lOMoARcPSD|20948325

Classical Political Philosophy exam guide

B.A (Hons.) Political Science (University of Delhi)

Studocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])
 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

2021 Edition

EXAM GUIDE CLASSICAL POLITICAL

PHILOSOPHY
BA Hons Semester 5

• Past year’s Question papers

• Chapter wise Key points

• Model Answers to important

Questions

• 3 sets of Sample Question

Papers

• Answer Writing Tips

By the Author of
POL SC HELP

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

FEW WORDS ABOUT THE GUIDE

Dear students…welcome back to the new edition of the CPP Exam Guide !
This guide is intended to be best resource for your semester exams!
What it contains?
• Past three year’s paper (taken from DU)
• Answer templates to past year’s and other important questions
• 3 sets of sample question papers.
• Answer writing tips
What is Answer Template?
• Answer written in a particular way (Intro, Body, Conclusion) as expected
against essay type questions in university exam.
• I have given you a template(format/structure). You may add or delete contents
to make the answer as your own.
How to use the Guide for the best results?
• First, watch the videos on the theme/topic from POL SC HELP- at least 4-5
times, first in normal speed, later on with faster speed and selectively. Final
watching shouldn’t take more than 5 min.
• Second, read the key points on the theme/topic very carefully. In fact, even if
you only remember the key points you can write answers in the exam.
• Third, read the answer templates at least 5 times. Again, the final reading may
not take more than 5-10 minutes.
o I have chosen the questions to cover the entire syllabus.
o Note the key phrases repeated in the answers. You should remember
and reproduce them in your answers.
o Also, note the standard words I have used in the answer. Their easier
meaning/synonyms are given in bracket.
• Fourth, read carefully the sample question papers (3 sets). I have given hints
to those questions, too. Read them carefully.
• Finally, read the answer writing tips; use them in the exam
GOOD WISHES!

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

SECTION 1

Past Year’s
Question Papers
(Taken from DU)

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

A
(This Question Paper contains 2 printed pages)
Name of the Course: B. A. (Hons) Political Science
B. A. (Hons) Political Science
Title of Paper : Classical Political Philosophy
Semester/Annual : V- OBE-December, 2020
Time: 3 Hours Maximum Marks: 75
Note: Answers may be written either in English or Hindi but the same medium
should be followed throughout the paper.
Attempt Any Four questions.
All questions carry equal marks.
1. What are various approaches to the study of Texts in classical political philosophy? Discuss.

2. Describe the salient features of Plato’s scheme of Education. Do you agree with

Rousseau that Plato’s Republic is the finest treatise on Education? Give reasons for your answer.

3. Explain the significance of the Golden Mean in Aristotle’s writings. How is it reflected in his
idea of the best practicable state?

4. Critically examine the principles of statecraft, as expounded by Machiavelli.

5. Discuss Hobbes’s views on the State of Nature. Do they differ from that of Locke? Give reasons.

6. Analyze the notion of consent and theory of resistance in Locke’s political writings.

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

Name of the Course: B. A. (Hons) Political Science

B. A. (Hons) Political Science
Title of Paper : Classical Political Philosophy
Semester/Annual : V- December, 2019
Time: 3 Hours Maximum Marks: 75
Note: Answers may be written either in English or Hindi but the same
medium should be followed throughout the paper.
Attempt Any Four questions.
1. Critically examine the different approaches to the Interpretation of text has enunciated by
Terence ball.

2. Analyse Plato's theory of justice. Is it relevant to contemporary times?

3. Write a comparative essay on Plato's and Aristotle's theory of Form.

4. “man, by nature, is a political animal” elucidate.

5. Discuss Machiavelli ‘s view on Republicanism

6. Explain Hobbes’s theory of state with special reference to his concept of sovereignty.

7. Locke’s theory of property is central to his political philosophy”. Elucidate.

8. Writes Notes on any two of the following:

1. Locke’s Right to dissent

2. Hobbesian Individualism
3. Machiavelli on Virtu and Fortuna
4. Aristotle’s view on slavery.

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

2018 PAPER ON CPP- Sem 5

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

SECTION 2

Chapter Wise
Key Points
and

ANSWERS
Past Year
Questions

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

THEME 1: TEXT AND INTERPRETATION

1.A: CBCS Syllabus

• Challenges of Interpreting the classical texts
• Different methods of textual interpretations
• Pros & Cons of textual interpretations

1.B: KEY POINTS:

• Interpretations of classical texts, such as political thoughts of great political philosophers,

is challenging on many counts.

• Some of the challenges arise because of language and translation issue, passage of time
between writing of the text and its interpretations, difference in contexts in which text was
written and in which it is interpreted, etc. Multiple existing interpretations of the texts also
create an entry barrier for any new but more valid interpretation.

• But the biggest challenge is the ideological ‘lens’ the interpreter is wearing. Objective and
neutral interpretations rarely happen. Textual interpretation is essentially a political action.
Perspective, motive, and bias of interpreter comes on the way of any objective
interpretations of texts.

• Students of political science gets to know about the classic texts through the interpreted
texts or commentary on the original classical text. Hence, they should be aware of the
challenges and biases in textual interpretation.

• Only by triangulation – comparing the text and its two or more interpretations, truer
meanings of the text can be understood.

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

• Different approaches of Textual Interpretation: Marxian, Feminist, Totalitarian,

Psychoanalytic, Postmodernist, Cambridge ‘New History’, and Straussian.

• Marxian Approach: Critically interpreting texts from the lens of class division, mode
of production and resulting class relation and power structure. How the text either
further or resist the interests of the dominant class.
• Feminist Approach: Dissecting texts from gender lens to uncover misogyny and
patriarchal biases in political thoughts and theories.
• Totalitarian Approach: Detect and expose the philosophical ‘origins’ or ‘roots’ of
modern totalitarianism in classical texts.
• Psychoanalytic Approach: Trying to decode the motives of the authors by discovering
psychoanalyst aspects of his/her ‘unconscious’ mind that are not evident on normal
readings of the text.
• Postmodernist Approach: interpreting texts from this perspective reveals texts which
contributed or opposed to the subjugation of subjects by process of normalization. It
also highlights conflicting and indeterminate nature of meaning of linguistic texts
and process of ‘deconstruction’ to interpret the meaning of the text.
• Cambridge ‘New History’ Approach: Interpreting texts by restoring them to their
historical contexts in which it was written and treating texts as political action (‘speech
act’) or solution to political problems of that time.
• Straussian Approach: Value loaded, normative approach in which classical texts are
interpreted by special method of inquiry know only to very few. It attempts to recover
the real motive or intentions of the author for writing those texts.

• Each method or approach has its pros & cons. They present different aspects of the text.
To better understand the text, one need to triangulate (verify by comparison) interpretations
done from different approaches/perspective or wearing different lenses.

10

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

1. C: ANSWER TEMPLATE OF PAST YEAR’S AND OTHER

IMPORTANT QUESTIONS

Q.1: Discuss the challenges of interpreting a text according to Terrence Ball.

Answer Template
Introduction:
Textual interpretations is an important exercise to understand the meaning hidden in the
classic political texts. In fact, interpretation of classic text is a political action to find
solutions to current political problems through the classical texts. Students of political
science and common people get to know the meaning of the classical texts from the
interpretations or commentary of those texts. Hence, it is important to understand the
challenges, issues, and limitations of textual interpretations.
Some of the challenges arise because of language and translation issue, passage of time
between writing of the text and its interpretations, difference in contexts in which text was
written and in which it is interpreted, etc. Multiple existing interpretations of the texts also
create an entry barrier for any new but more valid interpretation. But the biggest challenge
is the ideological ‘lens’ the interpreter is wearing. Objective and neutral interpretations
rarely happen. Textual interpretation is essentially a political action. Perspective, motive,
and bias of interpreter comes on the way of any objective interpretations of texts. Thus,
same text may convey different meanings when interpreted from different approaches.
From a Marxian approach a particular text may seems to further the interest of dominant
class, whereas the same text may promote misogyny and patriarchal biases when
interpreted from feminist approach.
Hence, a reader of political science may have to cross verify from multiple interpretations
to arrive at somewhat truer meaning of the text. This is perhaps the greatest challenge of
textual interpretations. In the next section of the answer I will try to elaborate upon the
challenges mentioned above in textual interpretations.

Challenges of interpreting a text: Following are the main challenges in interpreting classic text
as per Terrence Ball.
• Language/Linguistic challenges
• If language in which text is written is different than the language in which it is
interpreted, loss and distortion in meaning on translation are bound to happen.
• Language are integral part of a culture; similar meaning words have very different
connotations and usage in different cultures.

11

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

• Hence, translation can never give us the essence of what the author actually meant
by a specific word in the text.
• Example: Virtù in Italian vs Virtue in English: Virtù as used in ‘The Prince’ of
Machiavelli meant enterprise, enthusiasm, and special abilities in men in power.
Whereas its English translation is ‘virtue’ which means moral goodness.
• Another example is Sanskrit word ‘Dharma’ written in many Hindu text such as
Manu Smriti; it may mean righteousness, duty, moral obligation, justice, code of
conduct to live virtuous life, etc. But its English translation ‘religion’ convey that
Dharma means institutionalized religion like Christianity, which of course it is not.
Similar is the problem with English word ‘Secularism’ which when translated into
Hindi may mean separation of religion from statecraft/governance; however,
‘secularism’ in Hindu culture may not mean strict separation of ‘Dharma’ from
‘Politics or Dandaniti’. We can cite many such examples of loss & distortion of
meaning in translation.
• Passage of Time
• Philosopher speaks of his time; their texts are like reflection of their time.
• Vast amount of time difference makes extraction of meaning subjective. It is
because meaning and usage of words changes with time even in same culture. For
example, ‘democracy’ is used today for a specific form of Govt, not same as used
in ancient Athens. ‘Fascism’ was not a derogatory word during the inter-war period
in Europe. We can cite several such examples of changing usage & meanings of a
word with time.
• Even culture- food habit, dress, popular form of entertainment, public discourse,
etc- changes with time. The text is rooted in its time and culture. Interpreting them
in different time can never reveal their exact meaning.
• Different Context
• Texts are embedded in the Socio-political and historical contexts of those times.
They are like political action (speech acts) to solve problems in a particular time
and context.
• Interpreting texts is also like political action to solve problems of present time &
context. These problems as well as contexts may be different than what the author
had while writing the text.
• Hence, interpretation out of context may distort the meaning and blur the actual
intention of the author.
• Multiple existing interpretation
• Existing prevailing interpretations may create an entry barrier for any new
interpretation.

12

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

• It happens because prevailing interpretation make the paradigm, a closed

intellectual space, giving specific meaning to the text. The scholars of a specific
time arrive at a consensus that yes, this is what the text mean. When anyone tries
to interpret the text with meaning very different from the prevailing meaning, it is
rejected by the academic circle.
• For example , ‘The Prince’ by Machiavelli. It has been interpreted as depiction of
ruthless, immoral, unethical face of real politic. Thus, the text acquired somewhat
negative connotation. Virtuous rulers are not supposed to follow the advices listed
in the ‘Prince’. Now if someone try to interpret as text of practical politics which
every politician/ruler, even in democracy, should follow, such interpretations may
not be accepted by the academic circle as it is against the paradigm- accepted
meaning and interpretation of the text. Similar has happened with the interpretation
of Manu Smriti. Its new interpretations, say for example, on virtue of ‘Varna
Ashram Dharma’ supported by Manu smriti may face stiff resistance.
Discussion/Analysis:
Challenges mentioned above are natural to come up while interpreting classic texts. we
cannot avoid them. The barrier of language, separation of time, difference in context, etc
are natural to pose challenges in correct interpretation of the text. Interpretation from a
particular perspective or wearing a particular ideological lens, is also natural. This is
because political nature of both the text and its interpretation. The text as well as its
interpretation are like political dialogue and action. And hence, they may have un-intended
consequences. Text in course of time acquire life of its own and maybe used for or have
effect very different from what the author intended while writing the text. For example, we
can take interpretation of Manu Smriti. Since independence the text has been used to
mobilize Dalits and other extremely backward castes against the dominance of higher
castes. Controversial part of Manu Smriti related to lower caste and women are highlighted
in such interpretations. Similarly, the interpretation of Ramayan and Mahabharat has also
been used for political purposes. The concept of Raja Dharma and Rama-Rajya are used as
political messaging.

Thus, we can see that while some of the challenges in textual interpretation are natural and
unavoidable, the bigger challenge is ideological and political. Text and its interpretation
both are like political action intended to solve some political problem. The author, while
writing the text, might have some other problems of his time in his mind while the
interpreter may use the text to solve political problem of his time in a very different context;
here lies the greatest challenge in textual interpretation of classic texts.

13

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

Conclusion:

Interpretation of classical text face many challenges. some of the challenges are language
and translation issues, time difference between writing of the text and its interpretation,
difference in context in which the text was written and interpreted, and existence of
multiple interpretation acting as an entry barrier for new interpretations. But the greatest
challenge is ideological and sometime political motive and intention of the interpreter. If
the interpretation of text is done by wearing a particular ideological lens, such as Marxian,
feminism. Naturally, the text looks coloured, that is they find in text echo of their own
ideology. This inhibit the objective interpretation of the text but it is also bound to happen,
for text as well as its interpretation are like political actions and, hence, they may have un-
intended consequences.

The students and readers of the text should be aware of these challenges of textual
interpretation. Not only they should try to avoid the pitfalls while interpreting the text but
should also be careful in accepting each and every interpretation as truth. They should
understand or rather they should have an insight to detect the ideological lens through
which a particular interpretation has been done. To find truer meaning of the text they
should use the method of triangulation, that is comparing three or more interpretations of
the same text from different perspectives.

Q2: Critically analyze different schools of interpretation of texts as proposed

by Terrence Ball.
Similar question:
Q: Critically evaluate the various approaches to the study of political philosophy.

Answer Template:

Introduction:

Interpretation for finding out the meaning and messages in the classical text is an art and
science. Various method or approaches have been developed to interpret the text in most
meaningful way. We can divide these approaches or methods into two categories. First one
is ideological whereas second category is ideologically neutral methods. Marxian,
Feminist, Postmodernist, Totalitarian etc can be categorized as ideological approaches. The
Cambridge School of new history and Straussian approach maybe called ideologically
neutral approaches, the latter having developed definite procedures to interpret the text.

14

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

We should note that both the text and its interpretation are like political action to provide
solution to some political problem. Different approaches or schools of textual interpretation
are like different ways in which the texts are used to provide solution to the political
problem in a given time and context. For example, Marxian interpretation of text are
intended to solve the problem of class dominance whereas feminist interpretation is to
highlight misogyny and patriarchal biases in the political order. Strictly speaking the
second category I stated as ideologically neutral is not actually fully neutral, they also have
some normative biases which in the next section I will try to explain.

Different Approaches of Textual Interpretation:

1. ‘Marxian’ Approach:

• Critically examining texts from the lens of class division, mode of production and
resulting class relation and power structure.
• View classic texts as ideologies to further the interests of dominant class of those times
• The interpreter try to get behind appearances, to uncover the reality these texts obscure,
and to expose what Marx calls ‘the illusion of that epoch’.
• Example: How Plato excluded producer class from politics in the name of Justice? how
Aristotle advocated for Slavery? how Locke promoted private property to further interests
of capitalist classes?
• Minuses or cons: Over emphasize class identity, undermine other identities such as
gender, pre-set and prejudiced mindset, themselves may be guilty of charges they level to
other authors, that is text as propaganda for a particular class interest.

2. Feminist’ Approach:

• Dissecting texts from gender lens to uncover misogyny and patriarchal biases in
political thoughts and theories.
• Personal vs political debate; Such interpretation highlights how classic text confined
women in ‘personal’ domain by creating a false duality of private vs public.
• They also uncovered misogyny in great classic texts; from feminist perspective, social
contract is a ‘fraternal’ construct’ and welfare state is a patriarchal institution.
• Minuses or cons: One dimensional interpretation- ignore other perspective, interpreting
texts out of their contexts- interpreting from present context, fragmented and differing
approaches.

15

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

3. ‘Totalitarian’ Approach

• Detect and expose the philosophical ‘origins’ or ‘roots’ of modern totalitarianism by

critically examining the old classics such as Plato’s Republic and Rousseau’s social
contract
• Attempt to identify ideologies in texts promoting the concept of society as organic whole,
state as moral & ethical institution prior to individual, and absolutist and despotic rule.
• Example: strict regimentation, censorship and ‘noble lies’ in Plato’s Republic;
Machiavelli’s ruthless prince, Hobbs absolute ruler- Leviathan; Rousseau’s formulation of
General Will and positive freedom- all have totalitarian ideologies
• Minuses or cons: Misinterpreting texts out of their philosophical, socio-cultural contexts,
pre-set and prejudiced mindset, sometimes themselves seems to serve certain interests,
such as excess individualism, capitalism, maintaining existing liberal structure.

4. Psychoanalytic Approach
• Trying to decode the motives of the authors by discovering psychoanalyst aspects of
author’s ‘unconscious’ mind that are not evident on normal readings.
• Same approach as to decipher meanings of dreams and motive behind particular action by
the actor.
• Relating author’s writings to his/her personal life events, psychological influences of
people and situations deriving from theories by Sigmund Freud.
• This approach has been used in interpreting the thoughts of political thinkers like
Machiavelli, Edmund Burke, Martin Luther and Mahatma Gandhi.
• Example: Bruce Mazlish’s psychoanalytic interpretation of themes in the work of John
Stuart Mill- James and John Stuart Mill (1975)-Interpreting his ‘On Liberty’ as expression
of freedom from his father’s influence.
• Minuses: speculative, subjective, impressionistic ( loose and ill-defined) and non-
falsifiable. Takes away attention from the texts to the author and his personal life.

5. Postmodernist Approach:

• Post modernism rejects ‘grand narratives’ or ‘universal theories. It also rejects objective
nature of truth, which, to them, is subjective and hence indeterminate (object cannot be
separated from the subject)
• 2 versions of interpretation: 1st based on Foucault’s view on Normalisation of individuals
as subjects by the dominant power structure; interpreting texts from this perspective reveals
16

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

texts which contributed to the subjugation (Hobbes and Rousseau) and who resisted it
(Sade and Nietzsche).
• 2nd version is based on Derrida’s conception of conflicting and indeterminate nature
of meaning of linguistic texts and process of ‘deconstruction’ to interpret the meaning
of the text. According to Derrida, all attempts to ‘represent’ reality produce, not knowledge
or truth, but only different ‘representations’, none of which can be proven to be better or
truer than any other. After a point reader – not the author – constructs its meaning denoting
‘the death of the author’.
• Minuses and cons:
• Its assumption of “no facts, only interpretation” ‘makes it unable to distinguish truth
from falsehood and propaganda from fact.
• By claiming that meanings are indeterminate and authorial intentions are irrelevant
in interpreting texts, adds nothing in our attempt to find meaning of the classic text.
• Fragmented and differing approaches.

