views on Liberty.
3. What according to Mill are the main reasons for subjugation of women and
what are his suggestions to overcome this problem?
4. Why does Mill believe that the Representative Government is the most ideal
and what are his suggestions to improve the nature of representation?
Self-Instructional
Material 111

NOTES
6.9 REFERENCES

P. Bagchi & Company: Calcutta.
D. Boucher and P. Kelly (eds) 2017. Political Thinkers: From Socrates to the
Present. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mill, J. S. 1978. On Liberty. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Press.
Self-Instructional
112 Material

Karl Marx (1818-1883)
LESSON 7 NOTES
KARL MARX (1818-1883)

Dr. Nishant Kumar
Structure
7.2 Introduction
7.3 Dialectical Materialism
7.4 Base-Superstructure and Economic Determinism
7.5 Historical Materialism
7.6 Alienation
7.7 Theory of Surplus Value
7.8 Commodity Fetishism
7.9 Class and Class Struggle
7.10 State
7.11 Analysis of Capitalism
7.12 Revolution
7.13 Dictatorship of Proletariat
7.14 Communist Society
7.16 References
 The lesson discusses ideas of Karl Marx on basic structure of society, suggestion
given by him to reframe societal values to make ideal communist society.
 It will also make the students understand the idea of Marx, dialectic materialism,
theory of class struggle etc.
 It will also discuss about the Marx’ view on state and classless and state less
society.
Self-Instructional
Material 113

NOTES
7.2 INTRODUCTION
Karl Marx was born in the city of Trier in the Rhineland on March 5, 1818. He went
to study law at University of Bonn in 1835, and next year to study philosophy in the
University of Berlin. He was deeply influenced by the Young Hegelians group. He
edited various publications like between 1938 to 1948. His radical writings forced
him to leave different countries like Belgium and France before he settled in England.
He came very close to Engels who was a businessman but also supported his radical
ideas about transformation of the exploitative Capitalist society. Both of them published
various books of high repute that posed a significant challenge to the existing Capitalist
order. These included The German ideology, The Poverty of Philosophy, Manifesto
of the Communist Party, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy,
The Civil War in France, as well as the three volumes of Capital.
Marx was deeply influenced by three dominant streams of thoughts: German
Philosophy, French Political Thought and Classical English Economic. Within the German
tradition, he was most explicitly inspired by the Hegelian method of dialectics. He
used this method to apply it to Feuerbach’s ideas about materialism. At the same time,
the French politics had deep impact on him. For example, the French commune, the
rule of Louise Bonaparte influenced his views about relative autonomy of state. He
applied his method to bring large-scale changes within the industrialized Capitalist
economy, of which England was the classic model in the nineteenth century. The writings
of English classical economists like Adam Smith and David Ricardo helped him develop
an understanding about functioning of the Capitalist system and impact of Industrial
Revolution on modern societies. His views on Alienation, Surplus Value and exploitation
were an extension and modifications of these ideas.
7.3 DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM
Dialectical Materialism represents the philosophical system of Marx. Marx, however,

never used this term. It was first coined by Plekhanov in 1891. Later on, Engels in his
Self-Instructional Anti-Duhring elaborated and presented it as philosophy. Though, Marx borrowed
114 Material

Karl Marx (1818-1883)
this method primarily from Hegel, he turned Hegelian dialectics upside down. He NOTES
advocated a philosophy of materialism as opposed to that of idealism. In the idealist
views, like that of Hegel, the world of objective reality was a making of the mind, spirit
or idea. Hence, for Hegel, mind was more important than matter. The idealists not only
emphasized the non-material spiritual world but also argued that parts of our world is
unknowable. Marx, contrarily, viewed matter as primary and also independent of
mind. According to him, matter was not rooted in thinking or consciousness of mind.
Actually, whatever be the thinking of man, it was a reflection on the matter as it existed.
Marx claimed that the world of matter required a dialectical approach to comprehend
it. When so integrated it gave shape and substance to the philosophy of dialectical
materialism.
Dialectics
Dialectics is the method of discovering truth through a clash of opposing ideas. Hegel
popularized it by using the tripartite of thesis, anti-thesis and synthesis. Popularly called
the Dialectical Triad, Hegel used it to expose the contradictions and how opposing
ideas combine to develop a new idea. He claimed that it was the dialectical process
that initiated progress in history. At each stage of development, the contradictions
became prominent which induced further changes. Each thesis has its anti-thesis, that
challenges it to produce newer contradictions. Everything contains within itself the
element of its being (thesis) and the contradiction to it (anti-thesis). The being is
permanent, but the contradiction is transitory. When the contradictions matured,
elements from thesis and antithesis fuse together in synthesis. Each synthesis gradually
develops as a new form of thesis, which is again challenged by its anti-thesis, thereby
developing a contradiction that gives rise to a new synthesis. Marx inspired by this
idea of dialectics uses it to develop his theory, however not without significantly altering
it. Where Hegel stressed on ideas, Marx focuses on materialism.
Marx’s use of Hegel’s dialectics
Hegel’s philosophy presented a systematic explanation of dialectics as a method. He

used it to explain the development of history. For Hegel, history was a gradual
manifestation of human reason, and the expansion of a historical spirit. He claimed that
due to conflict in intellectual forces, freedom and consciousness expanded among
Self-Instructional
Material 115

