Q.

Popper says "I believe that Plato was led, by his distrust of the common man, and by his ethical collectivism, to
approve of [political] violence." How far do you think Karl Popper was justified in his criticism of Plato? Also critically
analyse the Scheme of Education devised by Plato?

Ans. Professor Popper who has launched the bitterest attack on Plato in his book the open society and its Enemies. Vol 1.
He says that the political programme of Plato’s is totalitarian because it vests ‘the monopoly of things like military virtues
and training ‘in the ruling class and excludes the producing classes completely from any participation in political activities.
Popper regards Plato as a totalitarian because the latter identifies ‘justice with the principles of class rule and class
privilege’; because Plato’s principles that every class should attend to its own business is interpreted to mean’ briefly and
bluntly’ that the state is just if the ruler rules, if the worker works and if the slave serves’.

Justification of Popper’s criticism

• Popper finds further justification for his charge in the fact that by Justice Plato does not mean anything similar to what we
generally understand by the term in current parlance. There is no reference in his theory to anything like

– An equal distribution of the burden of citizenship,

– equal treatment of the citizens before the law provided , of course that

– the laws themselves neither favour nor disfavour individual citizens or groups or classes

– impartiality of courts of justice

– an equal share in the advantage which their membership of the state may offer to the citizen

• Pluto subordinates the individual to the state with the fact that in his scheme the individual has meaning and significance
only in so far as he performs some functions in the state. The members of the upper two classes are not allowed to enjoy
family life; they are denied the pleasures of the senses. They have to give up all their private interests for the sake of the
state. The members of the producing class are denied all political power, but are given the right to enjoy life and earn
wealth. Every member of the state is thus called upon to live for the state and not for him.
• He was no democrat either, he took little note of the producers who always form the great majority of the population in
every state.

Defence of Plato against Popper’s criticism

• Plato does not regard the individual as an isolated unit whose good may be opposed to and independent of the society.
His individual is a part of a whole; his life acquires value and significance only in relation to the whole. The rights which
he can demand and which society should secure to him are those conditions of life which enable him to discharge his
function as a part of the whole and contribute to its welfare. The only right in which Plato is interested is the right which
enables one to perform one’s duties; it covers all other rights. This conception does not destroy the individuality of the
individual; on the contrary, it deepens it.

• For Plato justice and injustice are conditions of states of human psyche expressing themselves in the corresponding
conditions of the psyche of the society. Very naturally therefore an enquiry into the just life of the individual becomes an
enquiry into order and disorder in society. Since disorder in society can destroy the human soul, nothing can be objects of
greater concern for the individual, than to see that the polis or state is ruled by the men with well-ordered souls.

• The rulers are not united together by the pursuit of any common interest-economic, dynastic or personal. There are no
class interests which they are expected to promote; their only concern is the welfare of the polis. Far from enjoying any
privileges, they are denied what the common man cherishes the most-the pleasures of the family and amassing wealth.
Whatever else the rule of the philosopher’s kin may be it is certainly not rule by a privileged class.

• In the last place, we may point out that in as much as the fundamental purpose of Plato was to delineate an ideal state in
which the individual could fulfil himself in the highest sense of the term, he could not think of subordinating the individual
of the state ; this runs counter to his purpose. It should be always borne in mind that for Plato the state is not in end in
itself; it exists for the perfection of the individual. Its purpose is the production of noble characters, According to Plato the
worth of a state should be measured by the type of character it produces in its citizens; by the virtue of its rulers, the
courage of its warriors and the temperance of its producers and not by its size, wealth or army.
Critical Analysis of his Education Scheme
It is based upon the principle of ‘equal opportunity for all’. The girls are also entitled to get the education so that they may
also employ their capabilities in the service of the society. The education aims at all round development of human
personality and the education is imparted in stages according to the worth and age of the individual. It includes both
theoretical and practical knowledge. It is a curious mixture of platonic idealism and realism based upon the necessities of
real life.

Defects
• Plato’s system of education is mainly meant for administrators and rulers.
• His aim is to produce an ideal philosopher and not a man of action. His guardians are subjected to a life of military
monasticism.

• He extends the period of thirty five years which becomes very expensive and hazardous. After passing through such a
long process of education it will be difficult for the guardians to maintain their efficiency as desired by Plato.

• The government of Plato’s ideal state must be aristocratic in nature. The modern democrat does not accept the Platonic
conception that the function of government should be entrusted exclusively to a small class distinguished from the others
by superiority in virtue; he does not concede that that government is a whole time job and demands abilities of a peculiar
kind which belong to a particular social class. He therefore rejects the whole theory of philosopher kings as issuing in
totalitarianism. According to Popper, Plato’s philosopher king is placed as high above the common man as to become god
like if not divine.

• Plato assumes that philosopher’s natures can be found only among the ranks of the gentry and not among the peasants
and artisans. This is why he excluded the class of producers of wealth which is the largest in the state from the scheme of
education. But it is not doubt true that he admits that sometimes a man of guardian class nature may be born of parents of
producer class but there is no way of discovering such men and shifting them from the rest belonging to the producing
class.

Q."The main foundations of every state, new states as well as ancient or composite ones, are good laws and good arms
you cannot have good laws without good arms, and where there are good arms, good laws inevitably follow."-
Machiavelli. Explain the rationale behind this statement in context of his thoughts on state craft.

Ans. Machiavelli’s statecraft is notable because it provides unique guidelines on the art of government; it is controversial
because it is supposed to promote unscrupulous ways of governance, and vindicate certain immoral principles.
• It is important to note that Machiavelli thinks of a statesman not only as a person who builds a state and manages its
affairs, but also one who creates laws and government that determine the national character of the people.

• He will apply his political genius to create a military power strong enough to build a nation state through unification of
disorderly little cities and to infuse new public spirit and civic loyalty into the people.

• He despised half way measures in politics which betray a ruler’s weakness rather than his conscientious behaviour. He
goes on to suggest that even cruelty should be done with a firm had, for half-hearted cruelty will bounce back on the ruler.
He asserts In the Prince: Men should be rather treated generously or crushed, because they take revenge for slight
injuriesfor heavy ones they cannot.

• He did not believe in the essential goodness of human nature, he held that all men are wicked and essentially selfish.
Selfishness and egoism are the chief motive forces of human conduct. • Fear is the one motivating and dominating element
in life, which is mightier than love, and the effective motive in him is desire for security because human nature moreover
is, aggressive and acquisitive. Powerful military and ruthless suppression of those who disobey the authority of state
therefore become compulsory for maintaining the stability of the state.

• Men aim to keep what they already have and desire to acquire more and there are no limits to human desires, and all
being the same there being a natural scarcity of things there is everlasting competition and strife. Security is only possible
when the ruler is strong.
• A 'Prince', therefore, ought to personify fear. A Prince who is feared knows how to stand in relation to his subjects and
aims at the security of their life and property. Men always commit error of not knowing when to limit their hopes,
therefore, the only way to remedy this evil is to hold the opposing interests in maintaining equilibrium between them in
order to remain and maintain a healthy and stable society. A state backed by a strong national army and swift and brutal
punishment mechanism instils fear among masses and eliminates any possibility for internal rebellion.
• These basic elements of human nature which are responsible to make him ungrateful, fickle, deceitful and cowardly
along with their evil effects were most prominent in Italy during Machiavelli's time. The corruption in all spheres was the
order of the day and all sorts of license and violence, absence of discipline, great inequalities in wealth and power, the
destruction of peace and justice and the growth of disorderly ambitions and dishonesty prevailed. The only way to rectify
such a situation was the establishment of absolute monarchy and despotic powers, according to Machiavelli.
• Discipline and obedience can only nurtured among the citizens of the state when it has the power to demonstrate the
consequences of non-compliance to be brutal and very dangerous. Absence of such power will result in futility of laws
irrespective of their worth, concern and utility for public. Fear is the chief proponent of a secure and peaceful society and
where there is fear of punishment, there will be automatic obedience resulting in successful implantation of laws. The laws
can be classified as good only when they are effective else they are mere precepts which can be discarded at will.