6. Cambridge ‘New History’ Approach:

• Interpreting texts by restoring them to their historical contexts in which it was written and
the question/problems to which it was offered as an answer/solution.
• Text as political action (Speech-Act): Attempt to recover the intention of the author by
treating texts as political actions to solve specific political problems of those times.
• Not to interpret text as belief of the author but to understand underlying purpose, action,
his contribution and his response on the ongoing political debate/dialogue of his times.
• For example: Machiavelli’s work should be interpreted in the context of political situation
of fragmented Italy and his attempt to solve it by proposing his texts aimed to make Italy
unified and strong Republic.
• Minuses and cons:
• Its claim to reveal intention of the authors is questionable.
• Restricting the texts to its time and context limit its importance.
• Conceptual Relativism- beliefs of authors true in the context of those time, fit in
the overall belief system of those societies.
7. Straussian Approach:
• Derives from the work of Leo Strauss, a Jewish refugee to USA from Nazi Germany.
• Go back to the past: It claims that classic texts by Plato, Aristotle and a handful of other
authors of ancient Greece and Roman Republic contains the ‘Whole Truth’ about politics,
a truth which is eternal, unchanging, and accessible only to the fortunate few.
• Consider modern liberal political thoughts as degenerate spineless relativism, lacking any
solid foundation.
17

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

• By understanding the truth of political life from the eternal ancient normative classics,
maladies of liberalism, relativism, historicism and scientism of present times can be found
and solved.
• The authors hided the real intention in their texts for fear of persecution and ridicule.
Hence, gaining access to this truth requires a special way of reading and of interpreting
texts. It involves reading between the lines of the written text, so as to reveal its ‘real’,
albeit hidden, meaning which is communicated, as it were, in a kind of invisible ink.
• Attempt to decode eternal/universal normative doctrine (esoteric doctrine) by going deeper
into the text beyond its ‘on the face of it’ simple meaning (exoteric doctrine) meant for
general public.
• Decoding esoteric doctrine requires some sort of insider’s and special knowledge possessed
by only lucky few.
• Minuses & Cons:
• Rely on ‘insider’s knowledge’ that is available only to those who have been
initiated into the mysteries of Straussian interpretation.
• Assume, without argument or evidence, that the ‘real’ text does not correspond,
point for point, to the written and publicly available ‘exoteric’ text.
• Dichotomy of esoteric and exoteric text.

Conclusion:

Thus, we have seen that none of the approaches or schools of interpretation are flawless.
They all have some pros and cons. Actually, the nature of the text is such that it outlives
the author and acquires life of its own. This is mainly due to its different interpretations,
uses and effects in different time and contexts. And these uses and effects may be very
different from what the author might have intended while writing the text. It is also because
both the text and its interpretation are like political action and hence have un-intended
consequences.

Since none of the approaches or methods are flawless and give a neutral and objective
meaning to the text, the student and reader of political texts are required to do triangulation,
that is comparing three or more interpretations of the same text to arrive at truer and more
objective meaning of the text. In a nutshell, we may say that different approaches and
methods provide different pictures and meanings of the text in the same way as different
image/picture of an elephant is given by blind persons while observing the elephant by
touching its different body parts. But here the difference is that the interpreters are not blind
person but they wear a lens of particular ideological colour that shows them what they want
to see in the text. This is the essential feature of all approaches of textual interpretation.

18

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

THEME 2: PLATO
2. A CBCS Syllabus:
• Philosophy and Politics
• Theory of Forms
• Theory of Justice
• Philosopher King/Queen
• Communism of wives and property
• Presentation theme: Critique of Democracy; Women and Guardianship, Censorship

2. B: Key Points:

• Plato (428 –348 BC), who lived in Athens, Greece, is considered as father of western
classical political Philosophy.
• His political Philosophy is normative (value loaded), idealistic, radical, rationalist, and
somewhat utopic.
• Following are crux of his political Philosophy
• Greatest virtue is knowledge through which objective truth of this world can be
known.
• Visible world vs intelligible world: The visible world of our senses carries the
copy/shadow of essence of being (‘Forms’) which belongs to intelligible world that
can only be seen by reason and acquiring true knowledge.
• Thus, intelligible world is the real world, world of ‘Forms’, world of ideas, or
world of ‘essence of being’. The world of senses, the visible world’ is mere
copy/shadow of the real world. This is world of becoming.
• His conception of Justice
• Individual soul has 3 elements: Spirit (courage), Reason (wisdom), Appetite
(passion/desire).
• 3-fold division of society based on dominant element of individual soul: Soldier-
spirit, Philosopher-reason, Producer-appetite.
• Thus state/society is magnified individual ( “ State is individual writ large”)
• Justice is harmony and balance of individual soul as well as of the society.
Individual is just when reason govern and guide his spirit and bodily appetite.
Society is just when individuals perform duty for which they are best suited.
19

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

• Justice also denote perfect unity of individual and society.

• Justice is just order, doing what one is best in doing and supposed to do for having
Good (fulfilled) life for individual and common Good to society.
• Justice denote right conduct, morality, duty, harmony- doing what brings
happiness, fulfilment in both individual and social life.
• Ideal state is virtuous, just, harmonious, unified- help individual live good life as
well as ensuring common Good of the society.
• Theory of ‘Form’:
• ‘Forms’ are essence of being and reality of every observable object in the visible
world.
• Forms are the eternal and unchangeable, absolutely true definitions of concepts-
essence of being anything
• Forms belong to intelligible world; they define the thing we observe in the visible
world
• Idea of ‘Good’:
• ‘Good’ is the supreme ‘Form’, all other ‘Forms’ are subordinate to it
• Idea of the Good is the end/goal or fulfillment or purpose for which all things exist,
and thus it alone gives intelligibility, truth, and goodness to all the other ‘Forms’
• Idea of Good is like Sun, in whose light all other things are made visible. Similarly,
idea of Goodness illuminates Goodness in all other ‘Forms’
• His scheme of Education:
• Free, compulsory, universal, state sponsored- for all classes, all genders.
• Three phases, 1st phase for 20 years to all, 2nd phase for 15 years only to Guardian
classes, 3rd phase for 15 years only to ruling classes- philosopher kings.
• Education, training, and tests after each phase to decide who should belong to which
class- meritocracy.
• Platonic State was the educational state. Education and merit were the basis of
functional division of society into three classes.
• Community of wives & property:
• Rulers and Auxiliaries -Guardian classes to have communal life- no private
property, no family, no permanent marriage, no affiliation to children.
• This was to prevent nepotism and corruption in ruling class, to have unity of the
state, and just society/state.
• His conception of Philosopher King:
• Philosophers, the one who possesses knowledge, wisdom and have been trained in
art and science of politics and statecraft, are best suited to rule the society/state.

20

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

• This was in opposition to idea of democracy which was popular in Athens in times
of Plato, but for him democracy is like rule of mob and cannot provide a just rule.
• To him politics and statecraft are specialized job and only the person having right
attitude, spirit, knowledge and training should do the politics. Then only the society
would be just and virtuous.

21

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

2. C: ANSWER TEMPLATES OF PAST YEAR’S AND OTHER

IMPORTANT QUESTIONS

Q1. Discuss the theory of Forms of Plato.

Answer Template:

Introduction:
Plato's theory of form is his metaphysical idea of essence of being something. As per this theory
every object in the observable or visible world (the world which we can feel from our senses) carry
or hold the ‘Form’ of being that object. In other words, the objects in the visible world are like copy
or shadow of their Forms which belong to intelligible world, not visible by our senses. His theory
of form separates two worlds- intelligible and visible. The former can be known only by our
sense of reason, logic and knowledge whereas the latter is the world in which we live and which
we observe from our senses. The Forms or ‘essence of being’ belongs to the intelligent world-
world of being- whereas the objects which carry those Forms belong to the visible world- world
of becoming.
His theory of Form can also be understood to create a duality of Idea versus material in which
the former is given precedence over the latter. Forms are like ideas, not visible to senses, but they
are the essence which is carried by the object that is the material. The Form define the object
holding that form. For example, we identify Rose as a specific type of flower holding the Form of
being Rose. It is the Form which is eternal, unchanging, and real whereas the objects or material
which hold that form are merely copy, shadow and transitory. In the next section of the answer I
will try to further elaborate on the theory of Forms given by Plato.

Features of theory of ‘Forms’ by Plato:

Following are the main points and features of the theory of Forms:
• Forms or ideas are ‘essence of being’ and reality of every object of the visible world which
are perceived by our senses.
• Thus, Forms are essential property of being something. For example, when we say this is
flower, what we are citing as being flower is the Form or idea defining flower.
• By carrying the Form or essence of being, the material become that object. Hence, holding
Form is becoming something, carrying the essence of being that thing.
• Forms are the eternal and unchangeable, absolutely true definitions of any object-
material or conceptual-essence of being anything.
• What objects we see in observable world are copy or shadow of their Form- becoming
something.

22

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

• Example:
• Beauty, Goodness, Equality, Justice, Triangle, Circle, Humanity, etc are Forms and
beautiful thing, good, equal, just, triangle/circle we draw, man, etc are observable
objects corresponding to these Forms.
• Carpenter, for making table, need substance (wood, equipment, etc) and Form/Idea
of being table.
• When we define any object, we are basically explaining the Form carried by the
object. When we are explaining the nature or qualities of anything, we are actually
explaining the Form that thing is carrying.
• Forms or ideas belong to intelligible world; objects/things carrying those Forms are part
of visible world, which we see or perceive from our senses.
• Forms represent true/real knowledge, can be known by reason, logic, knowledge;
thoughts in visible world is belief, opinion, imagining.
• Theory of Form belongs to Idealism, giving preference to world of idea over world of
perceivable materials. In this view ideas are real, eternal; material simply carry those ideas.
• Theory of Form is related to Essentialism- every entity has a set of attributes/features that
are necessary to its identity and function.
• The theory is Metaphysical in nature. It is the fundamental nature of reality, including the
relationship between idea and matter, between substance and attribute, and between
potentiality (being) and actuality(becoming).

Conclusion:

Plato is known for his idealism and philosophy of metaphysics. The theory of Forms is his
conception of the duality of two worlds-Intelligible and Visible. The visible world is like a
copy or shadow of the real or intelligible world. Intelligible world is the world of Forms,
idea or ‘world of being’. By holding Form any material entity in the visible world become
a specific object defined by the Form it carries. The theory of Forms creates duality of
visible world and the transcendental or intelligible world. It also denotes the duality of Idea
versus material in which the former gets precedence over the latter. The Theory declares
the world in which we live as illusionary and transitory. Whereas the real and eternal world
is world of Forms or the intelligible world. Intelligible world is only known by reason,
logic and knowledge. Thus, only few knowledgeable persons have ‘eyes’ to see the
intelligible world. To Plato, they are the philosophers. Theory of Form is one of the core
thoughts of Plato, underpinning(supporting) his idea of philosopher King, and ideal
society/state.

23

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

Q2. Critically examine Plato's theory of Justice.

Similar question:
1. “Plato’s theory of Justice was idealistic, normative, and utopic” Discuss
2. “Theory of Justice was the core thought of Plato, on which all of his political thoughts were
based” Elaborate.

Answer Template:

Introduction:
Plato envisaged a perfect and just society constituting of just individuals. To him, justice
denoted perfect harmony and balance of individual soul as well as of the society. In a just
individual three elements of the soul are in perfect harmony, that is the element of reason
govern and guides the elements of spirit and bodily appetite. In a just society three classes-
ruler, soldiers, produces-are individuals in whom the elements of reason, spirit and appetite
dominate respectively. In just society the three classes perform their duty meticulously for
which they are best suited without crossing into domain of other classes. Thus, the
producers do not indulge into politics and the guardian class do not produce, neither they
have private property, normal family life and children. Thus, Justice for Plato was doing
one’s own duty as per one’s station of life.
Thus, just state is nothing but magnified just individual. Three functional classes represent
3 elements of individual soul. Justice for both the individual and state is harmony and
balance between 3 elements of the soul and 3 classes respectively. Hence Plato’s statement
that state is individual writ large explains his theory of justice.
There is a perfect unification between the individual and the society which is like an
organic whole whose integral parts are individuals. Justice ensures happy, fulfilled and
virtuous life of the individual and common Good to the society. Since everyone is
performing one’s duty as expected of him/her, there should not be any case of violation of
anyone's rights and duties. Hence, in his system of justice there is no need of formal laws,
retributive or remedial justice, and elaborate judicial system.
Plato’s conception of Justice is idealistic, normative and somewhat utopic. It requires rigid
division of society into three classes, a regimented social order and closed society. In his
scheme of justice Individuals merge their identity and independence into the society/state.
For this, Plato’s theory of justice is criticized as being idealistic, utopic, promoting closed
society, status quoist and bearing the seeds of totalitarian ideology in it. In the next section
of the answer I will try to further elaborate on the theory of Justice given by Plato.

Essential Features of Plato’s theory of Justice:

24

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

• Justice denotes right conduct, morality, duty, harmony- doing what brings happiness,
fulfilment, and Goodness in both individual and social life.
• Justice is prime virtue which guide other virtues- wisdom, courage, temperance (self-
control).
• Justice is the bond which holds a society together- makes man harmonious, good, and
social and Society unified and just.
• Justice makes individual and society as unified harmonious whole. There is complete
harmony of individual soul as well as perfect harmony among different class of society.
• Justice is natural, not man-made or artificial. When an individual and society follows
natural laws, order, and arrangements, justice prevails. Then, there is no dis-harmony or
dis-unity, either within individual soul or within society. Both, individual and society unify
as an organic whole in perfect harmony with each other and also with the nature.
• Justice is universal. It covers all aspects of both individual and social life.
• Justice is NOT remedial, legal or conventional. Remedial justice denotes violation of rights
& duties. Justice then is remedy to that social ailment (crime). In Plato’s justice, there is
no such violation, everyone performs his/her duty as he/she is best suited for and to best of
his/her ability. Perfect peace and harmony prevail in such society. There is no violation of
anyone’s right, nor anyone violates one’s duty. Hence, modern conception of justice as
remedy to crime, violation of rights & duties does not arise in Platonic system of Justice.
• What is NOT Justice as per Plato:
• Justice does not denote legal rights: as explained above, no formal law
guaranteeing rights are required in Plato’s just society. Everyone performs his/her
duty as he/she is best suited for and to best of his/her ability. Perfect peace and
harmony prevail in such society. Hence, there is no requirements of legal rights.
• Justice is NOT giving each man his due: Plato offers an example; suppose you
take on loan a gun from your friend. He becomes mad after some time and comes
one day to ask for his gun. Would there be justice in returning the gun to him? Plato
cites many such examples to deny justice being giving each man his due.
• Justice is NOT doing good to friends and harm to enemies: Justice does no
harm. It is doing good even to one’s enemies. Friends and enemies change with
time. Justice is unchanging, eternal.
• Justice is NOT speaking Truth, neither it is Honesty: Sometime speaking lie do
justice. Honesty is also contextual. for example, what can we say about honesty of
a spy, who is supposed to be dishonest as part of his job.? Justice include these
virtues but is much more than this.
• Justice is neither in the interest of stronger or weaker: Justice is for all- strong
or weak. It not simply to control the stronger and protect the weaker. Justice brings
Good to all. It promotes common good of the society.

25

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

Justice: Private as well as Public Virtue:

Plato’s justice brings personal as well as public ‘Good’. It denotes just individual as integral
part of just society. Both unified as organic whole. There is perfect harmony of the soul of an
individual and different classes of the society.
• Just Individual:
• Justice of the soul: Reason governing the element of Spirit and the bodily
Appetites; needs of 3 elements of the soul are fulfilled harmoniously.
• Balance or harmony in the soul is the justice of the soul. Just soul is morally
developed and virtuous and its product is happy, fulfilled and good life.
• Individual who performs social duty for what he is best suited for. Individuals
actions are directed for achieving societal ‘common Good’.
• Just Society/State:
• Functional division of society: Three classes of society- Ruler, Auxiliary, Producer
class- denote three elements of individual soul. People in whom ‘Reason’(wisdom)
dominate, belong to Ruling class, in whom ‘Spirit’(courage) dominate perform duty
of protection (soldier or auxiliary class), and whose dominant element is Appetite
(passion, pleasure & pain) joins the producer class. Thus, State is individual writ
large, that, is state is magnified individual.
• Such social division, based on natural aptitude and abilities of individual soul,
brings excellence in the individuals and the society/State.
• Thus, in just society, each one should perform social duty for which one is best
suited by nature. Just society is natural and hence, is in perfect harmony.
• Society as unified whole; each individual help achieve fulfilled self-life as well as
societal common Good.
• Justice as bond between individual and society, help achieve highest good of the
individual (private), and of the whole society (public).

A critical evaluation of Plato’s theory of Justice:

Plato’s theory of justice is very good to read and imagine. it presents an ideal and blissful state of
nature. If his justice prevails in individual and society there would be no need for a formal system
of law and justice as we need in modern times. If everyone is in perfect harmony within oneself
and society also is in perfect harmony and there is complete unification of individual and the
society what is the need for any remedial or retributive justice? there would be no crime, no
violence, no infringement of anyone's rights, and no one will violate his duties. In such perfect
social order formal laws are not required. Thus, it would be state without law. But is such

26

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

conception of Justice useful for the world in which we live? perhaps not. Hence, the first problem
with Plato's conception of justice is that it is idealistic and utopic, not suitable for real societies.

Plato's justice demand division of society into three classes and then expect each class to perform
their duty without transgressing into the domain of other class. Thus, the producer class is not
supposed to participate in politics. The Guardian class, that is the ruling and auxiliary class, are
not supposed to have property and live a normal family life. Such regimented division of society
to bring justice may itself be unjust.

In Plato's scheme of Justice individual loses autonomy and independence. Individuals are mere
part of the organic whole that is the society. Thus, society/state is supposed to guide all aspects of
human life to help them live a virtuous, fulfilled and good life. Such idea of Justice maybe used
for establishing a totalitarian state. Many modern political scientists, such as Karl Popper, criticize
Plato's theory of justice to carry seeds of totalitarian ideology.

Finally, his theory of justice proposes regimented and closed society. his idea of Justice is status
quoist, it supports maintain the prevailing social order. It is not pro change. Karl Popper, therefore,
brand Plato as enemy of open society, the society which guarantees individual autonomy, liberty,
rights and equality.

Conclusion:

Plato's conception of Justice is similar to the concept of Dharma in Hindu thoughts. Both are
natural, eternal, ensure happy, virtuous and fulfilled individual life as well as ‘common Good’ to
the society. Both require the society to be divided strictly into different classes depending upon
natural attributes in the individuals. Both support regimented and closed social order in which one
class cannot cross its boundary and goes into the territory of another class. Justice in this sense
denotes perfect harmony of the individual soul as well as of the society. It also denotes perfect
unification of the individual into the society which is like an organic whole. In just society each
one is performing one’s duty to best of one's ability and there is no case of violation of rights and
duties. Hence, there is no need for any formal laws or remedial system of Justice as prevalent in
modern times.

Plato's theory of justice is criticized as being idealistic (not practicable to have in modern times),
utopic, supporting a regimented and closed social order, denies individual autonomy, liberty rights
and equality, status quoist, and having seed of totalitarian ideology in it.

27

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

Q.3: Critically examine Plato's theory of communism of Wives and Property

as propounded in the Republic.
Similar question:
1. How far Plato's theory of communism of Wives and Property is practicable? Discuss.
2. “Plato's theory of communism of Wives and Property is idealistic and utopic.” Discuss.

Introduction:
Plato's theory of communism of wives and property was his novel idea to set up an ideal
society/state. In fact, this was an extension of his theory of justice. To him, just society is
one in which each of three classes perform their duties as per their natural abilities without
crossing into domain of other classes. Communism of wives and property was to help such
watertight separation between the domains of three classes.
As per this theory the Guardian class, that is the ruler and auxiliary(soldier) class, cannot
not have any private property, neither they can have a normal family life with wife and
children. The producer class, on the other hand, can have private property and normal
family life but were barred from participation in politics. The Guardian class were
supposed to live a communal life in barracks just like soldiers. They have to live in a
commune, live together, eat together, and pursue the duties assigned to them, that is ruling
and protection. Their entire material requirements are taken care of by the producer class.
But for having the able and healthy next generation, the theory proposed temporary
marriages arranged by the state for the guardian classes. After children are born from such
marriages, the wives and children were separated from the men. They even didn’t know
who their children were. The children were brought up by the state. They got free &
compulsory education. On the basis of their performance in the tests and their natural
abilities, they were assigned one of three classes. This was kind of eugenics, that is
improving the race by selectively mating people with specific desirable hereditary traits.

Such the regimented social order and controversial practices proposed by the theory have
been criticised by many as idealistic, un-natural, confusing, un ethical, and utopic. In the
next part of the answer, I will try to further explain the theory in brief.

Main points and features of the of communism of Wives and Property:

• Rulers and Auxiliaries: Guardian class have communal life. They would have no private
property, no family, no permanent marriage, no affiliation to children.
• Guardians will live together in barracks, eat together on common table.