NOTES humans. The process of history, for Hegel, was marked by two kinds of causation; (a)
the individual spirit which desired happiness and provided energy, and (b) the world
spirit which strived for higher freedom, that came with the edge of the self. Although,
Marx was in agreement with Hegel over the issue of dialectics and the constant
development through the, but he emphasized on the social and real rather than the
intellectual and the ideal. He emphasized on matter rather on mind. For Marx, important
aspect in development of history was not its philosophy but rather economic and
social relations that developed in the process. Hegel, had a defining influence over
Marx, and Marx also viewed history as a constantly changing phenomenon, developing
and transforming through internal contradictions. However, for Marx this contradiction
did not appear in ideas or consciousness, rather for him consciousness was itself
dependent on material realities of the being. Therefore, to understand development of
history these material realities and their internal dynamics needed to be understood.
Materialism
The basic foundation of all materialist philosophy was the claim that to develop any
form of consciousness, human beings needed to be alive. Marx views humans as
active beings whose consciousness is not only depended on his instincts but on the
“sensuous human activity” that he performs to be alive. Most important activity humans
are involved in is the process of production through their engagement with nature. In
the process, Marx claims, human beings created a whole new world, which did not
exist hitherto. This was done primarily because nature and the world had to be altered
to ensure his material existence. This creation of new world could not only be produced
through intellectual activity, in one’s consciousness, rather one had to engage materially
in the process.
Marx was deeply influenced by Feuerbach for his views on materialism and
used it to attack Hegelian philosophy. But he also noted in his ‘Theses on Feuerbach’,
that understanding of materialism was very different from Feuerbach’s, whose
philosophy he called ‘contemplative’ materialism. Feuerbach claimed that to understand
the world and its processes, we should neither look at God not at thought, but at
individual and his activities. However, Marx rejected Feuerbach’s materialism as passive,
Self-Instructional
116 Material

Karl Marx (1818-1883)
for objects were seen in contemplative way rather than as “sensuous, practical human NOTES
activity”. The focus on individual’s contemplative capacity in Feuerbach missed his
social nature, which according to Marx, is inherent to the process of production. At
the same time, Feuerbach’s ideas stressed on individual’s capacity to contemplate or
impact of the social and material conditions surrounding him. Though Marx agreed to
this proposition, he argued that it undermined capacity of human individuals to act
based on contemplation and their capacity to change social and material conditions. It
is here that Marx’s idea of ‘praxis’ becomes significant as it analyzes the capacity of
humans to act according to their understanding of their material and social condition.
This human potential to transform material condition and not just to understand it, was
what distinguished Marx from earlier materialists. For him even the role of philosophy
could not be merely to contemplate, but also to initiate change. He rightly opines in the
eleventh Theses on Feuerbach that: “The philosophers have only interpreted the world
in the various ways: the point, however is to change it”.
Principles of Dialectical Materialism
 The first of these principles is that the world of matter does not represent a
summation of unrelated things. Contrarywise, it is marked by interdependence
of things. Thus, in this world there is no isolated phenomenon. All phenomena
are dependent on and determined by each other.
 Second, since everything of the world is matter, the world is always in movement.
Thus, there is nothing like permanent or eternal in this world. Everything of it is
changing, developing or dying out.
 Third, the change that constantly takes place is a qualitative change in the
progressive direction. That is, it implies an onward and upward movement, a
development from the lower to the higher stage.
 Fourth, this progressive development takes place through a struggle of opposites.
Everything of the material world, Marx argues, goes through an internal
contradiction. When the internal contradiction intensifies, it forces a violent break
that brought a radical and qualitative change.
Self-Instructional
Material 117

NOTES This philosophy of dialectical materialism served as the perspective of all the
ideas of Marx.
 In the first place, it established that the Marxian system recognizes no vague
and empty ideas. Marx was only interested in matter and nothing beyond it.
 Second, this materialism took Marx to the point where he took nothing as
permanent and unchangeable.
 Third, this change was not mechanical for it did not wait for any blow given
by an external force. It was natural in that it lay in the very nature of matter,
as motion is the distinctive attribute of matter.
 Fourth, this change was not just a change in form; it was substantive and
qualitative change that followed from the internal contradiction of matter.
7.4 BASE-SUPERSTRUCTURE AND ECONOMIC