Q.Hobbes's argument for an absolute sovereign is novel because he bases the authority of the sovereign on consent.
Explain the role of consent in his account and explain why he believes that consent based on fear of death is morally
binding. Also enumerate the major attributes of Hobbesian Sovereignty.
Ans,, Role of consent
For Hobbes political authority is artificial: in the "natural" condition human beings lack government, which is an authority
created by men. It’s almost invariably true that every human being is capable of killing any other. Because adults are
"equal" in this capacity to threaten one another’s lives, Hobbes claims there is no natural source of authority to order their
lives together. (He is strongly opposing arguments that established monarchs have a natural or God-given right to rule over
us.)
Thus, as long as human beings have not successfully arranged some form of government, they live in Hobbes's state of
nature. Unless some effective authority stepped into this state of nature, Hobbes argues the result is doomed to be deeply
awful, nothing less than a state of war. In case of Hobbesian state of nature, any such authority can only come into
existence by mutually and morally binding arrangement among the individuals. It has to be based on mutual consent since
the authority will only come into existence when all agree to and abide it. Unlike other contract theorists, Hobbes bases his
sovereign as the product of the contract based on consent rather than making the sovereign itself a party to the contract.
Hobbes provides a series of powerful arguments that suggest it is extremely unlikely that human beings will live in
security and peaceful cooperation without government based on binding contract among individuals. His most basic
argument is threefold.
• He thinks we will compete, violently compete, to secure the basic necessities of life and perhaps to make other material
gains.
• He argues that we will challenge others and fight out of fear ("diffidence"), so as to ensure our personal safety.
• And he believes that we will seek reputation ("glory"), both for its own sake and for its protective effects (for example,
so that others will be afraid to challenge us).
In Hobbes’s words, "the wickedness of bad men also compels good men to have recourse, for their own protection, to the
virtues of war, which are violence and fraud." (Underlying this most basic argument is an important consideration about
insecurity.)
Hobbes places great weight on contracts (thus some interpreters see Hobbes as heralding a market society dominated by
contractual exchanges). In particular, he often speaks of "covenants," by which he means a contract where one party
performs his part of the bargain later than the other. In the state of nature such agreements aren't going to work. Only the
weakest will have good reason to perform the second part of a covenant, and then only if the stronger party is standing over
them. Yet a huge amount of human cooperation relies on trust, that others will return their part of the bargain over time.
How the fear of death does makes this contract morally binding?
• Hobbes's view the state of nature is quite simple to define. Naturally speaking - that is, outside of civil society – we have
a right to do whatever we think will ensure our selfpreservation. The worst that can happen to us is violent death at the
hands of others. If we have any rights at all, if (as we might put it) nature has given us any rights whatsoever, then the first
is surely this: the right to prevent violent death befalling us.
• But Hobbes says more than this, and it is this point that makes his argument so powerful. We do not just have a right to
ensure our self-preservation: we each have a right to judge what will ensure our self-preservation. And this is where
Hobbes's picture of humankind becomes important. Hobbes has given us good reasons to think that human beings rarely
judge wisely. Yet in the state of nature no one is in a position to successfully define what good judgment is. Because we're
all insecure, because trust is more-or-less absent, there's little chance of our sorting out misunderstandings peacefully, nor
can we rely on some (trusted) third party to decide whose judgment is right. We all have to be judges in our own causes,
and the stakes are very high indeed: life or death.
• He further argues that in the state of nature we each have a right to all things, "even to one another's body’ (Leviathan).
Hobbes is dramatizing his point, but the core is defensible. If I judge that I need such and such - an object, another person's
Labor, another person’s death - to ensure my continued existence, then in the state of nature, there is no agreed authority to
decide whether I'm right or wrong. We can soften suppose that the state of nature would be a much nicer place, if only we
were to picture human beings with some basic moral ideas. But this is naïve: unless people share the same moral ideas, not
just at the level of general principles but also at the level of individual judgment, then the challenge Hobbes poses remains
unsolved: human beings who lack some shared authority are almost certain to fall into dangerous and deadly conflict.
• In the end, though, whatever account of the state of nature and its (a) morality we attribute to Hobbes, we must
remember that it is meant to function as a powerful and decisive threat: if we do not heed Hobbes's teachings and fail to
respect existing political authority, then the natural condition and its horrors of war and death await us.
• Hobbes thinks the state of nature is something we ought to avoid, at any cost accept our own self-preservation there are
two basic ways of interpreting Hobbes here. It might be a counsel of prudence: avoid the state of nature, if you're
concerned to avoid violent death. In this case Hobbes's advice only applies to us (in) if we agree that violent death is what
we should fear most and should therefore avoid; and (ii) if we agree with Hobbes that only an unaccountable sovereign
stands between human beings and the state of nature.

Major attributes of Hobbesian Sovereignty

• Firstly, For Hobbes sovereignty is an undeniable fact of political life; whenever there is civil or political society,
sovereignty must exist.
• In its absence everyone will have the liberty to do as he pleases, and the entire purpose for which the commonwealth is
set up will be lost. Because according to Hobbes, ‘Covenants without the sword, are but words, and of strength to secure a
man at all’.
• Sovereign according to Hobbesian definition essentially lies in the power of determining on the behalf of the entire
community what should be done to maintain peace and order to promote their welfare.
• The second fundamental attribute of sovereignty is its absoluteness. The power of the sovereign is to make laws is not
limited by any human authority, superior or inferior. There is no rival or co-ordinate authority in the commonwealth beside
the sovereign.
• It has ultimate power and unfettered discretion and is the source of the laws and also their sole interpreter; he cannot
therefore be subject to them.
• The laws of nature, according to Hobbes, are not laws in the strict sense of term; they are mere counsels of reason and
have no compulsive force
. • The law of God also does not constitute any check upon him for he is the sole interpreter.
• Individual conscience also cannot be pleaded against him, because law is the public conscience by which man has agreed
to be guided.
• All of the above leads us to third important feature of Sovereignty. In the state of nature there can be no distinction
between right and wrong, just and unjust, moral and immoral and no property rights. These distinctions first come into
existence with the establishment of civil society and the setting up of the sovereign authority. Whatever is in conformity
with the laws made by the sovereign is just and right; whatever is contrary to them is unjust and wrong. Also the sovereign
creates those conditions under which alone moral distinctions acquire significance and importance. Morality can exist only
in a civil society. But since the sovereign is making the distinction between moral and immoral, the sovereign himself is
above any sort of morality.
• The sovereign is also the creator of the property. What people have in the state of nature are mere possessions which
confer no ownership. Legal property rights with their protection by society come into existence only with the establishment
of sovereign authority. Since property is the creation if the sovereign, he can take it away whenever he likes in the interest
of the same. Taxation does not require the consent of the people.
• In the fourth place, it may be said that the sovereign is the source of justice and has the power to make and declare war.
He has supreme command of the militia, and determines what doctrines and opinions are to be permitted and what
disallowed. By making the sovereign the source of justice and describing the judges as lions under the throne, Hobbes
concentrates full executive, legislative and judicial power in the sovereign.
• In the fifth place attention maybe is drawn to the indivisibility, inseparability and incommunicability of sovereignty. The
sovereign authority cannot dissociate itself of any attribute of sovereignty without destroying it, nor can it share its exercise
with the others. The aim of a civil war cannot therefore be to place any restrictions upon its exercise or to share in it; its
aim is to determine who shall possess and exercise it.
Q. Generally believed to be the equivalents of each other, there exist deep differences between Machiavelli and Kautilya
it would be unjust to replace one with another. Discuss.

Ans. Between the range of subjects covered by Machiavelli’s Prince and Kautilya’s Arthashastra one can, no doubt trace
general resemblances, but the two flows from radically different sources and imbibe opposite spirit and ideology. The
prevalent conception about Kautilyan and Machiavellian traits is founded on the monumental error of viewing their
thinking independently of their basic premise and postulates. The typically Indian conception of a synthetic philosophy,
comprising all knowledge on diverse human affairs, stands in contrast with the Italian analytical and materialistic approach
to social and political problems. Machiavelli’s empirical method, founded on historical data, has no equivalent in
Kautilya’s casual references to classical antiquity. Machiavelli’s application of history to point a moral is different from
Kautilya’s dependence on scriptures and conventional wisdom for reinforcing the traditional moral order.
There are some differences of opinion on various issues raised by Kautilya and Machiavelli which are as follows
1. Firstly, The more fundamental difference lies in the objectives of the two sets of policies formulated by them.
Machiavelli was motivated by a burning patriotism to see Italy rise again from the ashes into a modern nation for the
deliverance of the unhappy land from decay. Kautilya, on the contrary, was aspired to ensure the security and stability of
the kingdom so as to achieve Dharma on the globe. Kautilya’s major preoccupation, unlike that of Machiavelli, was to
foster and restore the ethical values of Indian system both in method and in principle.

2. Secondly, Kautilya’s essentially spiritual disposition and Machiavelli’s essentially secular material makeup stand out
against each other. Though both believed and prescribed to the rulers the rules of the game of politics, the use of religion
for political ends, their grounds for doing so, as also their concepts of power and goals, were mutually exclusive.