28

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

• State managed temporary marriages of members of the Guardian class. This was to produce
best offspring who are taken away for free and compulsory education and training by the
state.
• Such a regimented social order and strict rules for ruling class was to prevent nepotism and
corruption, to have unity of the state, and just society/state.
• Producers to provide for all material comforts to Guardians.
• Producer class were allowed to have private property, family life but were not allowed to
participate in politics.
• Thus, there was a rigid separation between the functions, duties, and privileges of the three
classes.
• This was to support the conception of Justice, which to Plato prevails when each class
perform its duties for which they are best suited without crossing into domains of other
class.
• Living in commune bonds the Guardian class. Since they don’t have property and family
there cannot be disputes among them. There would be no corruption by the ruling class.
They live like one big family. This brings peace in the society. This arrangement also
separate classes in water tight compartment, essential aspect of Platonic just society.
• Hence, by having communism of Wives and Property for the Guardian class, the just
society is formed.
• The theory is Radical in its intent and content:
• It seemed to have proposed a form of eugenics (improving the human race by
selectively mating people with specific desirable hereditary traits).
• It was emancipatory for women, who were let free from the bondage of family life.
Plato didn’t make any difference between male and female for assigning social
duties. Women could even belong to Guardian class.
• It was also like nationalisation of the family. The state was choosing men & women
for temporary union, taking away the children produced from such union, and bring
up them at state’s cost. Thus, family was taken out from the personal domain to
make it a state matter.
• Criticism: The theory is criticized on many grounds. Some of these are:
• Utopic: First and foremost, the theory is idealistic and utopic. It is not practicable
to have such rules in real society. Denying people to have private property and
family in the name of social duty is very hard to implement on ground.
• Regimented social order: The theory proposes very rigid separation between
domains (functions & duties) of three classes. It separates the Guardian class from
the producer class. It is kind of permanent separation between the elites and masses,
latter having little chance to enter into the elite class. It is similar to 4-fold Varna
system of Aryans, and therefore criticized on same grounds.

29

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

• Promotes polygamy and polyandry. Guardian class share women. They can also
mate with several women. Hence the theory promotes both polygamy( one man
marrying many women) and polyandry( one women marrying many men) at the
same time.
• Confusing: The theory may create social confusion and chaos. Children not
knowing who their parents may have adverse psychological impact on them. Those
children may feel like orphan, brought up by the state. A society led by such rootless
adults may create several un-intended consequences.
• Karl Popper launched most scathing criticism of such utopic ideas of Plato to
have rigid regimented social order. He declared Plato as enemy of an open society
by proposing a closed and compartmentalized society. To him, Plato's theory of
communism of Wives and Property contains a totalitarian' vision.

Conclusion:
Plato's theory of communism of wives and property is an extension of his theory of justice.
For him, justice is perfect harmony of individual soul, social order and unification of
individual and society. Justice prevails if each individual belongs to the class representing
the dominant element of one’s soul. The three classes represent three elements- reason,
spirit, appetite- of the soul. If each class performs its duty to best of its abilities without
transgressing into domain of other class then it is a just society. Plato recommended that
the guardian classes, that is the ruler and auxiliary class, should not hold any private
property, neither they should have a normal family life with wife and children. This was
for two purposes, first, it separates the domains of guardian and producer classes, and
second to stop the chances of nepotism, corruption, competition, conflict in the ruling
classes.
As per this theory the Guardian class will have temporary union with opposite sex to have
children but thereafter, they will be separated and will not even come to know who their
children were. The guardian class live in barracks, eat together and will live like a big
single family. They will not be required to do any productive activities such as farming,
trading, etc. All their material requirements shall be met by the producer class who will be
allowed to have private property and normal family life but will be barred from
participating in politics. Thus, it was a watertight separation of functions and duties of the
three classes.
In theory it may look possible that that by communism of wives and property the Guardian
class will have no incentive to indulge into corruption and nepotism but in practice neither
it is possible to have such regimented social order nor it guarantees against corruption and
nepotism. The theory is also criticized on grounds of promoting confusion by promoting
both polygamy and polyandry, social engineering, children without known parents,
regimented social order, and also having totalitarian vision inherent in it.

30

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

Despite such criticism, the idea was very novel as to how an ideal society can be built by
design. Hence, it attracts attention of political thinkers of all time.

Q.4: Discuss the rationalist vision of Plato as brought out in his theory of
Philosopher King.

Answer Template:

Introduction:
Theory of philosopher king is another extension or part of Plato's theory of justice. For
Plato, the just state/ society is one which unify the individual and Society. When three
elements of the soul-reason, spirit, appetite-are mapped into three social classes-rulers
guided by reason, soldiers/auxiliary guided by spirit or courage, and producer guided by
bodily appetite and when they perform their duties to best of their abilities without crossing
into domain of other classes, just society/State is formed. In just society the ideal ruler
should be philosophers.
Plato, through Socrates in Republic, put forward plausible reasons for recommending
philosopher Kings. The philosopher Kings are wise, possess true knowledge and hence are
able to visualise the intelligible world-the world of ideas or Forms. They are like one who
by virtue of their wisdom and knowledge could come out of the dark cave, that is the visible
world which is shadow or copy of the intelligible world. Because of love and sense of duty
in their soul they selflessly want to guide people left behind in the cave to come out in the
light of Sun and see the beauty and goodness of the intelligible world.
Philosopher Kings are unwilling recipient of political power. They accept the job of ruler
not for their own interest and happiness but for a selfless desire to help others. They live
communally with their Auxiliary in a very simple and virtuous manner. They don't have
any private property, family and children. Hence, they are fully devoted in the service of
the people they lead. They are like captain of the ship guiding their people in turbulent path
of individual and social life.
Naturally such idealistic view of the ruler as philosopher have been criticised on many
grounds. Thinkers like Karl Popper see totalitarian vision in such idea. Many relate
benevolent but despotic rule to the idea of philosopher king. In modern times Adolf Hitler
and Stalin have been cited as rulers related to the idea of philosopher king. In Iran Ayatollah
Khomeini, a religious ruler, is also compared as the manifestation of the idea of platonic
philosopher king.
Despite such criticism, the idea of philosopher king was novel and rational. It was based
on the need of the society and not of the elites. It was meritocracy where knowledge and

31

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

training get precedence over the wealth, birth in noble class and family relations. Hence
this idea inspires political thinkers as well as rulers in all kinds of political ideologies even
today.

Essential features of Plato’s theory of philosopher king:

• The theory is part of the Platonic theory of Justice. In the just society/state, best one to rule
are the Philosophers.
• This is because dominant element of their soul is Reason. Philosophers, by virtue of
possessing true knowledge, are able see the intelligible world- the real world, world of
ideas, of true Forms.
• Philosopher Kings are, therefore, are like spiritual guide, or captain to the ship, that is the
society. They are like physician statesman knowing exactly what ails the society.
• They are wise, courageous, temperate and just; like the shepherd, the physician statesman,
the pilot statesman- knowledgeable, knows the art of statecraft/politics.
• They accept ruler job NOT for personal glory/benefit but true desire to guide members of
community lead a good/happy/fulfilled life.
• In Republic, Plato provides rational for having Philosopher kings ” Until philosophers rule
as kings or those who are now called kings and leading men genuinely and adequately
philosophize, that is, until political power and philosophy entirely coincide…cities will
have no rest from evils…there can be no happiness, either public or private, in any other
city.”
• Another rational for Philosopher as king or ruler is that they are most unwilling to accept
political power hence the philosopher is the only person who can be trusted to rule well
without craving for power.
• Philosophers are both morally and intellectually suited to rule; morally because it is in their
nature to love truth and learning so much that they are free from the greed and lust that
tempts others to abuse power and intellectually because they alone can gain full knowledge
of reality, culminate in knowledge of the Forms of Virtue, Beauty, and, above all, the Good
of the intelligible world.
• They are like lucky one, who by virtue of their true knowledge and insight have come out
of the ‘cave’(allegory for visible world as shadow of intelligible world); they can see the
things in their actual form in the sun light. But by sense of selfless love to help others left
behind in the cave they accept to guide them to come out the cave. This is what in the
allegory of the cave Plato wanted to convey about the Philosopher king.
• Philosophers will use their knowledge of goodness and virtue to help other citizens live a
virtuous, happy, and fulfilled life.

32

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

• They are selected on the basis of multi-level tests after each phase of education. They get
special rigorous training in administration, managing public affairs, statecraft for 15 years,
after getting specialized education for 35 years. Thus, only after 50 years of education and
training, one may become Philosopher king.
• Therefore, the theory prescribe meritocracy for choosing the ruling class. It was opposite
to democracy, which Athens adopted at the time of Plato.
Duties of Philosopher kings-
• 1. territorial integrity of the State
• 2. prevent extreme inequality
• 3. provide prescribed system of education
• 4. frame just law for furtherance of ‘Common Good’ of the society.
• With their Auxiliaries, Philosopher kings live simple communal life, sharing property, and
even wives and children. This was to prevent corruption, nepotism, and competition among
the ruling class.
• The theory seeks gender equality. The group that will become “philosopher kings” would
also include “philosopher queens.” Thus, women could also become the Philosopher kings
or say ‘Philosopher queens.

Conclusion:
The theory of philosopher king by Plato is part of his idea of a just state/Society. In a just
state there is perfect harmony in each individual’s soul, between the individual and the
society and between the different parts or classes of the society. In just society the best one
to rule are the philosophers, who have acquired true knowledge and insight to see the
intelligible world. They are spiritual guide to the people. By guiding people towards
virtuous and good path, he helps them to live a happy and fulfilled individual life as well
as achieve societal common good. The idea of philosopher king is gender neutral. Hence,
women can also be philosopher kings or queens.
Only after a rigorous education for 50 years an individual who has natural aptitude of
wisdom and knowledge can become philosopher Kings. It may be noted here that the focus
of the theory is on philosopher and not on the word king. Hence, even the normal kings
who try to become philosopher can be called the philosopher Kings.
Philosopher Kings as spiritual guide to the people is similar to the idea given by Abul Fazal
and followed by Akbar. Both the temporal and spiritual sovereignty is vested in the
philosopher King. This idea is also similar to Raja-Dharma in Hindu political thought. Idea
of Virtuous and spiritual king serving the people selflessly without thinking of his own
interest and happiness is similar to the idea of Philosopher king. In Buddhism, the idea of
‘Bodhistava’ visualize rule by Godly and virtuous philosopher King. The idea of spiritual
leader in Islam which was followed by Prophet Muhammad and first four Khalifa is also
33

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

similar. In the classic Islamic tradition, the temporal ruler of the communities is also the
spiritual leader who lives a very frugal and simple life and doing selfless service to the
people.
Hence, we can see that the idea of philosopher King given by Plato reverberates (echoes)
in political thoughts of all major cultures in all times. The idea is very relevant even today.
Political leaders across the world aspire to become like Platonic philosopher kings; here
lies the charm of theory of the philosopher king by Plato.

Q 5: Describe the salient features of Plato’s scheme of Education. Do you agree

with Rousseau that Plato’s Republic is the finest treatise on Education? Give
reasons for your answer.
Introduction:
Plato’s ideal society/state was based on justice. Justice to him was a just individual soul
performing one’s duty as per aptitude and training without interfering in other’s affairs in
a just society. To Plato, just soul was one in which reason govern and guide the spirit and
control the bodily appetite. Plato considered education and training essential for
development of an individual into a just soul. Also, Plato’s ideal State was ruled by the
philosopher Kings who were supposed to have knowledge to see the intelligible world- the
world of Form, Idea, or being. Education and training were essential for developing
individuals with right aptitude into philosopher Kings. Finally, to Plato, virtue was
knowledge. An individual soul can acquire moral perfection and goodness only by
acquiring right knowledge. Hence education was essential for development of human soul
and bedrock of the Platonic ideal state.
Because of such important role of education in Plato’s ideal society/state, his Republic
devoted a large segment to describing his scheme of education. Republic, therefore, may
also be considered as treaties on education. This was expressed by Rousseau, who himself
wrote one of finest book on education named’ Emilie’, that Plato’s Republic is the finest
treatise on Education.
I agree with the statement of Rousseau. Plato’s Republic gives a vision of ideal society/state
in which each individual has attained moral perfection by undergoing right education and
training. Morally evolved individual performed their duties as per their stations in life to
best of their abilities and without interfering into the affairs of others. This was possible
only because of right education and training. Hence, Plato’s Republic, besides being book
on politics and justice, is also one of finest book on education.
In the next part of the answer, I am explaining in brief Plato’s scheme of Education, its pros and
cons.
Plato’s scheme of Education:
• Free, compulsory, universal, state sponsored- for all classes, all genders.

34

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

• Three phases, 1st phase for 20 years to all, 2nd phase for 15 years only to Guardian classes,
3rd phase for 15 years only to ruling classes- philosopher kings.
• Since virtue is knowledge and only by acquiring knowledge intelligible world( world of
Forms/ideas) can be seen, education is essential for development of human soul and
bedrock of the ideal state
• Men and women getting same education & training, getting ready to do same public job.
• Education, training, and tests after each phase to decide who should belong to which class.
Thus, Plato’s scheme of functional division of society into 3 classes was based on
meritocracy.
• Thus, education was the basis for choosing citizen for specific tasks in the ideal state; also
education and training was the basis for social mobility among 3 classes.
• 3 phases of education
• Elementary Education: upto age of 20 years
• Compulsory for all children of all 3 classes.
• Gymnastics for training the body, and Music for training the mind.
• This was to cultivate the spirited part of the soul and achieve a harmonic
combination of moderation and courage
• Test at the end of 20 years to select the Guardian (soldier and Philosopher
kings).
• Remaining were included into the Producer class.
• Higher Education: next 15 years- 20 to 35 years
• Only to selected persons of both sexes of Guardian classes
• Mathematics, Geometry, Astronomy, Arithmetic, Philosophy and Logic;
higher doses of Gymnastics & Music
• This was to cultivate reason, teach students to search for the forms, and
learn the art of dialectic in order for the guardians to become capable of
ruling the city
• Practical Training to ruling class- philosopher kings - next 15 years- 35 to 50
years
• Practical training of administration, managing public affairs
• Thus, only after a rigours education & training upto 50 years, the
Philosopher kings were given the responsibilities of ruling the Polis(city-
state)
• Women, who qualify and acquire right education & training, may also
become Philosopher kings or Queens!
• Pluses of Plato’s Scheme of Education:

35

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

• Was Free, Compulsory, and state sponsored

• Egalitarian and gender neutral: Same for all three classes and both sexes
• Meritocracy: Impartial tests to choose students for different functional classes.
• It was linked to aptitude and natural abilities. Education was to help natural
development of human soul. To make it morally perfect and enable to carry out
functions as gifted by God/nature.
• It aimed at moral/ethical development of human soul. Aim was moral perfection.
• It helped develop civic virtues in citizens of the Polis- City State. Education made
virtuous citizen out of ordinary human being.
• Minuses:
• Utopic: Like Platonic ideal state, his Scheme of Education also seems too much
idealistic and utopic.
• It was regimented, having strict control and censorship.
• Undermining individuality: It attempted to shape an individual into a fixed
moral/ethical frame. It didn’t allow individual autonomy and development of
unique personality and character.
• It was abstract not concrete practical scheme. It was to conform Plato’s idea of
Justice. Like his ideas of justice and ideal state, his scheme of education was a
normative idea not practical plan.
• It would have been very expensive. All states cannot bear the cost of such long
drawn free and compulsory scheme of education for all.
Conclusion:
Like Rousseau’s Emile, Plato’s Republic gives scheme of education for human
development as per their natural aptitude and inclination. It was kind of guidance to the
students to use their natural inclinations in a positive way and turn towards the right
direction, where they will be able to see things critically through eyes of knowledge. It was
about learning to think comparatively and developing a sense of perspective, so that they
could see the intelligible world- the world of Forms/idea and not be fooled by prejudices
and opinions of the visible world.
It was universal, free, state sponsored, egalitarian system of education. It was a multi-phase
long guidance and practical training to make an individual soul just and good. It was like
conversion process to make just and good citizen in accordance with nature out of normal
human being.
In the initial phase spirit of the soul was trained through music and gymnastic to develop
courage and passion. In the later phases reason was cultivated so that it may govern and
guide the spirit and bloodily appetite. Functional division of society into three classes was
solely on the basis of performance in tests held after each phase. Thus, Platonic state was

36

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

an educational state. Realization of Platonic ideal society/state rested on success of his

educational scheme.
Despite such positives, critics find many minuses in the Platonic educational scheme. For
them, it was utopic, regimented, undermined individuality and individual autonomy,
abstract, and expensive.
Nevertheless, like Platonic ideal state, Platonic scheme of education is a beautiful
enlightened vision of an ideal scheme of education capable of converting a normal human
soul into just and virtuous, morally evolved soul as per the natural laws. It was perfect
guidance for natural human development. Of course, realization of such ideal educational
scheme in real world society/community would not be easy. But it can always be used as
an ideal, a benchmark, or yardstick to assess the real and practicable education system.

37

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

NOTES
1. Philosopher King of Plato:

Theory of philosopher king is another extension or part of Plato's theory of justice. Plato
viewed State as moral and ethical institution which is essential for virtuous life of
individuals. For Plato, the just state/ society is one which unify the individual and Society.
Then Statecraft becomes soul-craft. When three elements of the soul-reason, spirit,
appetite-are mapped into three social classes-rulers guided by reason, soldiers/auxiliary
guided by spirit or courage, and producer guided by appetite and they perform their duties
to best of abilities without crossing into domain of their classes, just society/sate is
formed. In just society the ideal ruler should be philosophers.

Plato, through Socrates in Republic, put forward plausible reasons for recommending
philosopher Kings. The philosopher Kings are wise, possess true knowledge and hence are
able to visualise the intelligible world-the world of ideas or Forms. They are like one who
by virtue of their wisdom and knowledge could come out of the dark ‘cave’, that is the
visible world which is shadow or copy of the intelligible world. Because of love and sense
of duty in their soul they selflessly want to guide people left behind in the cave to come
out in the light of Sun and see the beauty and goodness of the intelligible world.
Philosopher Kings are unwilling recipient of political power. They accept the job of ruler
not for their own interest and happiness but for a selfless desire to help others. They live
communally with their Auxiliary in a very simple and virtuous manner. They don't have
any private property, family and children. Hence, they are fully devoted in the service of
the people they lead. They are like captain of the ship guiding their people in turbulent path
of individual and social life.

Naturally such idealistic view of the ruler as philosopher have been criticised on many
grounds. Thinkers like Karl Popper see totalitarian vision in such idea. Many relate
benevolent but despotic rule to the idea of philosopher king. In Modern Times Adolf Hitler
and Stalin have been cited as rulers related to the idea of philosopher king. In Iran Ayatollah
Khomeini a religious ruler is also compared as the manifestation of the idea of platonic
philosopher king. Despite such criticism, the idea of philosopher king was novel and
rational. It was based on the need of the society and not of the elites. It was meritocracy
where knowledge and training get precedence over the birth in noble class and family
relations. Hence this idea inspires political thinkers as well as rulers of all kind of
dispensation even today.

38

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

2. Plato’s theory of Forms

Plato's theory of form is his metaphysical idea of essence of being something. As per this
theory every object in the observable or visible world (the world which we can feel from
our senses) are carrying or holding the ‘Form’ of being that object. In other words, the
objects in the visible world are like copy or shadow of their Forms which belong to
intelligible world not visible by our senses. His theory of form separates two worlds-
intelligible and visible. The former can be known only by our sense of reason, logic and
knowledge whereas the latter is the world in which we live and which we observe from our
senses. The Forms or ‘essence of being’ belongs to the intelligent world- world of being-
whereas the objects which carry those Forms belong to the visible world- world of
becoming.

His theory of Form can also be understood as a duality of idea versus material in which the
former is given precedence over the latter. Forms are like ideas not visible to senses but
they are the essence which is carried by the material objects. The Form define the object
holding that form. For example, we identify Rose as a specific type of flower holding the
Form of being Rose. It is the Form which is eternal, unchanging, and real whereas the
objects or material which hold that form are merely copy, shadow and transitory.