DETERMINISM
Marx views history as a continuously changing process with its different phases so
integrally related to each other that it presents a definitive pattern of history which has
been operating in accordance with laws which may be known empirically and hence
scientifically. He argues that the essence of material activity of man consists in meeting
material needs of food, drink, clothing and shelter. In the other words, whatever man
does depend on his necessity to secure the means of life. The mode of production
alone represents these conditions. For actually men may procure the means of living
by producing things by joining others and by making an exchange of things produced.
Production is essentially a social activity, that is, production is always social. Analysis
of social aspect, made mode of production to have two components which are Relations
of Production and Means of Production. To produce what is required there are various
Means of production like land, building, raw materials, tools and machines, etc.
However, production actually takes place when these means of production are used
by knowledgeable, skilled and experienced people. These men together with the means
Self-Instructional
118 Material

Karl Marx (1818-1883)
of production which they put work represent what Marx calls forces of production. NOTES
Further, as production is social, as it involves a group of people, the latter while engaged
in production naturally develop simple human relations among themselves. However,
depending on the nature of the mode of production, these simple relations transform
into complex relations which develop against the backdrop of people engaged in
production are related to the means of production. In the Marxian parlance, these are
relations of production. If those producing had any right to ownership of the means of
production, simple relation would persist and there would have been no problem.
However, in all societies, except the primitive society, where the forces of production
were much undeveloped and where accordingly a whole tribe was collectively engaged
in finding out the means to meet their basic needs, ownership of the production rests
few people controlling production and the actual producing class are totally denied
any ownership. These property relations, Marx points out, are not deliberately created.
These are actually determined there by the pattern of development of the forces of
production.
Thus, according to Marx, to correctly comprehend a society’s character its
mode of production that truly explains the nature of the social-economic, its intellectual
and political processes is vital . For Marx, the most vital component among these
were the economic factors, as it formed the base. Everything else was part of the
superstructure. This superstructure included aspects like culture, religion, philosophy,
the state. Law, government and all other social or political institutions were shaped in
accordance to the prevalent base. It was the economic base that conditioned and
determined the superstructure and whenever there was a systematic change or
transformation in the economic base, it corresponded a change in the consciousness
that led to transformation in all other aspects attached to the superstructure. According
to Marx, social change was necessarily an outcome of a change in the economic mode
of production which was forced by an antagonism between the Relations of Production
and the Forces of Production. As the Forces of Production consistently developed at
a higher pace than the Relations of Production owing to the developments in the science
and technology, after reaching a certain level of maturity, it forced a change in the
Relations of Productions, which was therefore responsible for social revolution resulting
in drastic social change.
Self-Instructional
Material 119

NOTES
7.5 HISTORICAL MATERIALISM
Historical Materialism was presented by Marx as the materialistic understanding of

progress in history and was first introduced in Chapter I of German Ideology which
was co-authored by Marx and Engels. It was further discussed briefly but compactly
in Marx’s Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. It can
be argued that his historical materialism was simply application of dialectical materialism
to analyze the progress of history. Based on his materialist analysis Marx underlined
five stages of economic development in human history. Four of these – the Primitive
Communism, Slavery, Feudalism, and Capitalism were already known to history, and
he identified that in future Capitalism would be converted to Communism.
Marx points that at the earliest dawn of history there was a society which he
calls a Primitive Communist Society. It is so called because in this society the means of
production were held in common, and accordingly, there were no property relations
and hence no classes and no exploitation. However, with the invention of metal tools
and resultant changes in productive activities, that is, with development of the Forces
of Production, the division of labour cropped up and naturally with it the property
relations. This brought into being slave society where the master class, were owners of
the means or production, and the exclusion of slaves subjected to exploitation. Indeed,
the labouring slave divorced from ownership of the means of production, were severely
exploited by the slave owning class who, though a minority, appropriated most of the
social product.
Eventually, with changes in the force of production, the production activity
changed to the agriculture that required initiative and interest on the part of those who
would produce. This led to breakdown of slavery and emergence of the feudal society.
The latter was more progressive than the slave society for in this society feudal lords,
owing the means of production were of course exploiters, but they were no masters
over the serfs.The laboring class was free and the feudal lords had no right over them
. Further, the serfs, unlike the slaves, have some of the meaning of production in their
possession. Nevertheless, the feudal society was an exploitative society. The serfs
were bound to give their feudal master a substantial portion of yield from the land and
also provide services whenever called for.
Self-Instructional
120 Material