3. Thirdly, Kautilya also does not wholly subscribe to the view of Machiavelli that man is born badly and has no inherent
virtue in him. That he is a “compound of weakness, folly and knavery, intended by nature to be the dupe of the cunning
and the prey of the despotic”. On the contrary. Kautilya admits that man has altruistic and good qualities alongside some
selfish and bad traits. He thus, does not endorse the view of Machiavelli that man is thoroughly bad and wholly selfish. To
him, a man, apart from being selfish and leaning is altogether rational and is, therefore, advised to follow a code of conduct
on Dharma and to adopt immoral means to deal with cunning.

4. Fourthly, Kautilya stressed that the State was an organism on which depended the happiness of the society and its
individual members. This moral base of the State was repeatedly denied by Machiavelli, for his mission was to free politics
from its slavery to theology and isolating the phenomenon of politics, so as to study them wholly without reference to the
facts of moral existence.

5. Fifthly, There is fundamental difference between the kingship of Kautilya and Machiavelli. As for Machiavelli, he left
the personal and private character of the Prince of his upbringing out of sight, and treated him as the personification of the
State, wherein the private individual is inevitably merged in the politician. On the other hand, Kautilya’s characterization
of the king was by selfcontrol, wisdom, discipline and noble conduct. What is most significant is Kautilya’s priority to
Dharma over Danda. While Machiavelli argues, “it is not necessary for a prince really to have virtues, but it is very
necessary to seem to have them”, Kautilya, King’s departure from moral norms was a temporary expedient for those moral
norms. The king was expected to be a virtuous person in thought, word and deed. If he had to be cruel by necessity, it was
to make virtuous life possible for all.

6. Sixthly, So far as the ultimate objective of the State is concerned, Machiavelli did not think much of the populace, the
welfare of the less privileged did not bother him, as these concerned Kautilya. The majority of citizens to Machiavelli were
content with the security of person and property that the State provided them. He glorified the State and stressed the
overriding claim of the State to the loyalty of the individual. He would not concede that man had any right over and against
the State. Man attained his optimum development through subordinating himself to the society, held Machiavelli, and that
the State provided a political framework essential to the development of mankind. On the other hand, to Kautilya. The
State was subordinated to the society which it did not create, but which it existed to secure. The highest office of the State
is, thus an aggregate of the people whose welfare is an end in itself. Political power is the means to attain such an end.

7. Seventhly, the Kautilyan maxim: Prajaa Sukhe Sukham Rajyah, Prajanam cha Hiteh Hitam (in the welfare and
happiness of the people lies the king’s welfare and happiness), is indicative of his emphasis on the equation of welfare vs.
power. Machiavelli insists that a good ruler is one who achieves the good of the people by fair or foul means; Kautilya
demands that a good ruler should be a good man, besides being a good ruler. Kautilya, therefore, was the spokesman of
Udyaana, the establishment of righteousness on earth, and aspired for Vaarta, enhancement to trade and commerce.

Q. "Before examining how man behaves as a member of society, Hobbes first studies him as an individual". What
features are discovered by Hobbes in his observation of Human nature and its motives?
Ans. Hobbes's view of Human Nature and Motives:
His views about human nature and motives constitute the foundation of his entire political philosophy. In this connection it
may be mentioned that before examining how man behaves as a member of society, Hobbes first studies him as an
individual. In his observation, the following features stand out:
• Men are as much driven by impulses as animals are; the only difference between them is that men have the faculties of
speech and reason which animals' lack. According to Hobbes, man is a machine composed of moving particles like plants
and animals and the universe at large.
• Man is a creature of activity. The achievement of one objective becomes a starting point for a new activity; so the series
goes on till death ensues.
• What a man desires he calls good; what he dislike and wants to avoid he calls evil. Good and evil are thus not absolute;
they have meaning only in reference to the ends of human activity. The ethics of Hobbes is naturalistic, and has no trace of
transcendentalism. In this respect he is more through going than Machiavelli who had some faith in Christian morality.

• Hobbes treats the numerous passions of a man in a masterly way and reduces all of them to the two original and primitive
feelings, desire and aversion. Desire is the feeling produced when a motion set up by an external object heightens the vital
processes going on in the body ; aversion is the feeling produced when such a motion retards the vital processes. Desire for
an object creates love for it; aversion for it produces hatred. The possession of what one loves gives one joy; failure to
possess it or the loss of it is followed by grief. In the same way Hobbes traces other emotions like glory, envy, pity and
humility to the two primitive feelings, desire and aversion.

• The central feature of this derivation is that all of them are ultimately made to refer to the self of man; they are the forms
which egoism or selfishness assumes. Hobbes man is completely self-centered. It is this effort to base all human behavior
on egoism that makes the theory of Hobbes an improvement on that of Machiavelli and gave his system a more scientific
form.

• Hobbes theory must be clearly distinguished from Hedonism. He does not say that good is what pleases us and bad what
causes pain, that we desire nothing but pleasure and the avoidance of pain. The fundamental fact for him is that humans
desire "objects" which will satisfy their wants, and not pleasure by it. He is focusing on the responses by humans to various
stimuli and not in terms of pleasure or pain. If the effect is favorable, the organism wants the stimulus to continue, if it is
unfavourable, organism tries to get rid of it. The rule behind all behaviour is that the living body is set instinctively to
preserve or heighten its vitality.

• This leads to a very important point: it means that the real goal which nature has placed before man is not merely the
satisfaction of momentary desires, but self-preservation. In order to preserve himself an individual must be continuously
engaged in the struggle for existence, there can be no rest or halt for him. Life thus becomes a perpetual and restless desire
for power after power, which ceases only in death. Therefore, the chief characteristic of man is that he seeks power as the
best means to secure future apparent good.

• Hobbes says that an examination of human beings shows that there is no great difference or inequality between them,
that all of them are nearly equal. When all the mental and physical qualities of men are taken into consideration, it would
seem that they have much the same ability to attain their ends. Lack of physical strength is compensated by intellectual
ability and vice versa. From this equality of ability there arises equality of hope in the attainment of their ends,

• Finally, Hobbes says that man is endowed with a faculty of reason by which acquires 'the knowledge of consequences
and dependence by experience of one fact upon another. Such knowledge is generally acquired by experience; it enables
man to calculate the most effective means for attaining the objects of his desire. Such is the nature of the typical man
according to Hobbes. Man is selfish and all his passions refer to his self or ego. Hobbes says "so that in the nature of man
we find it here principle causes of quarrel. First competition, secondly diffidence, thirdly glory."
Q. What arguments counter the accusation that Plato subordinates the individual to the state? Analyse the basic
features of his scheme of justice.
Ans. It has been urged in certain quarters that Plato's theory is totalitarian; it leads to the complete subordination of the
individual to the state; it ends by making the state an end in itself at whose alter the individual is required to sacrifice him.
The members of the third and largest class, namely, the producing class, enjoy no political privileges; they are simply the
cutters of wood and drawers of water for the upper classes. They have to live simply by the appetitive side of their nature;
the spirited and rational elements in them are starved. In the words Wayper, 'they obey the rulers without question so that
the desires of the vulgar may be controlled by the desires and wisdom of the cultivated few'. Crossman also holds that
Plato's philosophy is 'the most savage and most profound attack upon liberal ideas which history can show'. But the most
vehement of all such critics is Professor Popper who has launched the bitterest attack on Plato in his book the open society
and its Enemies. Vol 1. He says that the political programme of Plato's is totalitarian because it vests 'the monopoly of
things like military virtues and training 'in the ruling class and excludes the producing classes completely from any
participation in political activities. Popper regards Plato as a totalitarian because the latter identifies 'justice with the
principles of class rule and class privilege'; because Plato's principles that every class should attend to its own business is
interpreted to mean' briefly and bluntly' that the state is just if the ruler rules, if the worker works and if the slave serves'.
Popper finds further justification for his charge in the fact that by Justice Plato does not mean anything similar to what we
generally understand by the term in current parlance. There is no reference in his theory to anything like
• An equal distribution of the burden of citizenship,
• Equal treatment of the citizens before the law provided, of course that
• The laws themselves neither favour nor disfavour individual citizens or groups or classes
• Impartiality of courts of justice
• An equal share in the advantage which their membership of the state may offer to the citizen

What lends some sort of plausibility to the charge that Pluto subordinates the individual to the state is the fact that in his
scheme the individual has meaning and significance only in so far as he performs some functions in the state. The members
of the upper two classes are not allowed to enjoy family life; they are denied the pleasures of the senses. They have to give
up all their private interests for the sake of the state. The members of the producing class are denied all political power, but
are given the right to enjoy life and earn wealth. Every member of the state is thus called upon to live for the state and not
for him. Liberalism is taking to mean that the individual is an end in him and society is mere means to the development of
his so called personality. Plato was certainly not a liberal like Mill and Kant. He was no democrat either, he took little note
of the producers who always form the great majority of the population in every state.