Plato is known for his idealism and philosophy of metaphysics. Theory of Forms his
metaphysical idea. The theory of Forms creates duality of visible world and the
transcendental or intelligible world. It also denotes the duality of idea versus material in
which the former gets precedence over the latter. The Theory declares the world in which
we live as illusionary and transitory. Whereas the real and eternal world is world of Forms
and the intelligible world in which they exist. Intelligible world is only known by reason,
logic and knowledge. Theory of Form is one of the core thoughts of Plato, underpinning
his idea of philosopher King, and ideal society/state. But many, including his student
Aristotle, rejected his idea of Forms and duality of intelligible vs visible world.

3. Plato’s idea of censorship

Plato’s supported censorship of poetry, music, and paintings. He gave many arguments in
support of his views. The crux (core, essence) of them were wrong impression on young
minds by these art forms. To him, wrong poetry, music, and paintings may wrongly
influence young students. They may start hating Gods and stop believing in them if Gods
are portrayed (shown) as immoral and quarrelsome in poems and paintings. Similarly,
poetry on sadness of death of loved one may instill fear of death in citizen. Wrong notes in
music may stir up their soul and make them agitated and unsettled.

39

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

He derided (criticized) these art forms for showing emotions and facts of human life and
nature wrongly, in misleading way. In expressing their art forms, artists tell lies. They
misled people with incorrect depiction of realities. Sometimes they reveal cruel realities of
life better not to be told to young minds. Hence, for all these reasons, Plato strongly
recommend censorship of poetry, music, and arts.
One can easily find out many contradictions and minuses in Plato’s support of censorship.
He criticized poets and artists of telling lies but at the same time derided them for telling
harsh truths of life. He allowed philosopher kings to tell the noble lies, but disallowed the
same to the artists. His education system was for natural development of human soul but
his censorship was artificial and imposed by the state. In sum, contradictions in Plato’s
arguments for censorship was too much obvious.
Plato’s support for censorship also became the rallying point for his critics. Karl Popper
declared him the enemy of the open society. To Popper, Plato’s ideal society/state was a
regimented, closed, totalitarian society. Toynbee called Plato cynical, inhuman, and
reactionary. To Crossman, Plato was wrong for his time and ours. Many other critics held
similar views on Platonic idea state. His support of censorship added fuel to the fires of
these critiques.
Despite such scathing(strong) criticism, we may find some rational and positives in Plato’s
arguments in support of censorship of popular art forms. Wrong impressions of music,
paintings, and videos are well accepted today. All civilized society indulge into some sort
of censorship to keep the moral fabric of society intact. Plato had a vision to see Athenian
people strong, fearless, moral, just, and virtuous. His ideal state was built on morally
evolved just soul. For that, perhaps, censorship was required. It was part of the right
curriculum of his education system. It was to build strong moral character in the young
students who will become citizen. However, his support for censorship remained highly
controversial and contested.

40

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

THEME 3: ARISTOTLE
3. A: CBCS Syllabus:
• Forms, Virtue, Citizenship, Justice, State and Household
• Presentation themes: Classification of governments; man as zoo politikon

3. B: Key Points:
• Aristotle (384–322 BC), born near Macedonia in Greece, was versatile genius and is
considered the father of political science, political pragmatism, founder of historical and
comparative methods in politics, constitutionalism and formal logic.
• Out of about 30 books, mostly lecture notes, attributed to him, most famous is Politics and
Nicomachean Ethics. He also wrote profusely on Metaphysics, Biology, Mechanics,
Astronomy, Logic, Economics, Politics, Theology, Rhetoric, Poetics.
• In his political thought, Aristotle differed significantly from his teacher Plato. He was more
pragmatic and realist in his approach. He rejected the duality of world of idea vs world of
matter or intelligible vs visible world. To him, both the worlds are one and the same. We
can visualise all aspects of the world- idea as well as matter carrying those idea/forms- by
our senses. There is no invisible truth lying beyond our senses.
• Thus, in contrast to rationalism of Plato, his approach was empirical. In contrast to purely
deductive method of Plato, he adopted more inductive methods for theorisation.
• He gave theory of causes explaining why anything is what it is. 4 Causes explaining every
substance are:
• Formal Cause- form/essence which makes it what it is
• Material Cause- matter from which it is made
• Efficient Cause- what caused it to be; what happened from which it came into being
• Final Cause: what is its purpose/end/goal of being
• Theory of Justice: He gave comprehensive theory of justice which was very different from
that of Plato. To him, justice has 2 dimensions, one is moral or ethical and another is
political. In ethical sense justice is virtue in action, that is, virtue in practice. Justice is
righteousness, complete goodness, complete virtue, morality personified.
• In political sense, justice is 'fairness’ in distribution of income, wealth, rewards, honours,
political offices, punishments etc, based on the principle of equity- proportional and
arithmetic equality

41

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

• Ethical conception of Justice is abstract, normative and formal principles of justice.

Whereas, political conception of Justice deals with the concrete realization of these
principles in the historical circumstances, conventions and traditions of particular society.
• Like Plato, he believed that state represents supreme moral and ethical virtue of a
political community, but unlike his teacher his ideal state was one which is based on
constitution and law. To him, State is a natural entity, prior to individual. State is like
organic whole of which individual is integral part. Humans are political animal (zoo
politikon); they require society/state for their fulfilled and Good life.
• Thus, Aristotle gave natural, organic, and integrative theory of State.
• Greatest contribution of Aristotle is in the field of constitutional government. After
comparing about 158 constitutions of his time, he came out with six types of Ideal
constitution based on 2 by 3 matrix on two dimensional analyses. First dimension is
weather the rule is by one, few, or many. Second dimension is whether the rule is in the
interest of ruler(s), or for the whole community.
• His 6 ideal constitution are: Kingship, Tyranny, Aristocracy, Oligarchy, Polity and
Democracy. Real constitution shall be combination of these 6 ideal types. To him, the best
combination is Polity and Aristocracy. In such constitution political power is distributed
among many on the principle of equity but also in accordance with correct standard of
virtue or goodness. In such constitution few wise and virtuous balance the rule by
multitude.
• Unlike Plato, Aristotle give prime importance to private property and family life. He
considered family necessary for imbibing morality and virtue in citizen. Property provides
psychological satisfaction by fulfilling the human instinct for possession and ownership.
Property is essential means to acquire virtue and participate in public life.
• But he put forward certain conditions as to how property should be acquired and used.
• To him, the household or family consisted of husband, wife, children, slaves, and
property. There is a hierarchical relation in the family to maintain order and harmony.
family is in private realm, world of particular and should be separated from the public life-
the world of universal. However, he is criticized for creating the duality of private versus
public and confining women to the private realm.
• Aristotle is also criticized for a conservative and derogative view about women. In his
view women is inferior to men, they don’t have fully developed capability for deliberation,
reasoning and decision making and therefore not suited for public life.
• But he supported equality of women in all other respect, their supremacy in household
matters and equal treatment of them in upbringing, education and other aspects of life.
• Aristotle is also criticized for supporting slavery. He defended slavery on natural as well
as social need. To him, nature has made some people such that they need the command and
guidance of other. Also, the society requires the division of labour between the slave and

42

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

master. Slave makes master free to participate in public affairs and master helps slave lead
somewhat virtuous life.
• But he also prescribed conditions for the institution of slavery. Slavery was justified only
if the master was more virtuous than the slave. Winning in war and not paying debt, etc
should not be conditions for slavery. Also, slaves should be treated well and should be
made free for their good services. He also was visionary who anticipated no need for
slavery with technological advances.
• Comparing the political thoughts of Plato and Aristotle, clear distinction is visible. In
comparison to the former the latter is practical, realist and analytical. Aristotle rejected the
duality of world of Idea (intelligible world) and world of matter (visible world). Aristotle’s
conception of justice is more comprehensive, and realistic. He gave multiple dimensions
of justice- ethical, political, retributive, corrective, legal, etc. In comparison, Plato’s idea
of justice as perfect harmony of soul, unification and harmony of individual and society,
etc is idealistic, normative, and somewhat utopic.
• Similarly, we can find noticeable differences in thoughts of Aristotle and Plato about Ideal
state, family, property, status and role of women.
• Aristotle’s best practicable state was a constitutional state, based on laws. This was similar
to Plato’s second-best State explained in his book Laws. Hence, Sabine said “What
Aristotle calls the ideal state is always Plato's second best”.
• In a nutshell, we can say that Plato’s thoughts were idealistic, radical, and somewhat utopic.
But he had more flare and romanticism in his ideas. Whereas Aristotle is much more
grounded, practical, realistic, and analytical in his approach.

43

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

3. C: ANSWER TEMPLATES TO PAST YEAR’S AND OTHER

IMPORTANT QUESTIONS:

Q.1 : Compare and contrast Plato's theory of justice with that of Aristotle.

Similar Questions:

1.“In comparison to Platonic Justice, the theory of Justice by Aristotle is more realist, pragmatic,
and relevant in modern times.” Discuss.

2. “Aristotle separated ethical conception of justice from the political justice”; elaborate.

Answer Template
Introduction:

In comparison to Plato’s idea of justice, Aristotle’s conception of justice is more

comprehensive, multi-dimensional, practical and realistic. He gave multiple dimensions of
justice- ethical, political, retributive, corrective, legal, etc. In comparison, Plato’s idea of
justice as perfect harmony and balance among elements of soul and classes of society,
unification and harmony of individual and society, etc is idealistic, normative, and
somewhat utopic.
On ethical ground, there is fair amount of commonality in conception of justice by both the
thinkers. For both, justice is supreme virtue in both the individuals and society. Justice is
complete goodness. It denotes righteousness, doing that which is expected of one, which
brings happiness to the doer and Good to the society.
But on political and practical ground, Plato’s idea of justice seems to lack on many counts.
realization of Platonic Justice in society/state was almost impossible. Whereas, Aristotle
specifically gave political conception of justice separate from ethical conception of justice.
In political sense, justice is 'fairness’ in distribution of income, wealth, rewards, honours,
political offices, punishments etc, based on the principle of equity- proportional and
arithmetic equality.
Aristotle’s ethical conception of Justice is abstract, normative and formal principles of
justice. Whereas, political conception of Justice deals with the concrete realization of these
principles in the historical circumstances, conventions and traditions of particular society.

44

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

Thus, Aristotle’s conception of justice, especially his political justice, is more empirical,
practical, formal, and based on formal laws. Whereas Plato gave a very normative,
idealistic, and somewhat utopic conception of Justice. In Platonic justice there is no role of
formal laws in a just state in which each one is performing one’s duty best to one’s ability
and without crossing into other’s domain. Thus, to Plato, corrective and retributive justice
is neither required nor can be termed as justice. Therefore, Aristotle and Plato differ
substantially on the idea of justice.

Before I compare the theory of Justice by both the thinker, brief of their ideas about justice are
presented below:
Plato’s idea of Justice: Plato envisaged a perfect and just society constituting of just
individuals. To him, justice denotes perfect harmony of individual soul as well as of the
society. In a just individual three elements of the soul are in perfect harmony, that is the
element of reason govern and guides the elements of spirit and bodily appetite. In a just
society three classes-ruler, soldiers, produces-are individuals in whom the elements of
reason, spirit and appetite dominate respectively. In just society, the three classes perform
their duty meticulously for which they are best suited without entering into domains of
other classes. Thus, the producers do not indulge into politics and the guardian class do not
produce, neither they have private property, normal family life and children. There is a
perfect unification between the individual and the society which is like an organic whole
whose integral parts are individuals. justice of Plato ensures happy, fulfilled and virtuous
life of the individual and common good to the society. Since everyone is performing duty
as expected of him/her, there should not be any case of violation of anyone's rights and
duties. Hence, in his system of justice there is no need of formal laws, retributive or
remedial justice, and elaborate judicial system

Of course, Plato’s conception of Justice is idealistic, normative and somewhat utopic. It requires
rigid division of society into three classes, a regimented social order- kind of closed society. In his
scheme of justice Individuals assimilate their identity and independence into the society. For this,
Plato’s theory of justice is criticized as being idealistic, utopic, promoting closed society, status
quoist and bearing the seeds of totalitarian ideology in it.

Aristotle’s Theory of Justice:

He gave two dimensions of justice- ethical and political. In ethical sense, justice is virtue
in action. In ethical sense, justice denotes moral goodness, righteousness, right conduct,
complete goodness, common good. In political sense, justice is 'fairness’ in distribution of
income, wealth, rewards, honours, political offices, punishments etc. , based on the
principle of equity- proportional and arithmetic equality. Ethical conception of Justice is

45

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

abstract, normative, and formal principles of justice. Whereas, Political conception of

Justice deals with the concrete realization of these principles in the historical
circumstances, conventions, and traditions of particular society/state. Hence, justice is
realized differently in different societies.

Features of Aristotle’s idea of justice:

• Justice as the very virtue of the state/society.
• 'Just’ is what is lawful, fair and promote equity.
• In his Politics, the view about justice is distributive and corrective and linked to the notion
of equity- proportionate and arithmetic equality respectively
• Distributive and Corrective Justice
• Distributive- distributive justice hands out honours and rewards according to the
merits of the recipients-equals to be treated equally and unequal, unequally- reward
in proportion to what one contributes and as per his merit- proportionate equality.
• Corrective or rectifactory: regulating the social or ethical relationships between
the citizens of a particular Polis- Arithmetic Equality- simple reciprocity- do with
others what you would do with yourself. For example, if someone has stolen 100
Rs, he will have to return or pay fine of 100 Rs.
• Thus, political justice of Aristotle is legal and right based conception of Justice. It is in this
sense justice is used in modern times.

Comparing the idea of justice by Plato and Aristotle: From the above brief description of the
idea of Justice by both the thinkers, following differences can be listed:

Plato’s theory of Justice Aristotle’s theory of Justice

Abstract, idealistic, radical, utopic Normative (ethical) as well as practical,

political justice

Perfect harmony of individual soul and the Righteousness, moral/ethical actions, virtue
society in action, and fairness in distribution of
income/wealth, political power and offices.

Just society: performance of one's duties to Distributive and corrective Justice based on
the best of one's abilities and natural the principle of equity
capabilities.

46

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

Focus on Duty Both Right and duty based, but more focus on
rights.

Formal laws not required Requires formal law for retributive and
remedial justice.

Moral, spiritual and philosophical Moral, practical and Legal

Conclusion:

As can be seen from the above descriptions, there are some commonality between the idea
of Justice given by Plato and his student Aristotle. For both, justice is virtue, moral
goodness, righteousness, doing what ensures virtuous and fulfilled life of the individual
and common good to the society. However, they differ on many counts. Plato's idea of
Justice is abstract, normative, radical and somewhat utopic. Justice as perfect harmony of
individual soul and the society is very hard to realize in real societies.

In comparison, Aristotle's idea of Justice is more practical, empirical, and realistic.

Aristotle also gave two dimensions of Justice-ethical and political. Ethical justice is virtue
in action, righteousness, moral, and complete goodness. Political justice is very similar to
what we mean by justice today. In Political sense, justice denotes fair distribution of
resources and political power & offices on the basis of equity. It also denotes realizations
of the principle of ethical justice in a society in the context of its history, conventions,
traditions and practices.

Thus, in a nutshell, we can see that abstractness, radicalism and romanticism in the political
thought of Plato is also reflected in his idea of Justice; In comparison, Aristotle's political
thoughts are pragmatic realistic and more empirical, and analytical. These attributes of his
political thought also underpin his conception of Justice. Thus, what differences we
account for in the ideas of Justice given by the two great political philosophers are
reflection of overall differences in their political thought.

47

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

Q2: Discuss Aristotle classification of Govt. and constitution.

Answer Template

Introduction:
Greatest contribution of Aristotle is in the field of constitutional government. After
comparing 158 constitutions of his time, he came out with six types of Ideal
constitution/Govt. It was based on 2 by 3 matrix on two dimensional analyses. First
dimension is weather the rule is by one, few, or many. Second dimension is whether the
rule is in the interest of ruler(s), or for the whole community. Just constitutions/govt, to
him, were one in which rule is in the interest of whole community. If the rule is for interest
of ruler(s), the constitution/govt is unjust or perverted.
His 6 ideal or pure constitution are: Kingship, Tyranny, Aristocracy, Oligarchy, Polity
and Democracy. Real constitution shall be combination of these 6 ideal types. To him, the
best combination is Polity and Aristocracy. In such constitution political power is
distributed among many on the principle of equity but also in accordance with correct
standard of virtue or goodness. In such constitution few wise and virtuous balance the rule
by multitude.
6-fold division of constitutions by Aristotle was so much robust and forward looking that
it remained the standard for the next more than 2300 years after him. Even today we can
categorise the Govt by using his classification. It was one of the finest examples of
comparative Govt/constitution. Some criticism is still levelled on his 6-fold classification
of Govt/constitution. This is mainly on account of his dislike for democracy, which is
classified as unjust and perverted form of Govt. On the same vein he praised Aristocracy,
rule by few wise and virtuous persons. In the next section of the answer I will try to explain
in brief his classification of constitution/govt, its feature, and criticism.
Aristotle’s 6-fold classification of constitution/Govt.:
As stated above, Aristotle carefully studied 158 constitutions of states of Europe in his
time. We may note that most of these states were numerous city states of Greece and
western Europe. He then found a pattern in them. Some of the states were ruled by King or
monarch, that is by a single person. In some state political power were vested in select few
persons who ruled as a group. In the remaining states large numbers of persons together
ruled. He also noticed that in some state political power was used to serve the interest of
ruler or rulers, whereas in others interest of entire community is taken care of by the
ruler(s). Thus, he classified all these constitution in a 2 by 3 matrix. First dimension was
weather the rule is by one, few, or many. This is formed 3 columns of the matrix. Second
dimension was whether the rule is in the interest of ruler(s), or for the whole community.
This formed the 2 rows of the matrix. Following diagram depict this 2x3 matrix and 6-fold
classification:

48

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

From the above 2 by 3 matrix we can see that Kingship is rule by a single person- monarch-
but in the interest of whole community. Tyranny is also rule by one but it is in the interest
of the ruler only. Tyranny, therefore, is unjust and perverted form of Monarchy.
Aristocracy is the rule by select few wise and virtuous persons in the interest of the whole
community, where as if such rule is only for the rulers, who are wealthy few, then it is
termed as Oligarchy. Thus, Oligarchy is the perverted form of Aristocracy.
There are two types of Govt in which there is rule by many. If the rule by many is in the
interest of whole community it is termed as ‘Polity’ on the other hand if such rule is only
in the interest of select few, who rule on behalf and support of many, then it is called
Democracy. Democracy, in this sense, is the perverted form of Polity.
Aristotle also categorised the constitutions into two broad types. To him the just
constitutions are those in which the rule is in the interest of the whole community on the
other hand if the rule is in the interest of the ruler(s), he termed them as unjust or perverted
constitution/govt. In his classification Kingship, Aristocracy and Polity are examples of
just constitutions whereas Tyranny, Oligarchy, and Democracy are forms of unjust
constitutions/ government.
Features of Aristotle’s classification of Constitution/Govt.:
In the above scheme of Aristotle's classification of constitutions into six categories some
interesting features are noticeable; some of them are listed below:
First, Aristotle categorised Democracy as unjust or perverted form of government. This
may be because of two factors. First factor may be Plato's influence on him. It may be
noted that Plato, his teacher Socrates, and Plato’s student Aristotle, all three did not like
Democracy in the form it was practiced in Athens at that time. Socrates was punished and
was given death sentence by the Democratic government of Athens. To all these three great
thinkers, Democracy is rule of mob or multitude. They believed that politics is a specialised

49

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

activity requiring special knowledge. The poor, the hungry, the masses are not capable of
deliberation and taking decisions for the entire community. Philosophers, the virtuous and
knowledgeable persons are best suited to rule. To them, Democracy degenerate into rule
by many in the interest of select few, who rule on behalf of the masses claiming their
support. Therefore, they termed Democracy as unjust or perverted form of government.
Second feature is his liking for Aristocracy that is the rule by select few, wise and virtuous
people. This again may be influenced by Plato’s thought, for he also recommended rule by
philosopher Kings, which was a kind of Aristocracy.
Third feature is that these six categories were ideal or pure types of constitutions. He
clarified that in reality none of these categories can be realised in their pure form. For
example, it is not possible to have an ideal Kingship in which a single ruler -the monarch-
rule in the interest of whole community. Neither it is possible to have pure tyranny, the
king ruling for all time in the interest of himself. Hence in reality the government will have,
at the same time, features of some of these ideal categories enumerated by Aristotle.
Fourth is his mixing of ‘Polity’ and Aristocracy to recommend the best possible form of
Government. To him, in such government ignorance and irrationality of vast numbers of
masses are balanced by wisdom and virtue of select few. Also, since both Aristocracy and
Polity are rule in the interest of whole community, hence their combination results into the
best possible form of government. Interestingly, he named this mixed constitution ‘Polity’
same as one of the ideal types of constitution.
Fifth feature of his classification is the cyclic nature of the type of government a particular
society/state experiences over a period of time. The cycle may begin with
Kingship/Monarchy but in due course of time it degenerates into Tyranny. Dissent/Revolt
then may take place and Tyranny is replaced by Aristocracy; but that also degenerates into
Oligarchy after sometime. As a change another just form of government- ‘Polity’- appears
but that also degenerates into Democracy which is rule by many but in the interest of
selective few. Democracy may give way to Kingship or benevolent despotic rule by one in
the interest of all and the cycle continues. To Aristotle, change in constitution/Government
was revolution.