Karl Marx (1818-1883)
With further development of the Forces of Production, feudal society NOTES

disintegrated, and gradually the Capitalist society evolved on its ruins. In this society
the Capitalist class or bourgeoisie owned the means of production, but not the labouring
class who were the actual producers. They were rather compelled to sell their labour
against wages that were only sufficient for subsistence and and made the laboures
victims of exploitation by the Capitalist class.
This Capitalist social system though far advanced than the feudal system, Marx
argues, is however not permanent. Like all the past social systems it is also liable to
change. This change, according to Marx, is inevitable for the root of this change lies in
the internal contradiction as well as irreconcilable contradiction within Capitalism.
According to Marx, this contradiction develops in the following manner. As Capitalism
developed, it is forced by circumstances to expand the area of collective effort and
labour by establishing larger mills and factories and by employing millions of workers
in them. Forces of production are more and more socialized. But to maintain balance
and avoid contradiction socialization of the means of production to match socialization
of productive forces is required. But this does not happen in Capitalism as because
means of production are privately owned and there is no change in the relations of
production by virtue of socialization there is a great change in the forces of production.
It is, thus, that there grows an irreconcilable contradiction in Capitalist production.
When this contradiction intensifies any further growth of Capitalism is not possible
without a significant change in the corresponding relations of production and that change,
needless to say, helps in socializing the means of production. A new social system is
bound to come and socialism represents that new social system where means of
production are fully socialized. However, socialism is only a transitional phase. With
the control of political power, the proletariat are expected to work for creation of a
Communist society. For this, Marx argued that the transformational phase had to be
Dictatorship of Proletariat, where for the first time in history it is the rule by the majority.
The function of the state in this phase is to dismantle the sites of exploitation and
develop the conditions for creation of a classless society. When the ownership of
means of production has been socialized and the roots of Capitalism done away with
by destruction of the institution of private property, the role of state will be over. As a
result, state would wither away and a new mode of production based on common
ownership of means of production in the form of communism would develop. This
stage is free from contradictions as it is a classless society and the roots of exploitation Self-Instructional
Material 121

NOTES have been dismantled. It in a way represents the highest form of progress of human
society- a form of perfection achieved through the unilinear movement of history through
different stages.
7.6 ALIENATION
Marx’s understanding about alienation was influenced by Hegel and Feuerbach. In his
Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts, he mentions four different forms of alienation
that labour experience in the Capitalist system. These included a) Alienation from the
product of work; b) Alienation from the work itself; c) Alienation from one’s fellow
beings; and d) Alienation from human species itself. According to Marx, estrangement
or alienation led to loss of human freedom as it prevented them from engaging in
genuine human activities by impacting their consciousness.
 Alienation from Product of Work: In Capitalism, the workers do not own or
control the products of his own labour. The commodity produced by labour
sets itself against him. The bourgeoisie owns the means of production and also
the product produced, and in return, the labour receives bare minimum that can
take care of his subsistence. Thus, in a way it was the product or the commodity
that controlled the life of the labour.
 Alienation from the Work: Marx claims that alienation from product is an
extension of the worker’s alienation from the productive activity itself. The
worker, who had sold his labour in return of wage, had no control over the
production process and is forced to follow the instructions of the Capitalist. He
is only reduced to a wage-slave and has no control over the work he performs.
 Alienation from Fellow Beings: The Capitalist system produces hostility between
the workers and the unemployed eligible workers and they look at each other
as competitors. At the same time, there is performance-based competition inside
the factories which creates alienation among co-workers who are consistently
competing among themselves. Similarly, in the organizational setup labourer
views managers and others as alien forces profiting from his work. So, in a way,
social relations are completely destroyed in Capitalism.
Self-Instructional
122 Material

Karl Marx (1818-1883)
 Alienation from Human Species: The Proletariat also gradually gets alienated NOTES
from man’s own being. They are not creative, which according to Marx is most
essential element of what it meant to be a human. In fact, their creativity is
compromised as they perform the same monotonous work every day for which
wages are paid and controlled by the bourgeoisie. According to Marx, the
Capitalist is equally alienated in the process as he is not involved in any productive
work and is truly a victim commodity fetishization.
Marx believed that this condition can be dissolved under Communism that would
abolish sites of exploitation in form of control over means of production. Division of
labour under Capitalism would be replaced by a system where individuals could engage
in several types productive and creative activities according to their aptitude and choices.
7.7 THEORY OF SURPLUS VALUE
While analyzing the process of exploitation in Capitalist system, Marx discusses the
idea of expropriation of surplus value. This idea was most prominently discussed in his
magnum opus titled Capital. The inspiration of the theory was derived from David
Ricardo’s and Adam Smith’s ‘Labour Theory of Value’. It argued that value of any
commodity produced is primarily defined by the labour spent by the labourer in the
production process, along with the commodity’s “use-value”. Marx agrees that the
labourer by himself cannot create value and is dependent on the instruments of production
which are primarily owned by the Capitalists. The Capitalists buy the labour of the
workers that is applied to the raw material to produce any commodity. This finished
product than acquired an exchange value as it is ready for sale in the market. However,
the exchange value of the product is much higher than what the labour gets to produce
the commodity. It is this difference between exchange value and the wages paid to the
labourer for producing the good or to say adding value to the good that is reffered as
surplus value. For Marx, it was this aspect of surplus value that explicitly exposed the
exploitation entailed in the process of production within Capitalist system.
To explain it further, in his Capital Marx opined that the labourer produces the
good that belonged to the Capitalists and the product’s value was determined by the
Self-Instructional
Material 123