But at the same time it cannot be meant that Plato is wholly oblivious to the interests of the individual. It signifies only this
that Plato does not regard the individual as an isolated unit whose good may be opposed to and independent of the society.
His individual is a part of a whole; his life acquires value and significance only in relation to the whole. The rights which
he can demand and which society should secure to him are those conditions of life which enable him to discharge his
function as a part of the whole and contribute to its welfare. The only right in which Plato is interested is the right which
enables one to perform one's duties; it covers all other rights. This conception does not destroy the individuality of the
individual; on the contrary, it deepens it.

For Plato justice and injustice are conditions of states of human psyche expressing themselves in the corresponding
conditions of the psyche of the society. Very naturally therefore an enquiry into the just life of the individual becomes an
enquiry into order and disorder in society. Since disorder in society can destroy the human soul, nothing can be objects of
greater concern for the individual, than to see that the polis or state is ruled by the men with well-ordered souls. Just as an
individual the psyche is well ordered and healthy if reason rules and spirit and appetite obey it, similarly in a well ordered
polis philosophers rule and men whose lives are dominated by spirit and appetite accept their guidance.

Popper designates rule by the philosopher's kings as class rule, as rule by a privileged class. But he does not anywhere
explain what makes it a class rule; he does not also describe the privileges enjoyed by them. Obviously, the rulers are not
united together by the pursuit of any common interest-economic, dynastic or personal. There are no class interests which
they are expected to promote; their only concern is the welfare of the polis. Far from enjoying any privileges, they are
denied what the common man cherishes the most-the pleasures of the family and amassing wealth. Whatever else the rule
of the philosopher's kin may be it is certainly not rule by a privileged class.

In the last place, we may point out that in as much as the fundamental purpose of Plato was to delineate an ideal state in
which the individual could fulfil himself in the highest sense of the term, he could not think of subordinating the individual
of the state ; this runs counter to his purpose. We can say that in Plato's ideal state the individual does not lose himself but
binds himself by devoting himself to the state in the same way in which a true devotee of God finds his fulfilment and not
his annihilation in becoming one with the god. It should be always borne in mind that for Plato the state is not in end in
itself; it exists for the perfection of the individual. Its purpose is the production of noble characters, According to Plato the
worth of a state should be measured by the type of character it produces in its citizens; by the virtue of its rulers, the
courage of its warriors and the temperance of its producers and not by its size, wealth or army.

Basic Features of Plato's Scheme of Justice

The real problem before Plato is to examine the true nature of justice and injustice and show the effect of each on the inner
life of an individual. He was required to prove , if he could that justice is inherently so much superior to injustice that it is
preferred for its own sake and not for the sake of the good consequences which flow from it and which may flow from it
even if an individual is not really just but enjoys a reputation for justice. In short, he was asked to prove that justice is its
own reward.

He suggests that it would be easier and more profitable to consider Justice as it is manifested in the state and not as it
exists in the mind of the individual. He holds that justice is the same thing in the state and an individual, but is written in
larger letters in the former and in the smaller letters in the latter. It is therefore more clearly visible in the state than in the
individual. The assumption underlying this procedure is that the consciousness of the state is the consciousness of the
individuals comprising it; its justice is the justice if the citizen, and its courage or wisdom their courage or wisdom. The
State is the individual writ large; the inner principles of the human mind work themselves out in social institutions and are
manifested there in more concrete and visible form; there they can be studied more easily. The minds of the individuals
and the minds of the state are identical; the life of the state is the life of the men composing it. Therefore instead of
analysing the human soul and considering justice there, Plato studies it as it exists in general in the state. But no actual
state would do for the purpose, they are all imperfect; instead of revealing the nature of Justice; their working conceals it.
Therefore what he has to do is to construct an ideal state or a state in idea and observe it grow from beginning with a view
to finding where and how justice enters. He does not describe the origin of the state but is concerned with an analysis of its
nature with a view to discovering the permanent or eternal principles at work in it.

Construction of the Ideal State:

The fundamental postulate which emerges as Plato proceeds with the construction of the State is that it arises out of the
needs of mankind. Every individual has several wants -the more fundamental of which are food, clothing and shelter -but
he cannot satisfy them by his unaided efforts. No individuals is sufficient unto him, he needs the help and cooperation of
his fellow beings for the satisfaction of his needs. There is also the important complementary fact that, while every
individual is sufficient unto himself, he has it in him to give to others what they lack. This is the principle of reciprocity
and lies at the basis of the society. What drives men to organize themselves into society is the need for mutual cooperation
for the satisfaction of common wants. Society is organised on the principle of division of labour. Instead of each person
devoting some of his time to the production of food, a part of to the making of house and the rest to the manufacture of
clothing, it is far better that some should confine themselves to the production of foodstuffs sufficient for meeting the
requirements of all, some to the production of house, and some to the making of clothes. From this analysis of the origin of
society it is clear that according to Plato the bond which first unites men in a state is the bond of mutual economic
dependence; it is neither residence in a common territory nor religion, nor kinship. These factors may emerge later they are
not as fundamental for the origin of society as the fact of mutual economic dependence or the principle of reciprocity.

`At the outset Plato confines himself to the three primary economic wants - food, clothing and shelter. It soon becomes
apparent that in addition to the tillers of the soil , builders and weavers there must be other persons to supply other wants
which around to arise, i.e., carpenters and smiths and other artisans to make and repair agricultural and other instruments.
Traders , merchants , hired labourers and other persons soon make their appearance in the state which would consists of
various groups of persons performing different functions to supply the common need of all. Their needs are at the outset
simple and in the main economic in character. But many will not be satisfied with the simple way of life which alone is
possible in such a community; would like to have fineries and luxuries. The state would swell in size; it would become
luxurious and in the process cease to be self-sufficing also. It would begin to convert the territories of neighbouring states.
Luxury thus brings about war. The possibility of war and the consequent need of protecting the state against foreign
aggression necessitate the introduction of a new class of persons, namely, soldiers and warriors. Since Plato has already
introduced the principle of division of labour or specialization of function in the simple state, it must be adhered to even
more rigidly in the luxurious state. If it is a sound principle to set one group of persons to till their soil, another to
manufacture their shoes, etc., it should be equally proper to entrust the task of defending the state to a specialized group
which must be specially trained for the purpose. It is interesting to note that Plato assigns to the military class the function
of protecting the state against foreign aggression and maintaining internal peace and order; he nowhere recognises
conquest as the end for which the military should be organised. Not only the military class thus becomes necessary a ruling
class whose function it would be to coordinate and control the activities of all other groups as the others are equally
necessary. The function of ruling or guardianship, like all other functions must be performed by individuals who are fitted
for it by natural qualities and specific training. Because the good life of the whole state depends upon the thoroughness and
efficiency with which the guardians perform their duties, their education and training absorbs the attention of Plato, and
almost the whole of the second and third books of the Republic is taken up with its details.

Elements of Human Soul

The construction of the Ideal State as described above is closely linked with a particular view of the nature of the human
soul which Plato seems to have derived from the Pythagoreans. He held that human soul consists of three parts or
elements. Firstly, there is the irrational or appetitive element of desire from which precede hunger, thirst, love and other
appetites. The state as first described consisting of persons connected by the economic bond exhibits the working of this
element only; the other factors contribute nothing to it at this stage. This means that the state at this stage is incomplete; it
does not reflect the whole mind of man. Secondly in the more developed luxurious State which is characterised by the
emergence of the military, the element of spirit makes it appearance, the economic community based on appetite is
changed into a military organization based on spirit. Even then the state remains incomplete; there is no class in it
corresponding to the element of reason in the human soul. This element makes its appearance with the emergence of the
ruling class whose character really determines the character of the state as a whole. 'Appetite may have drawn men
together by an economic nexus, spirit may have added a new military bond, and it is reason that holds men together by
teaching them to understand and through their understanding, to love one another'. In other words, the state can be
considered as complete only when all the elements of the human soul have contributed to its organization. Finally, it is not
merely an economic organization for the satisfaction of the material needs of life, not even a military organization for the
defence of the community, but a rational organization in the sense that it is reason which held men together by enabling
them to understand and love one another. The source of the unity of the state is neither appetite, nor spirit; it is reason. It
should also be borne in mind that according to Plato reason not only enables one to understand but also to love ; affection
is one of the aspects of reason. Reason in its alliance with spirit has caused the soldier to know and to like and therefore, to
protect the citizens whom he guards; but reason in its purity causes the ruler to comprehend and out of his comprehension
to love and serve the state which he governs.