CONCLUSION:
Aristotle studied about 158 constitutions/govt. of his time and came out with a six-fold
classification of ideal or pure types of constitutions/government. These 6 types were named
Kingship/Monarchy, Tyranny, Aristocracy, Oligarchy, Polity and Democracy. This was
based on 2-dimensional analysis; differentiating parameters in first dimension were
whether the rule was by one, few or by many. In second dimension the basis of
classification was whether the rule is in the interest of the whole community or only the
rulers.

50

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

It may also be noted that such classification gave only the pure or ideal type of constitution.
In reality the governments will have mixed features of these ideal types. His scheme of
classification of constitution and government was based on very sound principles and was
very forward looking. This is why it became the standard for classifying Govt for more
than 2300 years in almost all political orders anywhere in world.
Despite this, the classification of Constitution/Govt by Aristotle is criticized on many
accounts. first and foremost is his terming Democracy as perverted form of government.
To him, democracy which is purportedly the rule of many in effect is Rule by few, in the
interest of few on behalf of many. His preference for Aristocracy over Democracy is also
criticized. On one hand Aristotle claimed universality of his six-fold classification of
government, that is they are applicable to all societies anywhere, in any time; on the other
hand, he held the view that any political Idea is realised in a different way in different
societies. Hence, contradictions in his thought regarding the universality of his
classification of constitution/Govt across different societies is also criticised. Despite such
criticism, his classification of constitution/Govt is one of the most precious Jewel of
classical political thought and comparative government/politics.

Q.3 : Discuss Aristotle view on household and State.

Similar question:
Q: Discuss Aristotle view on household and State. How was it different from Plato’s view?
Answer Template:
Introduction:
In Aristotle’s view households or family is basic building block of the State. Households
help build society and maintain it. This was in contrast to Plato’s views about the family.
Plato prescribed no family for the Guardian classes, as in his view, family and private
property breed competition, dispute, and conflict among the ruling classes.
Aristotle included husband, wife, children, slave and property as constitutive element of
the household. It is interesting here to note that slave and property were included as integral
part of the family. In the household there is a hierarchical relation to maintain order &
harmony. This hierarchy reflect natural inequality based on sex, age, ability.
Aristotle proposed duality of private vs public life. To him, family is the realm of personal
or private, whereas politics belongs to public life. He is criticized, especially by feminists,
to have created the dichotomy of personal vs public. It took thousands of years to break
this duality or dichotomy personal vs public.
For Aristotle, State (which he equated with the Polis- city state) represents supreme moral
and ethical virtue of a political community. State is a natural entity. It is prior to individual,
that is existence of Individual is dependent on state. State is a living entity, like organic
whole, individual being its part. Human are political animal and require state for fulfilling

51

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

their final cause which is to live a virtuous, fulfilled, and Good life.; one who doesn’t need
state is not human, either God or Beast, opined Aristotle.
In the next section of the answer I will attempt to elaborate on some of the views of Aristotle on
household and State.
Aristotle’s view on the State:
• State represent unity of Politics and Ethics. It may be noted that this was similar views
in Hindu political thought where State was representing unity of Dharma (morality/ ethics)
and Dandaniti (statecraft/politics).
• Like Plato, he believed State represent supreme moral and ethical virtue of a political
community. Law contain moral goodness. Thus, obeying law denotes morally right
conduct. This view was also promoted by Rousseau, for whom, by obeying law one obeys
one’s higher self and become more virtuous and free.
• State is formed from villages, which in turn consists of families or household. Final
building block is Individual which forms the family. Thus, there is a natural progression of
social arrangement- Individual-family-village- state. Thus, state is the highest order of
socio-political arrangement.
• State is a natural entity. It is prior to individual. It means that though in time State
evolved after individual, family, and communities, but in essence it is prior to
individual/family. Individuals cannot live without state. Only in state peaceful and orderly
life is possible. Human can fulfil their final cause, that is living a virtuous, fulfilled life,
only living in a state. State is like an organic whole, individuals its integral part. Human as
social animal require state. One who doesn’t need state is not human, either God or beast.
• Thus, only living in state, individual can attain ‘Eudemonia’- fulfilment & happiness- final
cause/purpose/end/goal of being human.
• The city state or Polis had 3 classes- very rich, very poor, middle class. Aristotle considered
the middle class as best suited to rule.
• Best possible state- Small size, homogeneous population, moderate richness, ruled by
middle class, rule of law (constitutionalism). Justice is the highest virtue of the ideal state.
principle of equity and merit are standard for distribution of political power/ offices. Both
the principles of Justice based on proportional and arithmetic equality are followed in such
state.
Aristotle’s view on Household or Family:
• Family is primary and essential unit of the state It help build society and maintain it.
• Household consists of husband, wife, children, slave, property.
• There is a hierarchical relation in the family to maintain order & harmony.
• Natural inequality based on sex, age, ability justify hierarchical relation in the
family.

52

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

• There are three kinds of hierarchical relation in the family:

• Master-slave;
• Husband-Wife;
• Father-child-
• All 3 are different kinds of hierarchical relation. There is complete subordination
of slave to the master. But though wife is subordinate to husband, she is not like
slave. She is as independent as her husband. In household matter she supersedes
her husband. Only in matters of vital and economic decisions, husband’s view
prevails. Father child relation is like king –subject relation. But once children
become adult, they do not remain subordinate and become equal to their father.
• Harmonious family- all members work according to their assigned
role/responsibilities for the common good of the family.
• Private vs Public: Family is in private realm, world of particular; family should be
separated/secluded from affairs of the Polis/state-public-world of universal.
• Status and Role of Women in the family
• Women are inferior to men, an incomplete defective male!
• Has reason, but without authority; hence, she has to be under command of male!
• Important role to manage household- domestic affairs, keep & store property. In
such matters she is the master of the family.
• Women are free being, half of free-men of the Polis/state, hence their education,
bringing up, well-being must be ensured.
• Women should be kept away from Public Realm because their deliberative and
decision-making capabilities were not fully developed.
Conclusion:
For Aristotle, household and state both were necessary institutions for fuller development
of human life. Individual make the family which in turn grows into village and village into
to the state. Thus, the state is the highest order of political community. It ensures virtuous,
fulfilled and good life of the individuals. Household consists of husband, wife, children,
slave and property.
It is interesting to note that slave and property were considered as integral part of the
household. It may also be noted that unlike Plato who debarred Guardian class to have
private property and family life, Aristotle had very different views about the family and
private property. To him, both family and private property are essential for development
of human being. Households help build society and maintain it. It is the basic building
block for the society/state.
Aristotle held the view that the ideal state should have small size, homogeneous population,
moderate richness and should be ruled by middle class. His ideal or best possible state is

53

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

ruled by law or constitutionalism. Here again we find a big difference between the view of
Aristotle and his teacher Plato, for whom the formal law was not required in a just state
where there is perfect harmony of individual soul and among the three classes of the
society.
Thus, we can see that Aristotle had a very different view about household and state in
comparison to those of Plato. His view on these two essential social institutions are more
pragmatic, realistic, and closer to contemporary views about them.

Q 4: Discuss Aristotle’s justification of Slavery.

Similar question:
Q: Critically examine the views of Aristotle on slavery.
Answer Template:
Introduction:
Slavery has been a very sensitive issue since ancient time in the Western society. Aristotle
had supported the institution of slavery on natural, rational and social grounds. He had the
view that some people are by nature servile (submissive) and others dominant. The people
who are servile need guidance and order by somebody else for performing their functions.
Slavery also fulfils a very important social need. Slaves free their masters to participate in
public affair which required knowledge, time, and energy. By serving his master and taking
care of all the routine affairs of his household the slave does an important duty towards the
society. He also saw slavery as a division of labour between the slave and the master. Slaves
and masters have complementary attributes. Former is strong physically, latter strong in
mental faculty.
Though Aristotle supported slavery he prescribed some conditions to regulate the
institution of slavery. To him, slavery was justified only if the slave was less virtuous than
the master. Winning in war and not paying debt should not become the ground for slavery.
Slaves should be treated well and should be made free for their good services.
Despite this, Aristotle is criticized for supporting slavery. But we should appreciate that in
the context of that time it would have been impossible for Aristotle to completely reject
the practice of slavery. Hence, he attempted to prescribe logical, rational, and practical
approach to slavery and by prescribing few conditions he also tried to make it more
humane.
Views of Aristotle on slavery:
• Considered Slave as part of household and like any other possession/property.
• Supported Slavery with following reasons and conditions
• Reasons:
• Natural:

54

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

• Slaves lack reason/rationality and self-control which are necessary for self-
governing hence, they are to be ruled by virtuous & rational master.
• By nature, some are servile and some dominant. The servile people need
guidance & command.
• Inequality and relation of subordination and ruler are natural.
• Social requirements(expediency)
• Slave & master is mutually beneficial relation- slave makes master free to
participate in public affairs of the state and master helps slave lead
somewhat virtuous life.
• Division of labour: Slave- strong body fit for physical tough job; Master-
strong in reason/rationality- fit for political, economic, and higher pursuits.
• Conditions:
• Enslavement justified only if slave lack virtue/reason; winning war, and paying
debt shouldn’t be ground for slavery
• Master must be more virtuous than the slave.
• Slave should be treated well, and should be made free for their good service
• He realized and anticipated no need for slavery with technological advancements.
Discussion:
His view on slavery was pragmatic, rational, and humane. He attempted to provide rational
justification for slavery. He linked it to larger good of the society as slavery helps citizen
participate in solving social problems. He also linked practice of slavery to morality and
ethics. His condition that master must be more virtuous than the slave was very strict,
following which overall virtue in society could have increased. By such conditions he tried
to make the practice more humane. In any case, Aristotle was both a pragmatic and rational
political thinker. We cannot expect him to outright reject such deeply entrenched social
practice.
Conclusion:
Aristotle supported slavery but with some conditions. For him, slaves are part of household
like any other possessions/ property. He put forward both natural and social arguments in
support of the slavery. He had the view that by nature some people are servile and require
guidance and order from others to live their life. Also, slavery fulfils a very important social
requirement by letting the citizen free from mundane(routine) household job to participate
in the affairs of the Polis.
Thus, to Aristotle, slavery is justified on the grounds of natural inequality and different but
complementary attributes among humans and for fulfilling larger social requirement. But
Aristotle attempted to make the practice of slavery more humane by putting forward some
conditions such as the master should be more virtuous than the slave, winning in war and

55

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

not paying debt should not be the ground for slavery, the slaves should be treated well, and
should be made free for the good services. He was also credited for visualising and
anticipating that with technological advancement there will be no need of slavery and the
institution will disappear and that is what happened in modern times. Here again we can
see the pragmatism in the political thoughts of Aristotle.
Despite this, he is criticized for not rejecting the in human practice of slavery. But one
should remember the time and context of that period and should appreciate that it would
have been almost impossible for any philosopher to go against such a deeply entrenched
social practice of his times.

Q5: Explain the significance of golden mean in Aristotle’s writings. How is it

reflected in his idea of the best practicable state?
Answer Template
Introduction:
In Aristotle’s philosophy and writing ethics and morality held prominent position. His
views on ethics, morality, ethical virtues, etc are contained in two of his creations-
Nicomachean Ethics and Eudemian Ethics. Aristotle viewed ethical virtue as excellence
of human character. Virtuous person has the ability to act excellently at most of the time
and in most of the situations. Excellent actions or responses in view of Aristotle are those
which are intermediate between two extremes of excess and lack or deficiency, that is, the
Golden mean.
Ethical virtue denotes balanced acts, responses, and temperament (nature) which are in
between two extremes. For example, acting courageously is an act in excellence or virtue.
Courage is response to feeling of fear. Courage is a golden mean between two extremes of
cowardice (too much of feeling of fear) and fool-hardiness (too less feeling of fear).
Similarly, the virtue of Patience is the Golden mean between two extreme responses to the
feeling of anger. In his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle has given a long list of virtues
which fall in between two extreme responses to feelings or situations.
We should note that Aristotle didn’t intend to apply the principle of golden mean
mechanically. Neither he meant that the golden mean is exactly in between two extremes,
like arithmetic mean in mathematics. His golden mean is contextual and situational. It
varies from time to time and situation to situation. Sometime virtue may be near to one
extreme. At some other time, it may be farther away from either extreme. For example,
showing extreme courage, bordering foolhardiness, to save other’s life, is an excellent act
and hence showing such courage is virtue. However, in normal situations showing such
extreme bravery would be called foolhardiness.
We should also note that determining what is in excess and what is in deficit is not easy.
There is no formula to find the golden mean. This insight comes with lifelong training and
practice. It is like skilful craft. The craftsman learns and practice to produce artefact which

56

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

are balanced, harmonious. These creations are beautiful and precious due to their
perfectness. Nothing can be added or taken away from them any further. Thus, they are
made following the principle of golden mean- not too much, neither too less, just exact.
Same is with virtue, they are perfectly balanced act, nothing can be added or removed from
them. Hence, virtuous acts are like beautiful artefacts.
Another point to be noted that by being virtuous and acting excellently, one can achieve
the final purpose of being human (final cause), happiness and have a fulfilled flourished
life. This is what Aristotle called ‘Eudemonia’, which may roughly be translated in
English as flourishing or happiness. Thus, his principle of golden mean help achieves final
purpose of being human.
In Aristotle’s conception of best practicable state, reflection of his principle of golden
mean is clearly visible. He discarded the ideal state of Plato as too good to realize. Plato’s
ideal state required no law, no constitution because there was absolute harmony of soul in
each individual as well as in society among three classes. Everyone did what was expected
of them and therefore no law was required. On the other hand, there is the extreme of state
with no law, no order, an anarchical state. Everyone doing what they want. He discarded
this extreme also. He chose the state based on law and formal constitution. This was only
the second-best state of Plato. But Aristotle considered such state as best practicable state
because it was between two extremes as explained above. Thus, Plato’s second-best state
became the best practicable state for Aristotle.
In the next section of the answer, I will try to present in brief some of features of the principles of
golden mean and how it reflected in Aristotle’s conception of best practicable state.

Salient features of principles of golden mean:

• Golden mean is part of the ethical virtue. Aristotle describes ethical virtue as a “hexis”
(“state” “condition” “disposition”)—a tendency or temperament (nature), induced by our
habits, to have appropriate response to feelings. Thus, virtue is part on one’s nature,
character.
• Golden mean denotes appropriate response to feelings and situations. Virtue is temperance,
moderation, balance in thought and action on face of different feelings and circumstances.
• Principles of golden mean is to have right response (in terms of action) to different
feelings/emotions and situations. Virtuous acts are those with are in between the two
extreme responses. For example, courage is virtue which is in between cowardice (excess
response to fear) and foolhardiness (deficient response to fear).
• Principles of golden mean are essentially the same as the Buddha’s middle path between
self-indulgence and self-renunciation.
• Golden mean is virtue. Virtue denotes excellence in thought and action. But such
excellence in action should not be one off. That is, it is not virtue if a person sometime act

57

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

excellently. Only when it becomes part of one's habit to act excellently by following the
principle of Golden mean, then it becomes virtue. Hence, virtue denotes disposition, nature,
or character.
• Golden mean is not to be applied mechanically in all situations. It is neither arithmetic
mean or exact middle of two extremes. What can be considered as mean depends on the
situation and context. At some situation response very close to one extreme may be
considered as Golden mean. For example, to show extreme courage to save many lives is
a virtue and Golden mean which is very near to the extreme, which in normal situation may
be considered as foolhardiness.
• Determining Golden mean in each situation is like skilful craft. It can be learnt only through
lifelong practice. It should become part of one’s habit. Then only Golden mean becomes
virtue.
• Like the skilful craft Golden mean require lifelong training and practice. The skilful
craftsman maintains perfect balance and harmony in creating artefacts. Those artefacts are
beautiful because nothing more can be added or can be taken away from them. They are in
complete balance and harmony. Same way, virtuous acts following the golden mean is in
complete balance and harmony, neither in excess nor in deficit, exact, perfect.
• Virtuous act following golden mean is just appropriate and exact response in any situation.
• When a person chooses to act virtuously by adopting the principle of Golden means, he
does so for the sake of the “kalon”—a Greek word that can mean “beautiful”, “noble”, or
“fine”. Thus, excellent acts are like beautiful artefacts by a skilful craftsman.
• By following the principle of Golden mean, a person can achieve his/her final purpose or
final cause of being human. Thus, virtue is acting excellently to achieve what is expected
of a human life.

How the principle of Golden mean reflects in the conception of best practicable
state by Aristotle?

First, Aristotle while choosing his best state adopted the principle of Golden mean. He
discarded the extremes of the ideal state without any need of law and constitution as
conceived by Plato. He also discarded the Other extreme of a state in which lawlessness,
anarchy, and chaos prevails. Instead, he chose the state which is less perfect than the
Platonic ideal state. The practicable state, which is based on formal laws and constitution,
became the best practicable state for Aristotle.
Second, in defining the features of the best practicable state, Aristotle chose the features
which are in between two extremes.

58

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

• The size of the state should be not too large nor too small. It should be of moderate
size. If it was too large it would be difficult to maintain such State. If it is too small
there would be not enough resources for its maintenance.
• The state should not be too rich or too poor. It should have moderate richness. If it
is too rich, everyone would pursue wealth, and virtue will be lost. If it is too poor,
then people will not be able to pursue virtuous act as they would always be worried
about their basic needs.
• The best class to rule should not be very rich and wealthy class or not the poor
masses. It is the middle class, having moderate richness, which is fittest to rule the
Aristotelian state.
• The states should have moderate diversity. It should be homogeneous enough to
manage properly with moderate amount of diversity in population, demography,
etc.
• The best form of government or constitution of the Aristotelian state would be
Polity, which was in between the aristocracy and democracy. In polity there was
the rule by many but it was moderated by the wisdom of the knowledgeable and
virtuous people as in aristocracy. Thus, Aristotle applied the principle of Golden
mean in choosing the best government or constitution for his state.