NOTES Capitalist in form of its price. The value in a way was dependent on the capital involved
in the production process. It had two components: a) constant capital which related
to the primary means of production like raw material, tools, scientific technology,
machinery etc.; and b) variable capital which included the wages to be paid to the
worker, which was the price that the Capitalist paid to purchase labour. Thus, surplus
value basically was the difference between value produced by the labourer, through
the production process, reflected in the price of the commodity and the wages paid to
the worker for his labour. It is considered as variable because it varied during the
production process and was also amenable to fluctuations. Consequent to the payment
of wages, the Capitalist appropriated a large part of the labour of the worker for
which the worker got nothing. It could be measured both in terms of time and money.
For example, if a worker produced a commodity in ten hours of work. The
value he creates as final product, its cost might be much higher, and so effectively the
labour receives wages for only eight hours based on calculation of real value of the
product in market divided by the ten hours put in. This, in real terms his two hours of
work is unpaid and is appropriated by the Capitalist. Moreover, Marx claimed that
the proportion of surplus value will only increase gradually as demand of the commodity
increases and the price increases. However, the labour will be paid the same wages,
so effectively the surplus value keeps surging. Exploitation keeps increasing because
labour is replaceable and there is competition among workers to get job. There are
others ready to do the same job at lower rates and so labour is even ready to work on
basic minimum wages that support their sustenance.
Marx believed that this contradiction reflected the very nature of Capitalist mode
of production. Capitalists consistently wanted to increase surplus value as it ascertained
higher profits, whereas the labour would try to resist it. The position of worker in
Capitalist system is more vulnerable than slaves and serfs in slavery and feudal mode
of production as here the labour enter the process voluntarily through a contract. This
freedom definitely was a myth because of replaceability and competition in labour
market, he was forced to work on the terms of the Capitalist. The only choice that he
had was to choose his exploiter. He could choose to work for one Capitalist rather
than other, but the system prevailed everywhere and there was no escape. If he wished
to survive, he shall have to sell his labour on the owner’s terms .
Self-Instructional
124 Material

Karl Marx (1818-1883)
NOTES
7.8 COMMODITY FETISHISM
The concept of commodity fetishism was developed primarily developed by Marx In

his later writings, to highlight the problems integral to Capitalism. This idea is primarily
present in his text ‘Das Capital’. ‘Fetish’ meant having some form of divine quality.
Marx was an atheist but he uses this expression to communicate a form of development
in Capitalist society where commodity derives a form of divinity. Every commodity
has some use-value and exchange-value. Use-value corresponds to the tangible and
physical qualities of a commodity that makes it useful for us, whereas exchange value
is determined by market. Marx argued that in Capitalism exchange-values completely
overtook use-values. A commodity, no matter how valuable it was or how useful it
was, would not be produced unless it has exchange value, which means unless someone
is ready to purchase it paying a price. Higher the demand in market, higher is the
probability of that object’s production, and vice versa. In our everyday life commodity
fetishism corresponds to the fact that we experience a sense of achievement on
purchasing commodities, many of which we even do not even need.
Marx stressed that every commodity existed in dual state. First was its physical,
tangible state that defined its use value. But at the same time, Marx believed that every
commodity passes through a series of social relations in the process of production.
However, when we purchase a product, we only care about the final product as if it
had some inherent value of its own. We do not care about who produced it or stages
that the commodity passed to reach its final form. This is particularly true about mass
generalized system of production as in Capitalism. The the social bonds and relations
developed during the transformation of a commodity, from raw material to its final
form, are primarily private in nature. They only impacts us in the form of the final
product when we are in market exchanging it with money. The procedure or the humans
involved in process do not matter to us. Therefore, commodity acquires a form of
divinity in two ways. Firstly, the final commodity is seen as something that has its own
value, whereas the truth is that all values are created by some form of labour. Secondly,
the product determines the social relations and bonds. It is not human beings that
determine their engagement or bonding with others, but knowingly or unknowingly it is
now determined by the good produced. In a way, commodity is now determining and
Self-Instructional
defining our social relations. Any impact on future of commodity also alters this set of Material 125