Platonic Classes and justice in the Ideal State

The platonic state consists of three distinct classes, distinguished from each other not by qualifications of birth and wealth,
but by their innate capacities and the specific functions they discharge. They are the producing class, the warrior class and
the ruling class.
The ideal state must exhibit all the virtues of a good community which the ancient Greeks classified under four heads:
wisdom, courage, temperance and justice. These were known as the four cardinal virtues. A state is called wise if the ruling
class displays wisdom in the direction and management of its affairs, it is known as brave if the military class displays
courage both in peace and war, and it would exhibit self-control or temperance if the producing and military classes
recognising the needs of submitting to the control of the ruling class and the ruling class also recognises the need of
supplying wise direction of affairs. In short, the state will be temperate or self-controlled if there is harmony among the
different groups or classes born of devotion to the same end in all. And justice is nothing but the principle that each man
should pursue that one function for which he is best fitted by nature. It is that quality in an agent in virtue of which it does
its particular work well. It appeared at an early stage in the construction of the ideal state that if the various economic
groups or producing classes perform the tasks assigned to them regardless of what others do, and the military class devotes
itself in a spirit of selfless service to the task of providing protection to the community under the supervision; and control
of the guardians and the guardians themselves maintain right relation between the several elements and do not allow
anyone to interfere with the work of another and themselves carry on their activities in the light of the knowledge of the
Good, perfect Justice will be realised in the State. Under such a condition each one will get his due; each one will confine
him to the performance of the duties imposed on him by the state in life. Justice is thus the principle that each person
should limit himself to the function for which he is best fitted by nature and nurture; it is the principle of specialization and
individual concentration of duty. It leads to specialization in so far as it demands concentration on one's appointed function
or duty; it means no interference so far no element in society is allowed to usurp the functions of another. A society in
which every individual (and every class) confines himself to the disinterested performance of his duty must necessarily be
internally balanced and harmonious. Obviously, Plato's theory presupposes that there is nothing radically anti-social or
unsocial in a well-bred individual which might result in disharmony. It also implies that there is no conflict or opposition
between the interests of an individual and those of the society and therefore there can be no conflict between the duty and
inclination. If ever there occurs a clash between duty and inclination, it must be due to either faulty education or to social
mal-adjustment. It should, therefore, be removable by proper education and better adjustment of social relations. Force or
suppression is no remedy for it.

What has been described above is Social justice or justice in State. The problem posed before Plato was however, Personal
justice or justice in the individual. Plato holds that the principle of justice remains the same whether it is manifested on the
social plan or in the individual. This means that a just man should so order his life that appetite and spirit should subject to
and obey reason. The former are not to be starved or annihilated; they are to be subordinated and controlled by the highest
element in man, namely, reason. There would be harmony and internal balance in his life, and he would attain the highest
excellence or goodness of which human nature is capable; he would become self-consistent and good and happy. The just
man would devote himself to that particular function for which he is best suited by nature and would attain internal
harmony.

Finally, it should be noted that Plato does not use the term justice in the juristic or legal sense as we do. It involves no
reference at all to the rights of individuals and to their maintenance through law courts. It has nothing to do with the
preservation of public peace and order. For Plato, justice is a social virtue; it is a principle which governs the relations
between groups. It deals with the ways in which a whole community may attain goodness; it is the theory of the manner in
which a society is to live if it were to attain happiness. It is the final answer of Plato to the Sophists who reached the
doctrine of individualism in life and theory. It shows that the individual is not an isolated self but a part of a whole and
cannot pursue his happiness apart from that whole.

Q. Locke as an individualist out and out

Ans . According to M. Seligar (the liberal politics of John Locke), “John Locke was the first political philosopher to
elaborate modern liberalism and individualism as a comprehensive and influential system of thought”. The Reasons why
Locke is considered an individualist out and out are as follows:
• He believed that man is by nature a rational being.
• He recognized that human reason was superior to the knowledge of history
• He recognized the natural rights of man
• He treated private property as the epitome of individual rights consecrated by the law of nature
• He conceived ‘contract’ as the judicial basis of the state
• He regarded civil society as an artificial contrivance invented for the convenience of man
• In his view, political authority was not indivisible, and he recognized the right to resistance against the established
political authority

In his First treatise of Civil Government Locke sought to refute the particular version of theory of divine right of kings,
propounded by Robert Filmer and in his Second Treatise of Civil Government, he postulated that by nature human beings
are equal and therefore nothing can put anyone under the authority of anybody else except by his own consent.

C. B. Macpherson in The political theory of Possessive Individualism has termed Locke’s view regarding the right to
property as a typical expressing of the idea of ‘possessive individualism’. The individual is the natural proprietor of his
own capacities, owing nothing to society for them. Accordingly society is seen as a lot of free and equal individuals related
to each other through their possessions and not as those held by reciprocal rights or duties. Finally according to Locke
Political society is seen as a rational choice for the protection of property of individuals where life and liberty are also
reduced to their possessions.

Q. Platonic classes and justice in the ideal state.

Ans • The platonic state consists of three distinct classes, distinguished from each other not by qualifications of birth and
wealth, but by their innate capacities and the specific functions they discharge. They are the producing class, the warrior
class and the ruling class.

• The ideal state must exhibit all the virtues of a good community which the ancient Greeks classified under four heads:
wisdom, courage, temperance and justice. These were known as the four cardinal virtues. A state is called wise if the ruling
class displays wisdom in the direction and management of its affairs, it is known as brave if the military class displays
courage both in peace and war, and it would exhibit self-control or temperance if the producing and military classes
recognising the needs of submitting to the control of the ruling class and the ruling class also recognises the need of
supplying wise direction of affairs.

• In short, the state will be temperate or self-controlled if there is harmony among the different groups or classes born of
devotion to the same end in all. And justice is nothing but the principle that each man should pursue that one function for
which he is best fitted by nature.

• It is that quality in an agent in virtue of which it does its particular work well. It appeared at an early stage in the
construction of the ideal state that if the various economic groups or producing classes perform the tasks assigned to them
regardless of what others do, and the military class devotes itself in a spirit of selfless service to the task of providing
protection to the community under the supervision; and control of the guardians and the guardians themselves maintain
right relation between the several elements and do not allow anyone to interfere with the work of another and themselves
carry on their activities in the light of the knowledge of the Good, perfect Justice will be realised in the State.

• Under such a condition each one will get his due; each one will confine him to the performance of the duties imposed on
him by the state in life. Justice is thus the principle that each person should limit himself to the function for which he is
best fitted by nature and nurture; it is the principle of specialization and individual concentration of duty. It leads to
specialization in so far as it demands concentration on one’s appointed function or duty; it means no interference so far no
element in society is allowed to usurp the functions of another.

• A society in which every individual (and every class) confines himself to the disinterested performance of his duty must
necessarily be internally balanced and harmonious. Obviously, Plato’s theory presupposes that there is nothing radically
anti-social or unsocial in a wellbred individual which might result in disharmony. It also implies that there is no conflict or
opposition between the interests of an individual and those of the society and therefore there can be no conflict between the
duty and inclination.

• If ever there occurs a clash between duty and inclination, it must be due to either faulty education or to social mal-
adjustment. It should, therefore, be removable by proper education and better adjustment of social relations. Force or
suppression is no remedy for it.

• What has been described above is Social justice or justice in State. The problem posed before Plato was however,
Personal justice or justice in the individual. Plato holds that the principle of justice remains the same whether it is
manifested on the social plan or in the individual. This means that a just man should so order his life that appetite and spirit
should subject to and obey reason.

• The former are not to be starved or annihilated; they are to be subordinated and controlled by the highest element in man,
namely, reason. There would be harmony and internal balance in his life, and he would attain the highest excellence or
goodness of which human nature is capable; he would become self-consistent and good and happy. The just man would
devote himself to that particular function for which he is best suited by nature and would attain internal harmony.

• Finally, it should be noted that Plato does not use the term justice in the juristic or legal sense as we do. It involves no
reference at all to the rights of individuals and to their maintenance through law courts. It has nothing to do with the
preservation of public peace and order.

• For Plato, justice is a social virtue; it is a principle which governs the relations between groups. It deals with the ways in
which a whole community may attain goodness; it is the theory of the manner in which a society is to live if it were to
attain happiness. It is the final answer of Plato to the Sophists who reached the doctrine of individualism in life and theory.
It shows that the individual is not an isolated self but a part of a whole and cannot pursue his happiness apart from that
whole.
Q. Hobbes's argument for an absolute sovereign is novel because he bases the authority of the sovereign on consent.
Explain the role of consent in his account and explain why he believes that consent based on fear of death is morally
binding. Also enumerate the major attributes of Hobbesian Sovereignty.
Ans Role of consent
For Hobbes political authority is artificial: in the “natural” condition human beings lack government, which is an authority
created by men. It’s almost invariably true that every human being is capable of killing any other. Because adults are
“equal” in this capacity to threaten one another’s lives, Hobbes claims there is no natural source of authority to order their
lives together. (He is strongly opposing arguments that established monarchs have a natural or God-given right to rule over
us.)