Conclusion:
Aristotle principle of golden mean denotes maintaining balance and moderation in acting
as response to different feelings/emotions and situations. Golden mean is virtue which
makes one’s act excellent, beautiful, and help achieve ‘Eudemonia’, that is, flourishing and
happiness. By following the principles of golden mean, one can have happy, fulfilled, and
good life.
Aristotle's best practicable state reflected his principles of golden mean. Aristotle's concept
of best practicable state seems to be the extension of his doctrine of golden mean. The ideal
state of Plato was an extreme. It was too good to be realised in real life. Hence Aristotle
chose the second-best state of Plato; the state which was based on law and constitution.
Thus, he chose his best practicable state which was in between two extremes of the ideal
state of Plato and the anarchical state.
If we further see how he conceived the idea of the best practicable state, we can visualise
the imprint of his doctrine of golden mean on his idea of the best state. For Aristotle, the
best practicable state should neither be too big or too small. As far as demography of the
state is concerned, again he goes for the golden mean by suggesting that the it should have
moderate diversity. The state should be homogeneous enough to manage properly. While
considering material resources and richness of the state, he applies the principle of golden
mean. In his view the state should have moderate richness, that is, it should not be too rich
or too poor.

59

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

Aristotle chose the middle class to be most appropriate and fit class to rule his best
practicable state. He chose middle class as ruler, for it is in between the extremes of rich
and poor class. Finally, for Aristotle the best possible constitution/government is which
was in between aristocracy and democracy. Here again he applied the doctrine of golden
mean. In ‘Polity’, the rule by many was moderated by guidance and wisdom of select few
wise and virtuous persons. Thus, we can see that Aristotle's conception of the best
practicable state was extension of his principle of golden mean.
Finally, we should note that for Aristotle the virtuous act is like a skilful craft which is
having perfect balance, moderation and harmony. Aristotle views designing a state like a
skilful craft. Plato went for the designing an ideal state from scratch. He made his State
best and ideal. Such a state was too good to be realized in real life. Aristotle, following his
doctrine of Golden mean, went for crafting the state which was in between two extremes.
Not as idealistic and utopic as Platonic state nor as anarchic as state of nature. The best
practicable state would have nothing in excess. Its population, its demography, its area, its
richness, its ruler, its constitution/govt. etc. all will be just appropriate, not too much not
too less. Hence, he crafted in his best practicable state which was just exact, in perfect
balance and harmony. Therefore, we can visualise how strongly his idea of golden mean
reflected in his conception of best practicable state.

Q.6: “What Aristotle calls the ideal state is always Plato's second best” ; explain
this famous statement of Sabine.
(Answer is given in notes form, may be converted into normal ( Introduction, Body,
conclusion) form)
Plato in his ‘Republic’ sketched an idealistic and utopic view of State. Platonic ideal state
was like magnified just individual soul. Three classes of the State represented three
elements of Individual soul. The philosopher Kings represented reason & wisdom,
Auxiliary (soldiers) spirit & courage, and Producers represented appetite & temperance.
Each class and individual performed one’s duty as per one’s natural aptitude and abilities
without interfering into other’s domain. Justice and Goodness prevailed in Platonic ideal
state as it comprised of morally developed just souls. In individual, reason governed and
guided spirit and appetite; in the state philosopher kings ruled with wisdom and knowledge.
The Guardian classes (philosopher kings and Auxiliaries) didn’t have family and property.
They lived commune life with common family and property. Only the Producer class was
allowed to have property and family. Functional division of society into 3 classes was based
on performance in the tests during free & compulsory public education. In such ideal
society/state there would be no dispute, conflict, corruption, and injustice. Platonic state
was just, virtuous, and embodiment of Goodness. Hence, there was no need for any formal
or positive laws by the state.

60

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

However, Plato, perhaps knowing fully well that his ideal state was impossible to realize
in real world, gave his second-best state in his book ‘Laws’. Platonic second-best state was
based on law which was equally applied to citizen as well as the ruler. The state had a
mixed constitution. Both the features of Aristocracy and Democracy was mixed. The rulers
were chosen by election but a super council of wise & knowledgeable citizens guided the
Government. The second-best state was moderate in all respect. It had moderate size,
moderate wealth and private property.
Aristotle, student of Plato, was much more pragmatic than his teacher. He realized that
Platonic ideal state was a utopia, not realizable in real world. Hence, while classifying
constitution/Government, Aristotle talked of best practicable state and constitution, not any
ideal state. To Aristotle, best possible state/constitution was mix of Polity and Aristocracy.
It was a majority rule by people balanced by wise/virtuous minority. Aristotle best
practicable state was based on the principle of golden mean. It was moderate in all respect.
The state had 3 classes- very rich, very poor, middle class. Aristotle considered the middle
class as best suited to rule. His best possible state had medium size, homogeneous
population, moderate richness, ruled by middle class, rule of law (constitutionalism).
Justice was the highest virtue of the ideal state. It was based on distributive justice on the
principle of equity (proportional equality) and merit. Private property was allowed but its
use was meant for the common good. Thus, in many respects, best practicable state of
Aristotle was reflection of the second-best state of Plato.
In sum, the ideal state of Plato was an extreme. It was too good to be realised in real life.
Plato himself acknowledged this. Hence, he himself gave another kind of state which was
based on laws, had mixed constitution, and possible to be realized in real world. Aristotle,
following his principle of golden mean, chose the second-best state of Plato as his best
practicable state. Aristotelian best possible state was based on law and constitution. It had
mixed constitution having features of both aristocracy and democracy ( Polity- virtuous
form of democracy). In comparison to Plato’s ideal state which was “rule of the best man”
Aristotle’s best state was “rule of the best laws” – a well ordered constitution which entails
good governance.
Thus, Aristotle chose his best practicable state which was in between two extremes of the
ideal state of Plato and the anarchical or degenerate state. Hence, Sabine’s statement that
what Aristotle called the ideal state is always Plato's second-best state was very much
correct. It actually denoted the very difference of the political thoughts of these two great
political philosophers.

61

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

NOTES:
1.Aristotle’s idea on revolution

Aristotle’s idea of revolution was change, upheavals, and tumult in body politic. Revolution
denoted change in type of constitution or government by popular uprising. He also counted change
in the ruling power without change in constitution/ Govt as revolution. He asserted that the
constitution/ government in any state changes in a cycle. The monarchy in due course become a
perverted form of Govt in the interest of one, what he called tyranny. Tyranny, through revolution,
give way to Aristocracy, which with time degenerate into to Oligarchy, which is rule by wealthy
in the interest of few. By revolution, Oligarchy changes into Polity, which is the rule by many in
the interest of whole community. With time, Polity also becomes degenerated and turns into to
Democracy, which is the rule by many but in the interest of only few.

Thus, we can see that his conception of revolution is a kind of major political change in the body
politic. The change can be either in the form of government/constitution or change in the ruling
power. According to Aristotle major reasons behind revolution are the differing conceptions of
equality and justice. When people feel that political offices, honours, rewards, etc are not
distributed in just manner then they may feel that justice have been denied to them. When there is
gross inequality in the socio- political order then also chances of revolution rises. Both equality
and Justice have differing conception to different person. People perceive them differently. Hence,
it becomes difficult for any ruling power to convince all at a same time that justice is done by the
political power. Equality also is almost impossible to maintain. Some who are privileged may
prefer proportional equality, whereas the masses may call for absolute equality. Hence, differing
conception of equality and Justice are the root cause of revolution or changes in the political order.

Aristotle also list out several other causes for the revolution and change of Government and
constitution. Some of them are- instigation of revolution by some resourceful citizens for their own
interest, disproportionate aggregation of power in hands of few persons, fear and contempt of the
ruler, and imbalance by disproportionate increase in any one part of the state, etc.

We can see that in Aristotle’s view revolution is changes in body politic which is natural and
inevitable. The reasons he suggested for revolution are such that no ruling dispensation can stop
the change for a long time. Maintaining equality is almost impossible, the conception of Justice
differs from person to person, some section of population will develop fear and contempt against
the ruling power, many with vested interests possessing resources and power want change for their
own interest and hence instigate revolution, and imbalances in body politic is also inevitable.
Hence, changes are in the very nature of the body politic.

62

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

However, Aristotle gave many suggestions to rulers, even tyrants, how can they rule for a long-
time maintaining stability and minimise the chances of revolution. But changes would occur
sooner or later, that is the way of body politic. Equality, injustice, imbalances, vested interest,
concentration of power, fear and contempt, etc are eternal conditions of socio-political life and no
ruling dispensation can avoid them happening in some part of the population. Therefore, changes
in government/constitution or ruling power is inevitable; only it can be delayed with enterprise,
acumen and statecraft of the ruler.

2. Distributive justice of Aristotle.

Aristotle gave two dimensions of Justice- ethical and political. In ethical sense, justice is virtue in
action. In ethical sense, justice denotes moral goodness, righteousness, right conduct, complete
goodness, common good. In political sense, justice is 'fairness’ in distribution of income, wealth,
rewards, honours, political offices, punishments etc , based on the principle of equity- proportional
and arithmetic equality. Ethical conception of Justice is abstract, normative, and formal principles
of justice. Whereas, Political Justice deals with the concrete realization of these principles in the
historical circumstances, conventions, and traditions of particular society/state and therefore
meaning of justice differ with the differences which exist between societies. Thus, Aristotle’s idea
of distributive justice is part of his political conception of Justice. To him, just distribution of social
goods is distributive Justice.
Features of Aristotle’s idea of distributive justice: Distributive Justice is a particular justice,
that is part of the virtue in action, whereas ethical justice is universal justice. 'Just’ is what is lawful,
fair and promote equity, both proportional and arithmetic. Distributive justice hands out political
office, honours and rewards according to the merits or worth of the recipients. It should follow the
principles of equity- equals to be treated equally and unequal, unequally. Also, reward should be
in proportion to what one contributes and as per his worth or merit. All these are essence of
proportionate equality. The worth or merit can be freedom for democrats, virtue for Aristocrats,
wealth for Oligarchs, noble birth for Aristocrats and Oligarchs. Aristotle proposed virtue, or moral
character, to be the best desert (worth or merit) as basis for distributive Justice. Thus, Aristotle’s
distributive Justice is based on principles of proportionate equality and merit. His preference for
virtue as the merit for distributive justice denote his preference for Aristocratic Govt/constitution.
He gave two formal principles of distributive justice- Proportional equality and merit or worth.
Thus, we can see that Aristotle’s theory of distributive justice is political part of the overall theory
of justice. This along with Corrective or rectifactory justice forms the justice in political domain.
Political justice is particular form of justice whereas justice in ethical sense is universal or complete
justice. His theory of distributive justice is underpinned by two principles- proportional equality
and merit or worth. Thus, political offices, honours , awards, etc. should be distributed on these
two principles. This will bring justice in political sense in the Polis or city-state.

63

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

3. Aristotle on Citizenship

Aristotle theory of citizenship is informed by his conception of State as an ethical and moral
political community which ensures virtuous life to its citizen. Hence, to him, ethics and politics
are not separate. To be a virtuous man is same as being a good citizen. Both the ruler and the ruled
(citizen) should have virtue. Hence, his idea of citizenship was political association and
participation of virtuous people in the affairs of Polis (State). Citizen in his view are supposed to
have some prerequisite qualification; these are- they should have moderate amount of property,
ethical and moral education, capability for deliberation and participation in judicial matters. It may
be noted here that Athenian citizenship was more intensive form of citizenship in which much
more is demanded from the citizen who was supposed to participate in the assembly, deliberate for
collective decision making and also participate in judicial functions. Also, Athenian citizens
enjoyed more privileges and power in comparison to citizens of modern representative democracy.
Therefore, eligibility criteria for citizenship was also stricter.
Aristotle denied citizenship to women, slaves, alien, foreigners, and those without property. To
him, a citizen should have high degree of ethical, moral and intellectual excellence or virtue.
Aristotle thought that middle class is the best suited for citizenship, for they have moderate
property, proper moral, ethical and intellectual excellence and virtue. The poor lack essential
material resources and hence cannot develop deliberative and decision-making capabilities and
therefore cannot participate in deliberations, and judicial functions. Therefore, property less
multitudes are not suitable for citizenship. He also abhorred excess wealth and hence did not
recommend super rich as good citizen.
Thus, we can see that his idea of citizenship was closely linked to his idea of state and its role as
supreme ethical and moral political community. To him, being ethical, moral and virtuous is same
as being good citizen. Only those who possess property, moral, ethical and intellectual excellence,
have virtue and have proper deliberative and decision-making capabilities are suitable for
citizenship. It was citizenship based on merit or virtue. Athenian citizenship offered more
responsibilities on citizen and hence had stricter qualification criteria. Aristotle’s idea of
citizenship was, therefore, intimately linked to his idea of State, constitution, and role of citizen.

4. Man as zoo politikon

‘Man as zoo politikon’ is one of most famous quote of great Greek political philosopher Aristotle.
It literally means that humans, by nature, are political animal. This claim of Aristotle is based on
his another thesis that “every man by nature has an impulse towards partnership with others”. Both
these statements indicate Aristotle’s firm belief that humans can flourish only in association with
other humans. They alone cannot live a fulfilled and flourished life. Same as single wheel cannot
turn by itself, humans need social arrangements to express, create, and fulfil life goals.

64

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

The word Political in this phrase/saying can have multiple meanings. In positive sense political
may denote social arrangements in which laws are made and various social needs human lives are
fulfilled. In this sense politics ensures good life of community and fulfilled and flourished life of
individuals. If we take politics as game of interest and power, then politics denotes how humans
are naturally inclined towards desire, ego, and power. They are self-interested, egoistic and try to
dominate the weaker ones whenever they get the chance to do so. Whatever way we think of
politics, humans are naturally seems to be a political animal.
Man has God sense of reason, rationality, and ability of speech and language. But development of
all these faculties require partnership and social arrangements. Humans have unique ability of co-
creation through dialogue and communication. Hence, co-creations are possible only in partnership
of others. All human values- Justice, equality, rights, liberty- are meaningful only in context of
social arrangements. Hence, humans, since time immoral lived in family, village/community, and
state. To Aristotle, all these social arrangements are natural ( not social construction) because
human, by nature, is a political animal. Hence, individuals are like integral part of these social
arrangements as limbs are part of the body. Thus, integrated and organic view of society/state in
Aristotle’s thought is based on his belief that man is a political animal.
In sum, politics as social arrangements to ensure both common Good and fulfilled Individual life
is starting point of the political science. Aristotle as the father of political science gave this
conception of politics on the basis of his assertion that man is a political animal. Hence, politics is
in nature of humans. They cannot live without that. Individuals require social arrangements such
as family, society, state to live a flourished and fulfilled life. Those who live in isolation are
outlaws, not normal. All subsequent political philosopher accepted this thesis of Aristotle. In fact,
this statement was taken as given or itself natural.

65

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

THEME 4: MACHIAVELLI
4. A: Syllabus:
• Virtu, Religion, Republicanism
• Presentation themes: morality and statecraft; vice and virtue
4. B: Key Points:
• Niccolò Machiavelli (1469 –1527), born in Florence (Italy), represents Italian
Renaissance- humanism, secularism, scientific reasoning- in political philosophy. Hence,
called child of his time, that is, the changing times from medieval to modern era.
• He is considered as first modern political thinker for making politics autonomous, separate
from religion and conventional morality. He gave the concept of Nationalism, Nation-
State, and Republicanism.
• In his prime, he served as senior diplomat in Florence Republic after fall of Medici
Monarchist rule. But the Republic was overthrown, Medici again became King. With that,
Machiavelli’s fortune went downside. He was banished to an isolated, retired life.
• During forced retirement, he wrote both his classics- in 1532: ‘The Prince’ and in 1531:
‘Discourse on Livy’
• His Prince is of the genre of ‘mirror to kings’ or advices to the kings on statecraft, similar
to Zia Barni’s ‘Fatwa’, and Nizam-ul-Mulk’s ‘Siyasat-Nama’.
• How a single ruler maintains and protects a newly acquired State is the main theme of ‘the
Prince’. How to have a well-functioning strong Republic and how a Republic can grow &
prosper are the subject matter of ‘Discourse on Livy’.
• Very pessimistic view of the nature of the man: to him, men are ungrateful. fickle, liars,
and deceitful, coward, selfish and greedy. Men obey for fear of punishment Not out of love
or moral commitment.
• His Prince is a great lesson in statecraft. His advises to the Kings are pure pragmatism,
realism, and empiricism (how things are). He made political actions independent from
considerations of conventional morality, ethics, spirituality/’Dharma’, and normativism
(how things ought to be).
• He advised the King to be flexible, practical, forceful, effective, keep his subject in awe
with his force, power, grandeur, be master in power politics, judicious use of
violence/cruelty, be pretentious (wear mask, hide true face), adopt any means to protect his
state.
• To the king, no duty or ‘Dharma’ bigger than protecting and maintaining his state. For that
whatever decisions and actions King takes cannot be judged by conventional morality and
ethics.

66

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

• Thus, actions which, in social sphere, are termed ‘Vices’ may be termed ‘Virtues’ in
political sphere. Politics have its own laws, autonomous of conventional societal laws of
morality, ethics, and religion.
• To him Virtù (Italian word, similar but not same as Virtue in English) denotes enterprise,
courage, and range of personal qualities that the Prince/king needs to acquire to "maintain
his state" and to "achieve great things- glory “
• He denoted Luck, chance, destiny, tides of changing times, and emergencies for political
order as ‘Fortuna’ (Italian word).
• He considered Fortuna as enemy of political order, the ultimate threat to the safety and
security of the state.
• Prince having Virtù can respond to Fortuna at any time and in any way that is necessary to
nullify its negative impact. Thus, by his enterprise, the Prince can overcome the
emergencies, bad luck or bad times.
• In ‘The Discourses on Livy’ he preferred Republic to Monarchy. He gave many reasons
for this. More flexibility in republican rule, group of people wiser than Prince, public
discourse, deliberations, just laws & constitutionalism, liberty, and Republics being better
able to achieve common Good.
• His Recommendations for the Republic: Rule of law & constitutionalism, Flexible
Institutions able to change with time, Mixed Constitution, decisions through Public
Discourse, Public spiritedness, Active contention(conflict) between the masses and
nobility, Armed people, Civic Virtue and Civic Religion among the citizen, and re-
invention of the Republic every 10 year.
• His conception of ideal republican state has influenced the modern American republic. We
can find in Republic of USA many of the features listed above.
• His view on Religion: Criticized the Roman Catholic church and Christian values and
morality itself.; to him, Christianity glorifies suffering and makes the people meek, passive,
merciful, effeminate.
• To him, religion has instrumental value in politics, in disciplining people and help ruler
manipulate people’s emotions.
• He recommended strict separation of religion from Politics. Thus, he was the originator of
secularism in politics.
• Pluses of his political thoughts: Founder of modern political science, father of political
realism, modern conception of Nationalism, Nation-State, and Republic, Humanism,
Secularism, Civic Virtue, Public Spiritedness, Civic religion, more faith in the people than
the nobility, Public Discourse, Deliberation, class conflict to have check & balances.
• Minuses: Inconsistency, promoted unethical, immoral, opportunist, cruel, and violent
politics and regime, very negative view of human nature, misogynist view on females, anti-
Democracy, driven by local agenda, failed to develop universal laws of politics.

67

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

• In all respect Machiavelli was a unique political philosopher. He represented the transition
from mediaeval to modern period. He was first to actually separate politics from spirituality
or religion. He made politics an autonomous subject having its own laws, rules and
standards of morality and ethics. His idea of statecraft and republicanism has been so
forward looking and modern that its reverberations(impacts) are still heard from all parts
of world in all kinds of political order.

68

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

4.C: ANSWER TEMPLATES TO PAST YEAR’S AND OTHER

IMPORTANT QUESTIONS:

Q.1: Machiavelli’s is considered as first modern political thinker; comment.

Similar Question: Discuss Machiavelli as first modern thinker.

Introduction:

Machiavelli represents the time of Renaissance or great change in every aspect of life. In
political thought his idea of autonomous nature of political decisions and actions following
its own laws and rule separate from conventional morality, ethics, and religion was quite
modern. It was a sudden break from the political thoughts of ancient and mediaeval period
in which politics was part of larger realms of religion, ethics, and morality.