NOTES social relations that produce it. Hence, it appears that the commodity has not only
developed some form of autonomy from their producers but contains some divine
quality that determines and controls social relation and bond in society.
7.9 CLASS AND CLASS STRUGGLE
“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle”- the opening
sentences of the Communist Manifesto reflects the centrality of class in Marx’s political
and social analysis. It is important to note that he did not define class in terms of
income, education, or status as we do in common parlance, but rather referred to it in
terms of ownership of means of production. Marx contended that in all societies , after
the primitive society, the relations of production were marked by a relation between
domination and subordination. In all the societies that have existed in human history,
the mode of production allowed for emergence of exploiting and exploited classes. As
a result of this division of labour, different groups hold different positions in social
production and are differently related to the means of production. Thus, inevitably
they get the share of social product differently. These class relations, however, are
marked by constant conflict. This is because one class by virtue of their ownership of
the means of production, without giving any labour, lived mostly on the fruits of labour
of the other class that do not have any opportunity to own the means of production.
Hence, the relation between the owning and exploiting class, and those who do not
own anything except their labour and thus are exploited, is obviously antagonistic.
There may also be antagonistic relation between two exploiting classes when their
methods of exploitation clash with each other. Mutually exclusive class interests of the
dominant and the dependent classes form a set of contradictions resulting in continuous
class struggle. Marx believed that once institution of private property is discarded by
proletarian revolution, it would produce a classless society free from the vagaries of
class struggle.
Marx also differentiated between ‘class-in-itself’ and ‘class-for-itself’. The
definition of class as what constitutes class, according to Marx reflects the concept of
a ‘class-in-itself’. The expression ‘class-in-itself’ represented all members belonging
Self-Instructional
to one class that shared similar interests, although at times they might not be aware or
126 Material

Karl Marx (1818-1883)
conscious about it. ‘Class-for-itself’ refers to members of a class who become conscious NOTES
about their identical interests and get united . Ordinarily classes exist as ‘class-in-itself’
where they share similar life worlds and even occasionally come together, but the
consciousness of unity is lacking. Such classes, according to Marx, are devoid of
revolutionary potential as they lack required consciousness about their exploitation
and unity to fight for their interests. Therefore, Marx dismissed possibility of the peasantry
being vanguard of revolution and thought the role shall be taken up by the workers.
Workers, being concentrated in factories, interacted more frequently, and had more
chances of realizing common interests- interests that were antagonistic to those of the
Capitalists. Hence, they became cause of their exploitation. As a result, they had more
potential to develop as a ‘class-for-itself’ and lead the revolution against the Capitalists.
In Communist Manifesto, Marx also suggests it to be the primary role of the Communist
Party to raise the consciousness of the workers and help them unite as a ‘class-for-
itself’.
7.10 STATE
Marx does not view state as a permanent institution. He argued that there was a time
in history when there was no institution like state and after the proletarian revolution, in
the Communist society, it will again lose its importance. He looks at state as essentially
safeguarding the interests of the dominant class. It was a form of coercive agency that
appeared to settle the disputes between classes originating as a result of class struggle.
However, if its performance is analyzed closely, it appears to be explicitly favouring
the dominant class. Marx’s anti-state attitude is not the result of any rash radicalism or
anarchism. He views the state in intimate relation to society that represents economic
relations. According to him, society is the primary factor to which the state is just
subordinate. To safeguard the interest of society, which actually are, the interest of the
economically dominant class, against internal and external attack, the state comes into
being and set itself in action. With his materialist view on life and the world, Marx
naturally refuses to accept the state either as embodying an abstract rationality or as
representing a mystic entity. The state , according to the Marx, is nothing but a public
force organized for social enslavement.
Self-Instructional
Material 127

NOTES Though, according to Marx, the state is always a class state, he admits that in
some extraordinary historical conditions the state, for a brief spell, may assume a role
independent of society and stand above classes. Marx regards it as ‘Bonapartism’
which he elaborately discussed in his The 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte and
The Civil War in France. Bonapartism meant that sometimes there arises in society a
peculiar situation where the contending classes may be in a state of a short-lived
equilibrium, that is, they may be more or less of an equal strength and accordingly
balance each other. In such a situation, the state may temporarily achieve autonomy
(which Poulantzas calls ‘relative autonomy’) and rise above classes. Marx, however,
admits that though the despotic rule of Louis Bonaparte denied political power to the
bourgeoisie, his authoritarianism at this stage led to strengthening of the bourgeois
social order. Further, Marx contends, that even though the Bonapartist state seemed
to have risen above classes, it was not wholly delinked from class interests. I In the
long run it served the interest of the ruling class.
For Marx the state was an oppressive agency that served the ruling class’s
interest in the past and present society. However, in the final stage of socialist
transformation when there would be no classes it would obviously wither away.
Nevertheless, he recognized the state’s significance immediately after revolution when
Dictatorship of the Proletariat would be established. To adduce rationale for this stand,
Marx argued that the proletarian revolution did not instantly remove the vestiges of the
bourgeois order since even after revolution the resistance of the Capitalist class and
the potency of reactionary elements may be strong enough to undo the new social
order. Therefore, the repressive power of the state was still required to remove whatever
remnants of the lingering bourgeois social order.
But Marx made it clear that the state’s role in the Dictatorship of Proletariat was
qualitatively different from what it was in the past societies. The state in Dictatorship of
the Proletariat represented a breakthrough in that tradition because:
 First, the power of the state is wielded by the proletariat who are the majority
of the people.
 Second, in this system the state was not at all independent of society and did
not control the latter. On the contrary, it is completely subordinate to it.
Self-Instructional
128 Material