Thus, as long as human beings have not successfully arranged some form of government, they live in Hobbes’s state of
nature. Unless some effective authority stepped into this state of nature, Hobbes argues the result is doomed to be deeply
awful, nothing less than a state of war. In case of Hobbesian state of nature, any such authority can only come into
existence by mutually and morally binding arrangement among the individuals. It has to be based on mutual consent since
the authority will only come into existence when all agree to and abide it. Unlike other contract theorists, Hobbes bases his
sovereign as the product of the contract based on consent rather than making the sovereign itself a party to the contract.

Hobbes provides a series of powerful arguments that suggest it is extremely unlikely that human beings will live in security
and peaceful cooperation without government based on binding contract among individuals. His most basic argument is
threefold.
• He thinks we will compete, violently compete, to secure the basic necessities of life and perhaps to make other material
gains.
• He argues that we will challenge others and fight out of fear (“diffidence”), so as to ensure our personal safety.
• And he believes that we will seek reputation (“glory”), both for its own sake and for its protective effects (for example,
so that others will be afraid to challenge us).

In Hobbes’s words, “the wickedness of bad men also compels good men to have recourse, for their own protection, to the
virtues of war, which are violence and fraud.” (Underlying this most basic argument is an important consideration about
insecurity.)

Hobbes places great weight on contracts (thus some interpreters see Hobbes as heralding a market society dominated by
contractual exchanges). In particular, he often speaks of “covenants,” by which he means a contract where one party
performs his part of the bargain later than the other. In the state of nature such agreements aren’t going to work. Only the
weakest will have good reason to perform the second part of a covenant, and then only if the stronger party is standing over
them. Yet a huge amount of human cooperation relies on trust, that others will return their part of the bargain over time.

How the fear of death does makes this contract morally binding?

• Hobbes’s view the state of nature is quite simple to define. Naturally speaking - that is, outside of civil society – we have
a right to do whatever we think will ensure our selfpreservation. The worst that can happen to us is violent death at the
hands of others. If we have any rights at all, if (as we might put it) nature has given us any rights whatsoever, then the first
is surely this: the right to prevent violent death befalling us.

• But Hobbes says more than this, and it is this point that makes his argument so powerful. We do not just have a right to
ensure our self-preservation: we each have a right to judge what will ensure our self-preservation. And this is where
Hobbes’s picture of humankind becomes important. Hobbes has given us good reasons to think that human beings rarely
judge wisely. Yet in the state of nature no one is in a position to successfully define what good judgment is. Because we’re
all insecure, because trust is more-or-less absent, there’s little chance of our sorting out misunderstandings peacefully, nor
can we rely on some (trusted) third party to decide whose judgment is right. We all have to be judges in our own causes,
and the stakes are very high indeed: life or death.

• He further argues that in the state of nature we each have a right to all things, “even to one another’s body’ (Leviathan).
Hobbes is dramatizing his point, but the core is defensible. If I judge that I need such and such - an object, another person’s
Labour, another person’s death - to ensure my continued existence, then in the state of nature, there is no agreed authority
to decide whether I’m right or wrong. We can soften suppose that the state of nature would be a much nicer place, if only
we were to picture human beings with some basic moral ideas. But this is naïve: unless people share the same moral ideas,
not just at the level of general principles but also at the level of individual judgment, then the challenge Hobbes poses
remains unsolved: human beings who lack some shared authority are almost certain to fall into dangerous and deadly
conflict.

• In the end, though, whatever account of the state of nature and its (a) morality we attribute to Hobbes, we must
remember that it is meant to function as a powerful and decisive threat: if we do not heed Hobbes’s teachings and fail to
respect existing political authority, then the natural condition and its horrors of war and death await us.

• Hobbes thinks the state of nature is something we ought to avoid, at any cost accept our own self-preservation there are
two basic ways of interpreting Hobbes here. It might be a counsel of prudence: avoid the state of nature, if you’re
concerned to avoid violent death. In this case Hobbes’s advice only applies to us (in) if we agree that violent death is what
we should fear most and should therefore avoid; and (ii) if we agree with Hobbes that only an unaccountable sovereign
stands between human beings and the state of nature.

Major attributes of Hobbesian Sovereignty

• Firstly, For Hobbes sovereignty is an undeniable fact of political life; whenever there is civil or political society,
sovereignty must exist.

• In its absence everyone will have the liberty to do as he pleases, and the entire purpose for which the commonwealth is
set up will be lost. Because according to Hobbes, ‘Covenants without the sword, are but words, and of strength to secure a
man at all’.

• Sovereign according to Hobbesian definition essentially lies in the power of determining on the behalf of the entire
community what should be done to maintain peace and order to promote their welfare.

• The second fundamental attribute of sovereignty is its absoluteness. The power of the sovereign is to make laws is not
limited by any human authority, superior or inferior. There is no rival or co-ordinate authority in the commonwealth beside
the sovereign.
• It has ultimate power and unfettered discretion and is the source of the laws and also their sole interpreter; he cannot
therefore be subject to them.

• The laws of nature, according to Hobbes, are not laws in the strict sense of term; they are mere counsels of reason and
have no compulsive force.

• The law of God also does not constitute any check upon him for he is the sole interpreter.

• Individual conscience also cannot be pleaded against him, because law is the public conscience by which man has agreed
to be guided.

• All of the above leads us to third important feature of Sovereignty. In the state of nature there can be no distinction
between right and wrong, just and unjust, moral and immoral and no property rights. These distinctions first come into
existence with the establishment of civil society and the setting up of the sovereign authority. Whatever is in conformity
with the laws made by the sovereign is just and right; whatever is contrary to them is unjust and wrong. Also the sovereign
creates those conditions under which alone moral distinctions acquire significance and importance. Morality can exist only
in a civil society. But since the sovereign is making the distinction between moral and immoral, the sovereign himself is
above any sort of morality.
• The sovereign is also the creator of the property. What people have in the state of nature are mere possessions which
confer no ownership. Legal property rights with their protection by society come into existence only with the establishment
of sovereign authority. Since property is the creation if the sovereign, he can take it away whenever he likes in the interest
of the same. Taxation does not require the consent of the people.
• In the fourth place, it may be said that the sovereign is the source of justice and has the power to make and declare war.
He has supreme command of the militia, and determines what doctrines and opinions are to be permitted and what
disallowed. By making the sovereign the source of justice and describing the judges as lions under the throne, Hobbes
concentrates full executive, legislative and judicial power in the sovereign.
• In the fifth place attention maybe is drawn to the indivisibility, inseparability and incommunicability of sovereignty. The
sovereign authority cannot dissociate itself of any attribute of sovereignty without destroying it, nor can it share its exercise
with the others. The aim of a civil war cannot therefore be to place any restrictions upon its exercise or to share in it; its
aim is to determine who shall possess and exercise it.

Q. Comparison of Aristotle and Marx in terms of 'Revolution'.

Ans • Aristotle advanced his theory of revolution in the context of ancient Greek city-states when household- centred
activity was the predominant mode of production. On the other hand, Marx put forward his theory in an advanced stage of
industrial production when conflict between capitalist and workers was brewing up. Aristotle saw revolution as a threat to
political stability and wanted to prevent it for the smooth running of society. On the contrary, Marx saw revolution as a
vehicle for progress and encouraged it to stop the exploitation of the working class.

• According to historical materialism as propounded by Marx and Engels, forces of production develop slowly but at one
stage they become a fetter on the existing relations of production. When their pressure become unbearable, the old
relations of production give way, as an embankment is swept away by flood. This process gives rise to a new set of social
relations. That is how a revolution takes place. Revolution is ‘the indispensable midwife of social change’. Each new
epoch of social history is therefore a product of revolution. The capitalist system was established by a revolutionary
overthrow of the feudal system, as exemplified by the French revolution. But as the capitalist system itself had become a
fetter on the new forces of production, this was bound to be overthrown by the new revolutionary class- the working class
–In a revolution.

• In short, Aristotle as a conservative opposed revolution, but Marx as a radical strongly supported it. Both agreed that
social inequality acted as a spur to revolution. Aristotle wanted to maintain inequality; he only wanted to prevent the
feeling of injustice arising from such a state of affairs. Marx, on the other hand, exhorted the oppressed classes to rise
against this inequality and establish a new social order to put an end to their exploitation.