Since beginning, political thinkers grappled (dealt) the challenge of separating politics
from spirituality or religion. Machiavelli in one stroke made politics an autonomous subject
matter, separate and independent from religion/spirituality. His view that definition of vices
and virtues in political domain is different from those in normal social life was
revolutionary. It was shocking at that time. The society was still in the grip of mediaeval
thought when they first came across such rude proclamations(declarations) by Machiavelli.
His book ‘The Prince’ was even banned by the Pope and the church. But in due course
political thinkers as well as people understood the truth in his political thought.

He was first to give the modern conception of Nation-state and Nationalism. Similarly, his
conception of Republican government was surprisingly modern. His recommendations of
rule of law, constitutionalism, flexible institutions, public discourse, public spiritedness,
etc were adopted by most of the prominent modern Republics; most prominent of them
being the Republic of United State of America.

Thus, in all respect we can very well say that Machiavelli was the first modern political
thinker. In his political thought we find the modern political ideas of secularism,

69

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

humanism, political expediency, political realism, politics as the interplay of interest and
power, and modern conception of nationalism, nation-state, and republicanism.

Modernity in political thoughts of Machiavelli:

Following are some of his political thought which were complete break from the past, were
much ahead of his time, modern and became the integral part of contemporary political
science:

1. Secularism in Politics: since ancient time political thinkers coped with the
challenge of separating politics from spirituality or religion. ‘Dharma’ versus
‘Dandaniti’ in Hindu political thought, ‘Dhamma’ versus ‘Ana’ in Buddhist,
‘Dindaari’ versus ‘Jahan Dari’ in Islamic and Church versus the state in Christianity
have been the eternal dichotomies of politics. But Machiavelli in one stroke
completely separated politics from spirituality or religion.
His assertion in the ‘Prince’ that the supreme duty of the king is to maintain and
protect his state and for that whatever political decisions and actions he takes cannot
be judged on the standards of conventional morality, ethics and religion has
effectively given autonomy to politics from religion.
He further asserted that politics has its own laws, rules and standards of morality
and ethics very different from morality and ethics as defined from religious or
spiritual point of view. The definition of vices and virtues are different in politics
then other domains of social life. What can be called vices otherwise can be virtue
in political domain. Similar is the case with virtue, which is defined separately in
political domain. By all these pronouncements he made politics autonomous,
secular, and modern.

2. Pragmatism and realism in politics: he was first modern realist in Political

Science. For him, in politics the end justifies the means. Politics is brute interplay
of interest and power. Force and fear of punishment is what gives Political
Obligation and not the love and respect for the ruler. King can use violence,
deception, breaking his promises, lie, deceit and all kinds of means to maintain and
protect his state. Political actions can only be judged on the basis of what kind of
outcomes(results) they bring and not by the means they adopt. Such ruthless, realist,
and earthy views about the political life is the first modern thought called political
realism in modern times. In fact, his views about the politics was so modern that
today what we actually understand by politics is very similar to how Machiavelli
defined it.

70

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

3. His conception of Republicanism: He was first to give the conception of nation-

state and nationalism. Machiavelli’s thought about republicanism was surprisingly
modern in its content and outlook. He himself served as a high standing diplomat
in the Republican government of Florence. His recommendations for ideal
Republic having rule of law and constitutionalism, securing liberty of people,
flexible institutions, public discourse, public spiritedness, armed citizens, healthy
contention between the masses and the ruling elites, pluralism, etc are so modern
that most of the contemporary republics including the Republic of United State of
America follow those ideas.

4. Modern conception of statecraft: Machiavelli’s lessons in statecraft were

modern and still very relevant and widely practiced. His view that there are no
separate bases of authority, legitimacy and Political Obligation apart from the
power and force is what many thinkers, especially the realists, still believe today.
To him, state was a-ethical, amoral entity not bound by conventional morality. This
is what modern realists in Political Science believe. He contended that without the
force law is useless. The justice of the state is in the interest of the sovereign and
the safety of the state is the supreme law. The ruler has to learn how not to be good
and virtuous in conventional sense, for the vices and virtues in political domain
have different meaning than otherwise. Since politics is the interplay of interest and
power, the ruler may have to adopt means not considered good and virtuous in
conventional sense. But if the political outcomes of those actions are good for the
society then those can be termed as good political decisions. Such lessons in
statecraft were complete break from past, modern, and are accepted as essence of
politics in contemporary times.

Conclusion:

By separating politics from spirituality or religion, giving politics an autonomous

status having its own laws, rules and standards of morality, asserting that political
outcome is what matters not the means to achieve them, defining statecraft as a
specialised political endeavour having its own definitions of vices and virtues,
defining features of ideal republicanism, defining what a modern nation-state and
Republic should look like, giving political science much needed empiricism,
backing of scientific facts and figures and pragmatism, Machiavelli did a
monumental service to the subject matter of political science.

He made political science an autonomous domain of knowledge of the social life.

His political thoughts were surprisingly modern in its approach and outlook. They

71

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

were shocking when they first reached to the readers in his time. They were shocked
by the rudeness, immorality, atheism in his assertions about the political life. But
slowly both the political thinkers and people started to realise the truth and realism
in his political thoughts. Machiavelli stated how political life actually is, not how it
ought to be. He asserted that the rulers who didn't it understand the reality of politics
are destined to be decimated by those who understand the unique nature and laws
of politics.

His ‘Prince’ has become the Bible of political realism. Even today political leaders
worldwide seem to follow his advices contained in the ‘Prince’. How much people
may hate the brute truth contained in ‘Prince’ they know in their heart that this is
what politics actually is and here lies the relevance in the political thought of
Machiavelli. In contemporary times not only the political leaders but the corporate
leaders, social leaders, head of any type of organisation, and even common people
in the day today life relate easily to his political thoughts and seems to follow them
despite condemning them in public domain. Such is the relevance and modernity
of the political thoughts of Machiavelli.

Q2: Evaluate the main features of statecraft detailed in Machiavelli's 'Prince’.

Similar Question: Examine the art of politics as described by Machiavelli.

Introduction:
Machiavelli’s ‘Prince’ contains his advices on art of politics or statecraft. Some basic
premises underpin his views on statecraft. These are 1. Separation of politics from
spiritualism or religion 2. Politics following its own laws, rules and standards of morality
different from other domains of social life 3. Men by nature are ungrateful. fickle, liars,
and deceitful, coward, selfish and greedy 4. State is a non-ethical, amoral entity, not bound
by conventional morality 5. Supreme political goal is maintenance of the State, for which
the ruler may adopt any means.6. Political decisions and actions should be judged by their
outcomes, not by the means adopted to bring those outcomes.
To him, politics or statecraft is a specialized activity. It has its own rules, different from
conventional norms of social life. A king should have Virtù, that is enterprise, political
acumen, requisite personal qualities, courgae and enthusiasm, for maintaining his state and
achieving glory. He advised the King to be flexible, practical, forceful, effective, keep his
subject in awe with his force, power, grandeur, be master in power politics, judicious use
of violence/cruelty, be pretentious (hide his true face), adopt any means to protect his state.
To the king, no duty or ‘Dharma’ is bigger than protecting and maintaining his state. For
that whatever decisions and actions King takes cannot be judged by conventional morality

72

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

and ethics. Thus, actions which, in social sphere, are termed ‘Vices’ may be termed
‘Virtues’ in political sphere. Politics have its own laws, autonomous of societal laws of
morality, ethics, and religion.
He denoted luck, chance, destiny, emergencies, tides of changing times as ‘Fortuna’
(Italian word). He considered Fortuna as enemy of political order, the ultimate threat to the
safety and security of the state. Prince having ‘Virtù can respond to Fortuna at any time
and in any way that is necessary to nullify its negative impact. Thus, by his enterprise, the
Prince can overcome the bad luck, emergencies, or bad times.
Machiavelli’s thoughts about art of politics or statecraft can be described through his 3 ideas as
contained in ‘The Prince’. These are:
1. His idea about the State and prime duty of the King:
• State being a non-ethical, amoral entity, not bound by conventional morality.
• Supreme goal of the ruler/king is maintenance of the State, for security, order, welfare
for people possible only in secured/maintained state.
• No separate bases of Authority, Legitimacy, and Political Obligation apart from the
power/force. Hence, the King must possess force and use it to maintain his state.
• There are no good or bad state; there are just or unjust ruler.
• Political actions are to be judged only by its outcomes, not by the means adopted to
achieve them- ‘end justifies means’.
• Law & Arms both are required for protection of state; but without force, law is useless.
• The justice of state is in the interest of the sovereign and the safety of state is the supreme
law.
• To maintain himself and his state, a prince must learn how not to be good and act as
situation demands. Conventional morality and ethics may be adopted but if not possible
then behaving as the situation demands is the last best option to secure common good.
• Politics is interplay of interest and power. Hence, one cannot play the game of politics
without making their hands dirty. Such is the nature of the politics.
• Political decision making should be separated from religion, ethics, and morality.
2. His idea of Virtù:
• Virtù : Requirements of power politics; range of personal qualities that the prince needs
to acquire to "maintain his state" and to "achieve great things- glory“ He cited following
as Virtù in his ideal Prince/King:
• "Flexible Disposition “: " change his behaviour, actions as fate and
circumstances demand"
• Pragmatism (political expediency) rather than conventional morality and
goodness, he should learn how not be Good!

73

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

• Effectiveness of outcome is what matter, Not praiseworthy actions. People forget

them quickly but remember the outcomes.
• Ruthlessness, cunningness, deceitfulness, boldness, courage, and shrewdness,
and will power are required to be successful in the art of politics.
• Loin & Fox: The king should have combined qualities of strength/force and
Shrewdness.
• Shrewd analysis and exploitation of human behaviour and motives.
• Mastery in power politics- acquiring power, destroying enemy's power, using
power.
• Virtù is to power politics as conventional virtue is to moral goodness of
legitimate ruler in classical sense.
• Judicious use of violence/cruelty and benevolence; violence should be fast and
swift, reward/generosity slowly- in instalments. This is because people have short
memory. They forget violence/cruelty quickly if rewarded in instalments.
• Rely on support of people than nobles/aristocrats, for people are easy to please
by small rewards but satisfying the desire and ambitions of nobles almost
impossible.
• Rely on own army than hired mercenaries (army); better to arm people who can
protect the State.
• Fear rather than Love for political obligation; love is first emotion people
discard when faced with choice but fear of punishment is hard to abandon. But
fear shouldn't convert into hate. If people hate the King, he cannot rule. His rule
will end. Hence king should keep his subject in awe, in fear of his power/force.
• Pretentions in public domain: King should wear mask: appear to be just,
virtuous, moral, trustworthy, honest temperate but acts opposite if situation so
demand. People know the King by his actions and outcomes he brings, not his
actual thought or conduct in private life. Hence the ruler/king should have
different face in public and private life.

3.His idea of Fortuna: how to deal with emergencies, unforeseen adverse situations,
bad luck:
• As with Virtù, Fortuna is employed by him in a distinctive way.
• Conventional representations treated Fortuna as a mostly benign, if fickle,
goddess, who is the source of human goods as well as evils, Machiavelli's Fortuna
is a malevolent(wicked) and uncompromising source of human misery, pain, and
disaster. It is the unforeseen adverse situation, bad luck, emergencies.
• Fortuna is enemy of political order, the ultimate threat to the safety and security
of the state
74

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

• He compared Fortuna as furious river destroying everything in its flood. She

shows her power where Virtù and wisdom do not prepare to resist her, and directs
her fury where she knows that no dykes or embankments are ready to hold her“
• Virtù provides the Prince the ability to respond to Fortuna at any time and in any
way that is necessary.

Conclusion:
Machiavelli’s ideas on art of politics or statecraft are mainly contained in his seminal
creation’ The Prince’. This can be called the book on statecraft. Three core themes
summarise his thoughts on statecraft. These are: State as a-moral, non-ethical entity, Virtù
as personal qualities and enterprise of the King/ruler necessary to maintain state and
achieve glory, and Fortuna as emergencies, bad luck, adverse situations which can be
overcome by the King possessing Virtù. All these 3 core themes were elaborated above.
In a nutshell, we may say that for Machiavelli, Statecraft is specialized political activity
having its own laws, rules, and standards of morality. The King should know how politics
is interplay of interest and power. He should be ready to adopt any means to maintain his
state. For this, he may have to behave in a manner not termed as good or virtuous in
conventional sense. But what ultimately matter is the outcome and how much common
Good it brings to the society/state, and not the means adopted to bring them. Hence, he
advised the King to be flexible, practical, forceful, effective, keep his subject in awe with
his force, power, grandeur, be master in power politics, judicious use of violence/cruelty,
be pretentious, and adopt any means to protect his state.
Thus, the art of politics and statecraft recommended by Machiavelli in his seminal creation
‘The Prince’ is unique, uncommon, unconventional but realistic to the core, and very
modern. Even today political leader’s world over seem to follow his advices in their
political decisions and actions. Indeed, Machiavelli, for good or for bad, changed forever
the art of politics and statecraft.

75

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

NOTES:

Q1. Machiavelli on Republicanism.

Answer Template:
Machiavelli’s views and recommendation on Republicanism is contained in his book
‘The Discourses on Livy’. In this book he had shown his preference to Republic over
Monarchy. He gave many reasons for this. Some of these are:
• More flexibility in republican rule: better able to adapt to changing situations.
This is because of rigid nature/habit of one individual (prince), whereas diversity
among citizens in republic increase the chance that someone else, if the present
ruler turns bad, may be chosen to lead.
• People wiser than Prince: People wiser, more stable, and of better judgment than
a prince
• Public discourse, deliberations: common decisions making process by public
discourse, deliberations.
• Just laws & constitutionalism, liberty: Better chances to have just laws, better able
to secure liberty for the people.
• Republics better able to achieve common Good.
For a strong, secured and vibrant Republic, he offered several advices. Some of them are:
• His ideal was ancient Roman Republic
• Good laws & good Institution: required for security, liberty, and prosperity of the people
• A minimal constitutional -subjects live securely (vivere sicuro)
• A fully constitutional regime, - freedom of the community (vivere libero)
• Flexible Institutions: changing with changed situation.
• Mixed Constitution: Monarchy +Aristocracy+ Democracy.
• Multitude/people are guided by virtuous/wise men.
• Public discourse, deliberation through public speech are basis for public decisions.
• Active contention (conflict) between the people and nobility- both take an active role in
self-government. This also maintain checks & balances.
• Armed people: capable of securing themselves and the State. Republic should not be
dependent on hired army.
• Encouraging Immigration, to have more free citizens, more strength.
• Territorial expansion, subjugation of neighbouring states, useful alliances.
• Inculcating public spiritedness, civic virtue and civic religion among the citizen

76

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

• Renewal or re-invention of the Republic every 10 year.

His conception of ideal republican state has influenced almost all modern republics. We can find
in Republic of USA many of the features listed above. Thus, his ideas on republicanism were
forward looking, ahead of his time, and modern.

Q.2: Machiavelli on religion.

Answer:
Machiavelli held somewhat negative views about role of religion in politics. Through his
political thoughts, he separated politics from religion. He criticized the Roman Catholic
church and Christian values and morality. To him, Christianity glorified suffering and
made the people meek, passive, merciful, effeminate. Such qualities were not suited for
politics, which to him, was nothing but interplay of interest and power. For Machiavelli
the church was the cause of Italy’s disunity.
To him, politics should be based on empirical facts and science and not on irrational
ritualistic and dogmatic ideology perpetuated by religion. However, he had Instrumental
view on religion in politics. He advised Kings/Ruler to use religion in disciplining people
and manipulating people’s emotions. Religion can also be used as coercive force. Religion
help inculcate civic virtue, part of public spirit along with liberty.
He praised the Pagan civic religions of ancient societies such as Rome, which he regarded
to be more suitable for a city endowed with virtù. He wanted people as well as the ruler to
be forceful, strong, guided by empirical facts and not meek, submissive, surrendering to
fate. Hence, many criticize him being atheist. But Machiavelli leaves it unclear whether he
prefers atheism, paganism, or a reformed Christianity. He also kept silence on his views on
after life, eternity of soul, salvation, etc

Q.3. Machiavelli’s views on Human nature.

Machiavelli takes a negative and pessimistic view of human nature. To him, men are
ungrateful. fickle, liars, and deceitful, coward, selfish and greedy. Selfishness and egoism
are the chief motive/forces of human conduct. Fear dominate men’s life more than the
Love. Love is the first emotion men dumps when situation so arises, but he is not able to
discard the fear of punishment. Hence, men can be controlled more by fear than by love.
All the deceit in the world, however, will not obviate the need for force, because men will
'use the malignity of their spirit whenever they have a free opportunity for it’.
Men want security, preservation of life becomes the prime motive for him. Because of
boundless desire, insatiable pride, and inevitable scarcity, men are in a constant state of
competition and conflict. State is, therefore, absolutely necessary for peaceful and orderly
life. Political life is, at bottom, a battlefield where the strong subdue the weak and obtain
preferential access to the limited number of goods. Wicked nature of man, therefore, makes

77

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

politics dirty. To succeed in politics, one will have to learn how not be good, for people are
essentially bad. What can be virtues in ordinary social life may turn into baggage and vices
in politics. Men are reluctant, though, to accept this harsh truth, and try to soften it by
creating an illusory world of ideals that give a bogus moral justification to our predatory
instincts.
Machiavelli's view of the human nature rivals that of Thomas Hobbes who gave similar
nature of men- wicked, brutish, dark, nasty. His views on nature of men underpinned his
political thoughts, which matches the dark but perhaps true nature of human nature.

78

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

THEME 5: THOMAS HOBBES

5.A: CBCS Syllabus:

• Human nature, State of Nature, Social Contract, State
• Presentation themes: State of nature; social contract; Leviathan; Possessive Individualism

5. B: Key Points:
• Thomas Hobbes (1588 –1679), born in Malmesbury in England, is considered first
modern political thinker, first to give social contract theory in modern period, grandfather
of individualism & liberalism.
• Some of his key political thoughts, in nutshell, are as below:
• Explaining human behaviour from laws of motion:
• Entire world is mechanistic- matter in motion- every worldly phenomenon,
including political, can be explained by natural laws of science, by mechanics- law
of motion.
• 2 types of Motion: Vital (such as heart beat) vs Voluntary (movement of
hands).
• Desire is driving force for man’s behaviour; desire is of 2 types: Appetite (liking)
and Aversion (dis-liking) for something
• Appetite(liking): external stimulus supporting vital motions;
• Aversions(dis-liking): external stimulus disturbing vital motions;
• Very negative and pessimistic view of human nature:
• Self-preservation (will to survive), and glory (respect & recognition) are chief
appetites/desire of men; for this they acquire power.
• Men’s actions are not guided by intellect or reason, but mainly by their appetites,
desire, and passions, which are un-satiable, no end to it.
• Restless and perpetual desire for more power generate competition, conflict among
men. Without any superior power to control, it becomes war of all against all.
• State of nature: human life & conditions before state originated
• Thus, human condition without any political authority was of perpetual fear and
constant war of all against all.
• Life in state of nature was, therefore, solitary, short, poor, nasty, brutish. This
was due to nature of man and absence of any greater power to maintain peace and
security.

79

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

• Social Contract:
• Guided by Natural laws as came to man by sense of reason, they came out state of
nature by a contract with one and all wherein everyone surrendered their rights
and power to a 3rd party, the Sovereign, which was the soul of and represented the
State/Govt, the commonwealth.
• The sovereign had absolute, unlimited, undivided, unalienable power. It was like
the Leviathan, the mythical sea monster, having unparallel power.
• Though not party to the contract, the sovereign was obliged to secure life and
maintain peace and order. People were duty bound to obey the laws and dictates of
the sovereign.
• But citizen still have some rights: right of self-preservation, and right to do anything
as laws says or anything on which law is silent
• Political obligation: Why should We Obey the Laws?
• People consented to have a sovereign through a contract/covenant, hence, as per
law of nature, they are obliged to maintain the covenant.
• Sovereign represents the will of the people, the commonwealth, the body politic,
hence obeying him is moral duty.
• Obeying law will maintain common peace and security, for which the contract was
performed.
• Not obeying law would be to break the contract, return to state of nature in which
life would be worse than obeying bad and unjust laws.
• Significance of Hobbs political philosophy
• First to deny, scientifically, the notion of divine right of king to rule.
• First to legitimize resistance (revolution) against the ruler if he fails to perform his
bounden duties.
• First to put Individuals and his rights in the centre of political discourse- grand father
of modern Liberalism.
• First modern social contract theory of origin of State and Political Obligation
• First modern political scientist: explained political phenomenon according to
scientific law of matter in motion and geometry.
• First modern political philosopher to secularize the State; separated religion from
politics
• First to give the concept of Negative Liberty, natural law theory in modern era.
• Unique combination of Individualism and absolutism.
• Unique combination of Realism (materialism) and Idealism.