Karl Marx (1818-1883)
 Third, unlike the Bourgeois state, the state of the Dictatorship of Proletariat NOTES
did not just ensure political freedom of the citizens by granting equally civil
and political rights to them. By developing more and more non-exploitative
production relations, based on increasing social ownership of the means of
production, it ensured freedom by liberating people from social enslavement.
 Fourth, the bourgeois state worked only to perpetuate its own rule as well
as the bourgeois social order. On the other hand, the dictatorship of the
proletariat represented a state that worked for emergence of a classless
society where no state would be required. Hence, the state in Dictatorship
of the Proletariat aimed at preparing its own funeral.
7.11 ANALYSIS OF CAPITALISM
Marx viewed Capitalist mode of production as one of the stages of development in

human history and connected it to historical materialism. He believed that maturity of
contradictions within feudalism forced a transformation giving rise to Capitalism.
Capitalism, unlike its predecessors. It was unique due to two important factors: a) The
presence of wage labour, where the workers voluntarily enter into an agreement to sell
their labour in return of a fixed wage; and b) Private ownership of means of production,
where the means of production was controlled by bourgeoisie class. They not only
controlled the capital, but also owned the commodity produced and appropriated the
value created in the production process.
Marx developed a detailed analysis of Capitalism underlining both its strong
aspects as well as its demerits in the Communist Manifesto. He highlighted three
reasons for Capitalism being so attractive:
 First, the development in science and technology revolutionized the production
process and brought economic progress like never before.
 Second, developments within Capitalism connected the urban centres with
the rural areas. It developed the countryside by linking them to towns. The
production process was revolutionized which also promoted new forms of
urban civilization.
Self-Instructional
Material 129

NOTES  Third, scale of production expanded Capitalism at great scale. It undermined

national boundaries. In search for raw material and markets for finished
products, Capitalists penetrated every area of the world and developed as
a true international and cosmopolitan system.
Demerits of Capitalism
 The Capitalist system primarily developed on exploitation. This was explicit in

the way the bourgeoisie appropriated the surplus value.
 It led to alienation of the worker. As highlighted earlier, Marx indicated at
different types of alienations experienced by the workers, which multiplied the
forms of exploitation experienced by the workers.
 Capitalism also gave birth to free-wage labour. Labourers had no control over
production process or finished commodity. On the other hand, the commodity
controlled the labourer’s fate r. They were paid bare minimum wages to sustain
themselves and their job was consistently under threat.
Marx believed that alienation and exploitation instilled a dynamic transformation
of the Capitalist system. Capitalism had produced two prominent classes: the
bourgeoisie and the proletariat. With growing miseries, exploitation and pauperization
, size of the proletariat shall keep growing. It is also because the very nature of Capitalism
allows for polarization whereby the proletariat keeps growing and the affluent bourgeoisie
gets reduced. As Proletariat grew and their wages reduced, they became more organized.
As the earnings decreased, the petty bourgeoisie also lost their position and had the
option of either joining the working class or lose their autonomy by merger with big
monopolies. The increasing demand for raw materials and markets present an internal
crisis of Capitalism. Therefore, polarization between proletariat and bourgeoisie increase
further where with the proletariats efforts the system can be transformed. It is explicit
that Marx believed Capitalism contained its own seeds of destruction. However, he
was equally sure that the transformation shall not be automatic. It needed human agency
to initiate this transformation and for this the proletariats, according to Marx, were
most ideally suited.
Self-Instructional
130 Material

Karl Marx (1818-1883)
NOTES
7.12 REVOLUTION
According to Marx, it is the class struggles in every society that paves the way for
revolution. Revolution allows the transition from one historical stage to other. When
the forces of production reach a certain level of maturity, they come in contradiction
with the existing relations of production, forcing a change. However, these changes do
not occur by itself. They are ushered by human agency. The aim is to transform relations
of production to make it compatible with the forces of production. Marx, however,
does not explicitly mention whether revolution will be violent in nature. Nevertheless,
in some of his writings he indicates that because the Capitalists would not allow social
change without resistance, he was not particularly averse to violence, if required to
transform the system.
In Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels discuss in details the possibility of
revolution in Capitalist societies. They argued that the main cause would be
overproduction due to ever-improving forces of production due to advancements in
science and technology. Increasing supply would impact economic balance of the
society. Consequently, proletariats would feel the pinch as they would face joblessness
and pay cuts. They would face extreme pauperization and develop consciousness of
‘class-for-itself’. This unity would further be supported by petty-bourgeoisie who
would happily join them because growth of monopolies within Capitalism would also
threaten their survival as they lack sufficient capital to consistently upgrade or challenge
the dominance of big Capitalists. So, Marx argued that development of instruments of
production, that once facilitated the Capitalist system by overhauling the feudal mode
of production, would become its grave-diggers.
Marx also argues that the role of Communist Party would be central in the
process because they be responsible to make proletariats conscious of their exploitation
and unite against Capitalism. They also have the responsibility to prepare and guide
the revolution. After revolution, they also need to establish Dictatorship of Proletariat
and dismantle the sites of exploitations. . The Communist Manifesto ends with a
clarion call for international unity of all the working-class people : “Let the ruling classes
tremble at a communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their
chains. They have a world to win. Working men of all countries unite”.
Self-Instructional
Material 131