Q. Aristotle's idea of equality

Ans. The principle of Equality has two main aspects, the first of which is exhibited in the act of “distributing “certain
matters between two or more persons, or “adjusting” these matters to their proper ratios. This is called “distributive
justice”, the principle of which demands that only equals be treated equally and which always is “proportionate Equality,”
that is to say, a form of Justice which allots burdens according to the individual’s ability to shoulder them and accords
support in amounts which vary with the needs of each individual. The other aspect of the principle of Equality is
thesocalled “commutative Justice” which in contradiction to “distributive Justice” ignores the differences in rank and
worthiness of the persons involved, being merely concerned with the proportionate ratio between two “commensurable
goods” such as labour and wage, damage and recovery. The fundamental difference between “distributive Justice” and
“commutative Justice” is to be discovered in the distinction between Equality with regard to the persons involved and
Equality without regard to the person and his rank; between the notion that everyone should have his due according to his
rank and worth and the notion that the same treatment applies to all persons irrespective of their rank or worth. This
obvious dualism in the administration of Justice merely indicates two separate processes in the realization of the principle
of Equality. The choice of the kind of Justice to be applied in each case, in other words, the question whether “distributive
Justice” or “commutative Justice” should govern a case, will be determined, in the last analysis, by the nature of the facts
and circumstances underlying this case.

Q. "Since the ruler is outside the group, he is above the morality to be enforced within group". Discuss the significance
of this statement in context of Machiavelli's thoughts on morality and its relationship with state survival.
Ans. • Prior to Machiavelli almost all the political thinkers had held the opinion that state had an ethical end and that its
aim was to make man happy and good. Machiavelli broke away from this tradition of the past. Machiavelli’s theory of
moral indifference is based on his study of Church in Italy. He levels two main charges on the Church. First, he states that
the Italians have become “irreligious and bad” because of the “evil example of the court of Rome”. The second and more
serious accusation is that of disunity which the Church has caused in the country of the philosopher. He never hesitates to
say that the sole cause of Italian political disunity is the Church. It was but natural that Machiavelli should have no place
for either morality or the religion in his political philosophy.
• Machiavelli said that the state was not a means to an end. It was an end in itself. He ignores the issue of the end of the
state in extra political (ethical, religious, cultural) terms. He assumes that power is an end in itself and he confines his
inquiries into the means that are best suited to acquire, retain, and expand power. The end justified everything.
• Machiavelli is not against the religion itself. He says that the right kind of religion can be of great value in creating
stability in the state. Religion provides a sanction without which oaths may be useless and it may increase loyalty and
unity. Machiavelli’s judgment of religion is strictly utilitarian. He is concerned with “truth” and with the salvation of souls.
A religion is good if it supports the state and contributes to state ends. He is against Christianity which, according to him,
has divided the Italians.

• Machiavelli, therefore, separates ethics from politics. Statecraft, according to him constitutes a value system its own
which is different from that of ethics and religion. What is evil from the viewpoint of morality and religion may, therefore,
be good from the viewpoint of the reason of the state if it serves to acquire, retain or expand power. Machiavelli reduces
good and evil from absolute to relative categories and it depends upon the basic assumption of a system of values whether
a particular action is good or bad. If the basic assumption or objective of conduct is friendship, service, fellowship, justice,
or God, the individual action will be judged good or bad to the extent it agrees with or deviates from such assumption and
goals. If as for the ruler, the basic assumption is power, the decision as to whether a particular action is good or, bad will
depend on the extent to which it furthers the gain retention and growth of power.

• Machiavelli does not deny moral principles. He says that it is most praise-worthy for a prince to be good, nevertheless
one who wishes to maintain his authority must be ready to lay aside his goodness at any moment and in general, to employ
it or not according to the circumstance. Furthermore, a prince must appear all sincerity, all uprightness, all humanity, all
religion, but he must have his mind so disciplined that when it is necessary to save the state he acts regardless of all these.
It follows that Machiavelli makes ethics subservient to politics. He says that c a prudent ruler can turn the course of ethics
to advantage of the state. In his own words “When the safety of our country in absolutely at stake, there needs no question
of what is just or unjust, merciful, glorious or shameful. That course alone is to be taken which may save our country and
maintain independence”.

• It is to be noted that Machiavelli presents a double standard of morality, one for the ruler and another for the ruled. The
first standard is judged by success in increasing his powers for which even cruelty and murder are sanctioned by
Machiavelli. The second standard is judged by the strength which this rulers’ conduct imparts to the social group. “Since
the ruler is outside the group, he is above the morality to be enforced within group”.

• Machiavelli holds that the interests of the state are different from those of the individual. An individual acts for himself
whereas the state acts for all. Hence the same principle of conduct cannot be applied to the individual and the ruler who
administers the state. An individual is bound to keep faith but ruler is not bound to keep faith if it goes against the interests
or integrity of the state. It is always wrong for the individual to tell lies, deceive others or kill another individual. However
it is good and necessary for the ruler to tell lies, deceive others and kill others if the interests of the state so demand.
Despite all this, Machiavelli favour a gentle rule wherever possible and the use of severity only in, moderation.

• It is to be observed that Machiavelli never praises immorality for its own sake. It is sanctioned to gain an end. He never
doubted that moral corruption in a people made good government impossible. What he did was a separation of ethics from
politics. His basic attitude is not the rejection of the corrupt political institutions, religious and moral beliefs. He neither
assumes that there are no values in this world nor does he wish to create a world in which all values would be destroyed.
He is aware that civilization implies some sort of values. His morality, therefore, implies not the denial of moral values in
all situations but the affirmation that, in the specific situation of Statesman, the rules of power have priority over those of
ethics and morality.

• What Machiavelli wants to emphasize is that political as its own morality which must be taken into consideration while
dealing with political issues. It is mainly for this reason that he is called “unmoral or un-religious rather than immoral or
irreligious in his politics”.
Q. Hobbes starts with Individualism and liberalism but ended with totalitarianism.
Ans. • Absolutism and individualism are two significant political ideas which find an important place in Hobbes’s scheme
of things. There is, on the one hand, theory of sovereignty which makes the sovereign of Hobbes in all respects. Hobbes
has been regarded as the first exponent of the theory of the absolute powers of the sovereign. Philosophers like Bodin, who
preceded him, put certain veritable limitations on powers if the sovereign. It was destined for Hobbes to make his
sovereign absolute and limitless, and supreme and unrestrained from all sides. As this concept of sovereignty proved to be
a revolutionary and transformational theory of its times, the people ignored, in its dust and turmoil, that the philosophy of
absolutism of the sovereign was derived from his individualism, which was pure and simple.

• At the same time, it was a controversial theory. His critics failed to analyze that he started with the individual and ended
with the individual. The security of the individual is the pivot around which all his other political philosophy, either before
or after the institutionalization of civil society, is for the individual, of the individual and by the individual. His critics
never penetrated deep into his theory and that was the reason why they got a superficial impression that absolutism is its
core. In reality, though, if one tries to analyze his theory profoundly, it is found that absolutism was only his ally, and
accompaniment, a subservient idea for another of his ideas – individualism. His absolutism derived everything from
individualism.

• From the opinion of the influence that his theory had on subsequent political thought, it is seen that his individualism
was more important than his absolutism. His individualism gave rise to the laissez-faire theory which became a powerful
tool in the hands of thinkers of utilitarianism like Bentham, in the growth of his individualistic doctrines of the twentieth
century, and self-interest of an individual came to be regarded as the predominant motive in the individual’s life. His
absolutism, on the other hand, was forgotten once the dust of the revolution settled down. A wrong impression about him
was that he was an absolutist and nothing else, because he belonged to the Royalist camp.

• Sabine rightly says, “The absolute power of the sovereign – a theory with which Hobbes’s name is generally associated –
was really the necessary complement of his individualism.” • Even a commentator like Vaughn, who is quite critical of
Hobbes otherwise, while talking about his individualism, says, “While Hobbes’s theory of sovereignty resulted in
absolutism, it was nevertheless based on the doctrine that all men are naturally equal, and on the belief in the desirability of
a large measure of individual freedom.” Professor Wayper also says, “The Leviathan is not merely a forceful enunciation
of the doctrine of sovereignty, it is also a powerful statement of the individualism.”

Q. Western political thought mainly contains ideas of political idealism and political realism in this context how far it is
correct to say Plato as father of political Idealism and Aristotle as a father of political Philosophy?
Ans. The onset of western political thought starts with the ideological discourse between Plato and Aristotle regarding the
conception of State. The founding arguments and statements in a comparative perspective by Andrew Hacker provide a
justification for calling Plato as father of political Idealism and Aristotle as a father of political Philosophy:
• They each had ideas of how to improve existing societies during their individual lifetimes. The main focus of Plato is a
perfect society. He creates a blueprint for a utopian society, in his book The Republic, out of his disdain for the tension of
political life. This blueprint was a sketch of a society in which the problems he thought were present in his society would
be eased. Plato sought to cure the afflictions of both human society and human personality. Essentially what Plato wants to
achieve is a perfect society. Aristotle, unlike Plato, is not produce a blueprint for the perfect society, Aristotle suggested, in
his work, The Politics that the society itself should reach for the best possible system that could be attained. Therefore
while the main objective of the former is establishment of an ideal state while the latter prefers sustaining the actual
depending upon the political realities of the prevailing times.