NOTES
7.13 DICTATORSHIP OF PROLETARIAT
Dictatorship of Proletariat would be the transitional phase after the revolution by the
proletariat state’s control. It would be the first stage in history where the state will be
under the control of the majority. Marx argued that this stage was important because
the sites of exploitation had to be dismantled. After revolution, there was a threat of
Capitalists retaliating and hence the proletariats had to introduce fundamental structural
changes in society; including transfer of means of production from the Capitalists to
the community. Once the sites of exploitation and oppression are rendered impotent,
the state would lose its utility as an instrument of coercion and hence it shall ‘wither
away’ or die .
7.14 COMMUNIST SOCIETY
Evolution of society from Capitalism to Communism through the Dictatorship of

Proletariat was a commendable unilinear advancement of history. This was the advent
of Communism. It would lead to a classless and stateless society free from
contradictions and antagonisms. There would be no appropriation of private property
as means of production would be communally owned. Production would be aimed at
consumption and not for earning profit. Since there would be no class division, there
would also be no exploitation and all members of the society would be free to realize
and express their creative potential. It would indeed be a state of complete freedom
and would be an egalitarian society with harmonious relations among all.
1. What is Dialectical Materialism? How does Marx use this method in his analysis
of history?
Self-Instructional
132 Material

Karl Marx (1818-1883)
2. Discuss Marx’s understanding of Alienation and its contribution to the Capitalist NOTES
system.
3. Critically analyze Marx’s views about nature of the state in Capitalism.
4. How does Marx analyze the growth and development of Capitalist society and
what according to him are the conditions that determine its overthrowing?
7.16 REFERENCES

P. Bagchi & Company: Calcutta.
Boucher, D. and P. Kelly (eds). 2017. Political Thinkers: From Socrates to the
Present. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bottomore, Tom (ed.) (1991). A Dictionary of Marxist Thought. Oxford: Blackwell
Publishers.
McLellan, David (1976). Karl Marx: His Life and Thought. London: Penguin.
Self-Instructional
Material 133

Notes
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
20CUS01308
WESTERN
POLITICAL
WESTERN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

PHILOSOPHY
ALL UG COURSES EXCEPT B.A. (HONS.) POLITICAL SCIENCE
SEMESTER-IV
GENERIC ELECTIVE (GE) - POLITICAL SCIENCE
FOR LIMITED CIRCULATION ONLY
GENERIC ELECTIVE (GE)
DEPARTMENT OF DISTANCE AND CONTINUING EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF DISTANCE AND CONTINUING EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI UNIVERSITY OF DELHI
20CUS01308

Western Political Philosophy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Western Political Philosophy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WESTERN

WESTERN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

FOR LIMITED CIRCULATION ONLY

GENERIC ELECTIVE (GE)

For Limited Circulation Only

Ist edition: 2024

Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

External Review Committee

Corrections/Modifications/Suggestions proposed by Statutory Body,

Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

1.1 Learning Objectives

LESSON 2 ARISTOTLE (385 BC–322 BC) 23-46

2.1 Learning Objectives

Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

2.5 Theory of the State

UNIT II: RENAISSANCE AND MODERN POLITICAL

3.1 Learning Objectives

Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

3.9 Governance Considerations

LESSON 4 THOMAS HOBBES (1588-1679) 63-78

4.1 Learning Objectives

LESSON 5 JEAN-JACQUES ROUSSEAU 79-94

5.1 Learning Objectives

Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

5.4 On Civil Society

LESSON 6 JOHN STUART MILL (1806-1873) 95-112

6.1 Learning Objectives

LESSON 7 KARL MARX (1818-1883) 113-133

7.1 Learning Objectives

Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

7.3 Dialectical Materialism

Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

LESSON 1 PLATO (429-347 BC)

LESSON 2 ARISTOTLE (385 BC–322 BC)

PLATO (429-347 BC)

1.1 LEARNING OBJECTIVES

Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

Classical political philosophy is a branch of political science that discusses the

1.4 IMPORTANT WORKS

Plato’s methodology is deductive, teleological, and dialectical. In the Deductive method,

Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

Socrates and Plato

Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

1.6 PHILOSOPHER RULER

Why should philosophers rule?

Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

1.7 JUSTICE IN THE STATE AND INDIVIDUAL

Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

Part of soul Virtue Class

Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

Criticisms of Plato’s plan of education

1.9 COMMUNISM OF PROPERTY AND WIVES

Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

Department of Distance & Continuing Education, Campus of Open Learning,

Was Plato forerunner of modern totalitarianism? NOTES