• Plato relied on the deductive approach, while Aristotle is an example of an inductive approach. Utopia is a solution in
abstract, a solution that has no concrete problem. There is no solid evidence that all societies are in need of such drastic
reformation as Plato suggests. Aristotle discovers that the best possible has already been obtained. All that can be done is
to try to improve on the existing one.

• Plato’s utopia consists of three distinct, non-hereditary class systems. The Guardians consist of non-ruling Guardians and
ruling Guardians. The non-rulers are a higher level of civil servants and the ruling is the society’s policy makers.
Auxiliaries are soldiers and minor civil servants. Finally the Workers are composed of farmers and artisans, most
commonly unskilled labourers. The Guardians are to be wise and good rulers. It is important that the rulers who emerge
must be a class of craftsmen who are public-spirited in temperament and skilled in the arts of government areas. The
guardians are to be placed in a position in which they are absolute rulers. They are supposed to be the select few who know
what is best for society. Aristotle disagrees with the idea of one class holding discontinuing political power. The failure to
allow circulation between classes excludes those men who may be ambitious, and wise, but are not in the right class of
society to hold any type of political power. Aristotle looks upon this ruling class system as an ill-conceived political
structure. He quotes “It is a further objection that he deprives his Guardians even of happiness, maintaining that happiness
of the whole state which should be the object of legislation,” ultimately he is saying that Guardians sacrifice their
happiness for power and control. Guardians who lead such a strict life will also think it necessary to impose the same strict
lifestyle on the society it governs.

• Aristotle puts a high value on moderation there is so much of Plato’s utopia that is undefined and it is carried to extremes
that no human being could ever fulfil its requirements. Aristotle believes that Plato is underestimating the qualitative
change in human character and personality that would have to take place in order to achieve his utopia. Plato chose to tell
the reader of his Republic how men would act and what their attitudes would be in a perfect society. Aristotle tries to use
real men in the real world in an experimental fashion to foresee how and in which ways they can be improved.

Q. On what grounds can it be said that Machiavelli is amoral rather than immoral.
Ans. • Prior to Machiavelli almost all the political thinkers had held the opinion that state had an ethical end and that its
aim was to make man happy and good. Machiavelli broke away from this tradition of the past. Machiavelli’s theory of
moral indifference is based on his study of Church in Italy. He levels two main charges on the Church. First, he states that
the Italians have become “irreligious and bad” because of the “evil example of the court of Rome”. The second and more
serious accusation is that of disunity which the Church has caused in the country of the philosopher. He never hesitates to
say that the sole cause of Italian political disunity is the Church. It was but natural that Machiavelli should have no place
for either morality or the religion in his political philosophy.

• Machiavelli said that the state was not a means to an end. It was an end in itself. He ignores the issue of the end of the
state in extra political (ethical, religious, cultural) terms. He assumes that power is an end in itself and he confines his
inquiries into the means that are best suited to acquire, retain, and expand power. The end justified everything.

• Machiavelli is not against the religion itself. He says that the right kind of religion can be of great value in creating
stability in the state. Religion provides a sanction without which oaths may be useless and it may increase loyalty and
unity. Machiavelli’s judgment of religion is strictly utilitarian. He is concerned with “truth” and with the salvation of souls.
A religion is good if it supports the state and contributes to state ends. He is against Christianity which, according to him,
has divided the Italians.

• Machiavelli, therefore, separates ethics from politics. Statecraft, according to him constitutes a value system its own
which is different from that of ethics and religion. What is evil from the viewpoint of morality and religion may, therefore,
be good from the viewpoint of the reason of the state if it serves to acquire, retain or expand power. Machiavelli reduces
good and evil from absolute to relative categories and it depends upon the basic assumption of a system of values whether
a particular action is good or bad. If the basic assumption or objective of conduct is friendship, service, fellowship, justice,
or God, the individual action will be judged good or bad to the extent it agrees with or deviates from such assumption and
goals. If as for the ruler, the basic assumption is power, the decision as to whether a particular action is good or, bad will
depend on the extent to which it furthers the gain retention and growth of power.

• Machiavelli does not deny moral principles. He says that it is most praise-worthy for a prince to be good, nevertheless
one who wishes to maintain his authority must be ready to lay aside his goodness at any moment and in general, to employ
it or not according to the circumstance. Furthermore, a prince must appear all sincerity, all uprightness, all humanity, all
religion, but he must have his mind so disciplined that when it is necessary to save the state he acts regardless of all these.
It follows that Machiavelli makes ethics subservient to politics. He says that a prudent ruler can turn the course of ethics to
advantage of the state. In his own words “When the safety of our country in absolutely at stake, there needs no question of
what is just or unjust, merciful, glorious or shameful. That course alone is to be taken which may save our country and
maintain independence”.

• It is to be noted that Machiavelli presents a double standard of morality, one for the ruler and another for the ruled. The
first standard is judged by success in increasing his powers for which even cruelty and murder are sanctioned by
Machiavelli. The second standard is judged by the strength which this rulers’ conduct imparts to the social group. “Since
the ruler is outside the group, he is above the morality to be enforced within group”.

• Machiavelli holds that the interests of the state are different from those of the individual. An individual acts for himself
whereas the state acts for all. Hence the same principle of conduct cannot be applied to the individual and the ruler who
administers the state. An individual is bound to keep faith but ruler is not bound to keep faith if it goes against the interests
or integrity of the state. It is always wrong for the individual to tell lies, deceive others or kill another individual. However
it is good and necessary for the ruler to tell lies, deceive others and kill others if the interests of the state so demand.
Despite all this, Machiavelli favor a gentle rule wherever possible and the use of severity only in, moderation.

• It is to be observed that Machiavelli never praises immorality for its own sake. It is sanctioned to gain an end. He never
doubted that moral corruption in a people made good government impossible. What he did was a separation of ethics from
politics. His basic attitude is not the rejection of the corrupt political institutions, religious and moral beliefs. He neither
assumes that there are no values in this world nor does he wish to create a world in which all values would be destroyed.
He is aware that civilization implies some sort of values. His morality, therefore, implies not the denial of moral values in
all situations but the affirmation that, in the specific situation of Statesman, the rules of power have priority over those of
ethics and morality.

• What Machiavelli wants to emphasize is that political as its own morality which must be taken into consideration while
dealing with political issues. It is mainly for this reason that he is called “unmoral or un-religious rather than immoral or
irreligious in his politics”.

Q. How is social contract theory of John Locke significantly different from that of Thomas
Hobbes? Illustrate with special emphasis on Locke's social contract. Why is his doctrine
of resistance considered the most important part of his theory?

Ans. Given that the end of “men’s uniting into common-wealth’s” is the preservation of their wealth, and preserving their
lives, liberty, and well-being in general, Locke can easily imagine the conditions under which the compact with
government is destroyed, and men are justified in resisting the authority of a civil government, such as a King. When the
executive power of a government devolves into tyranny, such as by dissolving the legislature and therefore denying the
people the ability to make laws for their own preservation, then the resulting tyrant puts himself into a State of Nature, and
specifically into a state of war with the people, and they then have the same right to selfdefence as they had before making
a compact to establish society in the first place. In other words, the justification of the authority of the executive
component of government is the protection of the people’s property and well-being, so when such protection is no longer
present, or when the king becomes a tyrant and acts against the interests of the people, they have a right, if not an outright
obligation, to resist his authority. The social compact can be dissolved and the process to create political society begun
anew.

According to Locke, right of revolution is appeal to heaven. Locke stated that God has given the right of revolution to
human being against injustice, exploitation he also believed that true remedy of fore without authority is to oppose force to
it. John Plamenatz wrote that his (Locke’s) doctrine of resistance is perhaps the most valuable part of his theory. According
to Laski, Locke formulated not a theory of government, but a theory of revolution. As per Locke, the right of people to
rebel is the best fence against the rebellion.

Because Locke did not envision the State of Nature as grimly as did Hobbes, he can imagine conditions
under which one would be better off rejecting a particular civil government and returning to the
State of Nature, with the aim of constructing a better civil government in its place. It is therefore
both the view of human nature, and the nature of morality itself, which account for the differences
between Hobbes’ and Locke’s views of the social contract.