80

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

• Minuses in his political thought:

• His pessimistic view of human nature and condition in state of nature.
• His idea of absolute sovereign- bordering to totalitarianism.
• Excessive focus on Individuals, undermined the institutions of family, kinship,
community, society
• His obsession with materialism and attempt to explain political phenomenon by laws
of natural sciences.
• Paradoxical: Individualism vs community in social contract; absolute rule vs right to
revolution; materialism vs idealism; reason vs morality.

81

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

5. C: MODEL ANSWER TEMPLATES TO QUESTIONS ASKED AND

OTHER IMPORTANT QUESTIONS:

Q.1 : Critically examine the views of Hobbes on state of nature and the State.
Answer Template:
Introduction:
Hobbes view on nature of state and the State is informed by his views on nature of man.
He had a very dark, pessimistic, and negative view about the nature and behaviour of man.
He attempted to explain human behaviour by science and laws of motion. There are two
types of motion in humans -vital and voluntary. Basic human attribute is desire or passion
which is affected by the types of external stimuli on vital motion. When the external
stimulus supports the vital motions, humans are attracted towards them and develop
appetite for those stimulus, on the contrary they developed aversion for anything which
disturbs their vital motion.
Men's actions are guided by their appetite, desire and passion; for this, human wants to
acquire as much power as possible, for power is means to satisfy desire. Men feel happy
by fulfilling his desire but desires are endless and that demands perpetual attempt to gain
more power. This situation develops competition for power, resources and glory and fear
and suspicion about motives of other. In such situation if there is no supreme authority to
punish or control there will be chaos, disorder, and anarchy. There will be a war of all
against all. Thus, in the state of nature the life would be almost unbearable and impossible.
Hence, in the state of nature life of man would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.
State arose to end this anarchy and establish peace and order. This was the result of the
social contract among one with everyone to form a commonwealth- the supreme political
community. The contracting individuals surrendered their natural rights and power to a
supreme sovereign, 3rd party to the contract, what he called Leviathan- mythical sea
monster having unlimited power and force. The sovereign/state was authorised to use force
on behalf of the community. The sovereign was the soul and represented the
state/commonwealth. The state was an artificial creation to fulfil the social requirement of
peace and order. The sovereignty of the state is represented by the sovereign, the absolutist
authority/govt., the artificial man who is like mortal God.
This was a gist of Hobbes views on state of nature and the State. In the next section of the
answer I will try to further elaborate upon Hobbes’ view on the state of nature, origination
of State, its features and functions.

82

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

Hobbes views on the state of nature, that is human life before the state originated, is based
on his view of human nature, essence of which is as below:
• Man is composed of matter in motion - Vital (heart beat) vs Voluntary (motion of hands)
motion
• Basic human attribute is Desire which is of 2 types: Appetite and Aversion for something;
desire is the driving force for man’s behaviour.
• Appetite(liking): external stimulus supporting vital motions;
• Aversions(dis-liking): external stimulus disturbing vital motions;
• Men’s actions are not guided by intellect or reason, but mainly by their appetites, desire,
and passions
• Almost equal natural abilities among men in nature, no one is invincible nor can expect to
be able to dominate the others for ever.
• Self-preservation (will to survive), and glory (respect & recognition) are chief
appetites/desires.
• This is possible only by the acquisition of power. Power is the means to satisfy man’s
desires.
• Happiness is continuous progress of desire from one object to another, restless and
perpetual desire for more power, more material possession, more glory.
• Men hold high opinions of themselves, their self-worth, and their sense of judgment.
• Moral relativism: anything which pleases and delightful to them is Good; whatever
displeases them is evil/bad.
• But man possess sense of reason given by nature- understand logical connections of cause
& effect.
• Man develops competition for power (resources & glory) and fear & suspicion about
motives of others.
Thus, in a nutshell human are driven by desire, to satisfy desires they acquire power. There is no
limit to the desire and power. This brings competition and conflict. Without any supreme authority,
the state of nature is chaotic, conflictual, and anarchic. Following are his views on the state of
nature:
Hobbes view on state of nature:
• State of nature is Human life without any political order- No civil society, No State/Govt.,
No civil law.
• It was pre-political but not pre-social.
• No sin, injustice, immorality in the state of nature. This is because just and unjust is
meaningful only in a social context. In absence of any civil society and formal law nothing
was unjust or immoral.

83

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

• Men are at liberty to do anything to preserve their lives -everyone has right to everything-
no limit to right of natural liberty.
• Private Judgment: Each one is judge, jury and executioner in her own case whenever
disputes arise.
• 3 principal causes of quarrels among men: competition for power, mistrust which moves
them to attack others for fear of being attacked by them, and glory which makes them
attack for the sake of reputation.
• Prisoner's Dilemma of Game theory: sub-optimal outcome because of non-rational
behaviour due to fear and no trust- better kill than be killed.
• Every man is enemy to every man- war of ‘all against all’
• Comfortable, sociable, civilized life Impossible - no industry, no art/culture, business/trade,
knowledge, peace/progress.
• Thus, in state of nature, life of man, in the famous words of Hobbes, would be Solitary,
Poor, Nasty, Brutish, and Short.
Since, human have natural sense of reason, they could understand cause and effect chain, they also
were ready to seek peace, forgoing their rights if all other do the same to have peace. They also
knew that contract or covenant once made need to be honoured. Due to such awareness of laws of
nature, the humans living together entered into a social contract with one and all to transfer their
natural rights to a 3rd party- the sovereign- who was to guarantee peace, order, and protection.
People were obliged to obey the laws, command, and dictate of the sovereign. The sovereign
represents the state, supreme political institution of a political community, outcome of the social
contract.
Following are the views of Hobbes about the State:
1. State is not divine entity, neither a natural institution. It is an artificial creation by
contracting individuals for sake of safe and contended lives of the contracting parties.
2. The state is the commonwealth, the body politic, the corporate body formed through the
social contract.
3. The state is all powerful as it pools power & strength of all. It has the monopoly to use
force/coercion. It is the only entity authorized to use force legitimately to maintain peace
and order.
4. He compared the state and the sovereign as Leviathan, the mythical sea monster, all
powerful, unconquerable, representing the absolute power of the commonwealth.
5. The sovereign is the soul, the person, the representative, the will, the conscience of the state
or the Commonwealth.
6. Duty of the sovereign: to maintain peace& order, ensure security, protect from one-
another and from external aggression.
7. Right of the sovereign: Do whatsoever, without any limit, to fulfil its duty. Monopoly of
force and punishment. People are obliged to obey his laws, command, and dictates.

84

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

8. Sovereign is not a party to the social contract. Hence, he is not bound by the contract.
People surrendered their rights unconditionally to the sovereign for having an orderly,
peaceful life.
9. Power of the Sovereign is absolute, unlimited, undivided, and unquestionable.
10. Only limit to Sovereign’s power is that it cannot take away the right of the people of self-
preservation, protection of their family, honour and dignity. Beside these limits, the
sovereign has limitless power and force to do whatsoever required to maintain peace, order,
and security.

Conclusion:
Hobbes’ view about state of nature and the State is informed by his views about human
nature, which in his view is dark, negative, competitive, conflictual, and pretentious.
Humans are driven by desire, which itself is decided by vital motions in human’s body.
Power is means to satisfy desire. Endless desire & acquisition of power brings competition,
conflict, fear and suspicion with others. Without any superior power, state of nature
becomes war of all against all. Thus, in state of nature life of man is solitary, poor, nasty,
brutish, and short.
State arose as an outcome to a social contract between one and all to form a political
community- the commonwealth. Thus, state is neither divine nor natural. It is an artificial
creation of social contract among individual for the sake of safe and contended life of
individuals. The state and the sovereign were created by the individuals and for the
individuals.
People entering into the contract surrendered almost all of their rights into a 3rd party, the
sovereign or head of the commonwealth/state. The sovereign, a 3rd party got powers and
strength of all and represented the Commonwealth. The Sovereign is the soul of the
state/commonwealth. The Sovereign was to maintain peace, order, ensure security, and
protect. It was to provide safe and contended life to the contracting individuals. People
were obliged to obey the laws, command, and dictates of the sovereign. The power of the
sovereign was unlimited, absolute, undivided and supreme. It could do anything to fulfil
its prime duty of maintaining peace, order, and security. Hence, Hobbes compared the
sovereign/state to Leviathan, the mythical sea monster having unparalleled power.
Thus, Hobbes conceptualized an absolutist state/govt. It may be noted here that form of the
absolute Sovereign could have been Monarch, oligarchical council, or elected assembly.
However, Hobbes preferred the Monarchy. Also unique combination of individualism and
absolutism in Hobbes thought may be noticed.

85

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

Q.2: Analyze Hobbes theory of Social Contract.

Introduction:
Hobbes was the first modern political thinker to give Social Contract theory of origination
of State. Locke and Rousseau followed him. As per the social contract theory, State came
into existence out of a covenant, contract or pact between people of a political community,
who created it by vesting their combined force, power, rights. People created State for
maintaining peace and order, securing people from one another and from external attacks.
All social contract theory imagines the human life without State, calling it state of nature.
How orderly and peaceful life would be impossible in state of nature is also the common
theme in all Social Contract theory. The theory also describes role, functions, and duties of
the state. Why people should obey the laws and orders of the State- political obligation- is
also part of the Social Contract theory.
As part of his Social Contract theory, Hobbes also described his imagined state of the
nature. Hobbes view about state of nature is based on his views about human nature, which
is dark, negative, competitive, conflictual, and pretentious. Humans are driven by desire,
which itself is decided by vital motions in human’s body. Power is means to satisfy desire.
Endless desire & acquisition of power results into competition and conflict with others.
Everyone becomes judge, jury, and executioner. Without any superior power, state of
nature becomes war of all against all. Thus, in state of nature life of man is solitary, poor,
nasty, brutish, and short.
State arose as an outcome to a social contract between one and all to form a political
community- the commonwealth. People entering into the contract surrendered almost all
their rights(except right of self-preservation) into a 3rd party, the sovereign or head of the
commonwealth/state. The sovereign, which was soul to the state and represented it, was to
maintain peace, order, ensure security, and protect. People were obliged to obey the laws,
command, and dictates of the sovereign/state. The power of the sovereign was unlimited,
absolute, and supreme. It could do anything to fulfil its prime duty of maintaining peace,
order, and security. Hence, Hobbes compared the sovereign to Leviathan, the mythical sea
monster having unparallel and unprecedented power.
This is the brief of the Social Contract theory of Thomas Hobbes. In the next section of the answer
I will explain it in bit more detail:
Social Contract Theory of Thomas Hobbes:
Following are the essential points and features of the Social Contract theory of Hobbes:
• Basis of the social contract: Law of nature: Why people decided to come out of the state
of nature and form the commonwealth/State? Hobbes says because of natural sense of
reason in humans, they knew that everyone seeks peace and for that ready to give up their
rights if all other do the same to have peace. Hence, they entered into a contract/covenant
with one and all to form civil society and state/govt.

86

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

• People surrendered their natural rights and powers in exchange for common peace and
security (peace & security for all).
• They transferred their rights, will, and power to a 3rd party- an artificial man, mortal God,
sovereign, commonwealth, the State- the Leviathan.
• Duty of the Sovereign was to maintain peace and security -protect from one another and
from external threat.
• Rights of the Sovereign: Do whatsoever to maintain peace and security.
• Duty of citizen: to obey the laws and dictates of the Sovereign.
• Rights of Citizen: right of self-preservation, and right to do anything as laws says or
anything on which law is silent.
Features of the Social Contract:
• The 3rd party, the sovereign is not party to the contract.
• Hence, he is not bound by any law, and answerable to none. As he was above law, he could
do no wrong. Thus, sovereign power was absolutist, without any check & balance.
• The 3rd party, the sovereign can be a person (monarch) or council, or any other form. But
an absolute Monarch is what can best be described as Hobbes sovereign.
• Power of the sovereign is absolute, unlimited, undivided, unalienable.
• The contract was one step process by which both civil society, state, and Sovereign are
created; this is unlike Locke’s Social Contract, which was two-step process.
• Sovereignty by Institution and by Acquisition: If the sovereign/state is established by
social contract as described above, it is Sovereignty by Institution. But if a territory is
acquired by another power, then also the new power becomes the sovereign for the people
of that territory. This Hobbes called Sovereignty by Acquisition.
• The contract is valid only till the sovereign is able to maintain peace and security. Thus, if
the sovereign fails to fulfil its duty for which it was created, the contract fails.
• The theory is centered on individual. His physiology driving his desire, desire driving
acquisition of power, which in turn generate competition and conflict. The purpose of
Social Contract is security of individuals. State let individuals possess private property,
family, material acquisitions, and glory. Hence his theory denotes possessive
individualism, in words of Macpherson.
Critique of Hobbes Social Contract:
• His pessimistic view of human nature and condition in state of nature. He couldn’t
explain why people having natural sense of reason couldn’t live in peace without State.
Rousseau criticized him by stating that Hobbes transported degraded nature of human of
modern times into the human nature before modern civilization.
• Hobbes also couldn’t offer convincing reason why then suddenly people in state of nature
decided to establish peace by entering into a contract?

87

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

• His idea of absolute sovereign- bordering to totalitarianism is questionable. Why the

sovereign should be like Leviathan? Why there shouldn’t be any checks & balances on his
power? Why sovereign was out of the contract? He couldn’t offer very convincing answers
to these questions by the critics.
• His Social Contract had excessive focus on Individuals, undermined the institutions of
family, kinship, community, society.
• His obsession with materialism and attempt to explain political phenomenon, including
Social Contract, by laws of natural sciences.
• Paradoxical: Many contradictions can be found in his theory of Social Contract:
• Individualism vs community in social contract: on one hand his theory denotes
possessive individualism, on the other hand he talks of a political community in
contract. How such atomistic individuals came together to form community,
surrendering their will, rights, power?
• Absolute rule vs right to revolution: Hobbes, on one hand talks about sovereign
having absolute power without any checks and balances, but on the other hand he
also talks about people revolting against the unjust sovereign if he tries to take their
life, and fails to protect their family, property, honour, etc.
• Materialism Vs Idealism: His theory is materialistic. Man is considered as bundle
of matter in motion. This forms the base of his theory of nature of man, nature of
state, and Social Contract. But his Social Contract was an idea, an imaginary
idealistic event only;
• Reason vs morality: He discarded role of religion and morality in politics. To him,
politics should be based on reason and rationality. But he also talks about moral
duty of the people to honour the covenant and obey the laws & order of the
sovereign.
Conclusion:
Thomas Hobbes was the first modern political thinker to give the social contract theory of
origin of state. His theory is based on his negative and pessimistic view of human nature.
To him, humans are bundles of matter in motion, which decides their emotions, desire and
passions. Power is the means to acquire material possession and satisfy desires. But since
Desire is unlimited each individual continuously try to acquire more and more power. This
results into competition, conflict and suspicion among the individuals. Without any
superior authority to control and punish, this results into war of all against all.

People have natural sense of reason. They know that everyone wants peace and for that
they are ready to surrender some of their rights, if everyone else do the same. With this
sense of reason, they come out of the state of nature, which was unbearable to live, to form
a political community and the state. The sovereign is the soul of the state and represents it.

88

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

All the powers of the people, their rights, and wills are vested in the sovereign. The
sovereign is duty bound to maintain peace and order and provide security to people from
one another and from external aggression. There is no limit or checks and balance on the
power of the sovereign. He can do whatsoever needed to fulfil his mandate. He is actually
not part of the contract and hence answerable to none. But people have right to revolt if the
state is not able to maintain peace and protect their life.

Hobbes’ theory of social contract is criticized on many accounts. Some of these are : his
excessive focus on individualism which Macpherson called ‘possessive individualism’, his
idea of absolute rule- bordering to totalitarianism, his pessimistic view of human nature
and conditions in the state of nature, several contractions such as individualism vs
community, reason vs morality, absolute rule vs right to revolution, etc.

Despite this, Hobbes made great contribution in modern political thought by giving a
scientific and reasoned social contract theory which was separate from religion and
theology. He rejected divine right of Kingship. He declared State as social creation for
fulfilling the needs of the individuals. For the first time he talked about the individuals and
their rights. Hence, he is considered as grand father of modern liberalism.

Q.3 : Hobbes is both Individualist and absolutist, discuss.

Answer Template ( for this question answer in paragraphs without usual template of Intro, Body,
and Conclusion is recommended)

Absolutism and Individualism in Hobbes Political Thoughts:

In the political thought of Thomas Hobbes both absolutism and individualism prominently
popped up everywhere. His conception of the sovereign like the Leviathan, the mythical
sea monster having unlimited, unparallel and unprecedented power; his idea of sovereignty
as absolute, un-divided and inalienable power, etc were absolutism in his political thought.
Further, the sovereign was not party to the social contract and hence was answerable to
none. The people had very limited rights against the sovereign; those were limited to right
to life, property, honour/ dignity and family. They were allowed to do anything on which
the law of the state was silent. Besides this, they didn't have any rights against the sovereign
who was absolutely free to do whatsoever required to maintain peace, order and security
in the state. Many critics feel that Hobbes proposed such absolutist sovereign in his Social
Contract theory to please the absolute monarchy of England at that time. Despite this, his
claim that people have right to revolt against the sovereign who fails to protect them was

89

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

revolutionary at that time. He also, through his theory of social contract, rejected the divine
right of the King to rule. For both these liberal and modern ideas he actually angered the
ruling elites of his time. Thus, we notice contradiction in Hobbes political thought as far as
absolutism is concerned. On one hand his sovereign was answerable to none, had absolute
power against the individual, on the other hand individual had the right to revolt against
him.

Individualism in Hobbes political thought: Hobbes constructed his social contract theory
by keeping individual in centre. His Social Contract theory is informed by nature of the
man. He described the social condition in the state of nature from individuals’ point of
view. How an individual is a bundle of matter in motion, how to satisfy his endless desire
he goes on acquiring more and more power and therefore creates competition, animosity,
fear and suspicion with other fellow individuals, etc form the basis of his theory of the state
of nature and Social Contract.

In the state of nature, absence of any superior political authority makes the social life
unbearable for an individual. He is at war with one and all. But an individual has a natural
sense of reason. He understands that everyone wants peace and for that they are ready to
surrender some of their rights if everyone else do so. With such sense of reason, he comes
out of the state of nature to form a political community by an agreement or contract with
one and all. He agrees to surrender his rights, will, and power to a sovereign who is the
soul of the state and represent it. The sovereign then brings back peace, order and security.
This is in nutshell his theory of social contract. We can very well see that everything in the
theory revolves around the individual. How his desire for material possession results into
anarchy in the state of nature and how he comes out of it by forming a political community
which give rise to state. The State itself is individual creation for fulfilling needs of
individuals. Thus, Hobbesian state is created by the individuals and for the individuals.

The State and the sovereign were duty bound to provide safe and contended life to the
contracting individuals. The relation between the state and individual was direct, no
community/society came in between. The individual was the creator of the social contract
and he had the right to break the contract if the sovereign fails to fulfil its duty of
maintaining peace & order and protecting the individual. In fact, the sovereign is being
continuously under assessment of the individual, who is both maker and breaker of the
contract. Individual not only expect the sovereign to protect his life but also his family and
material possessions.

For this reason, the critic such as Macpherson charge Hobbes for promoting the conception
of Possessive Individualism- the atomistic individual who wants to acquire property,

90

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

material resources to satisfy his endless Desire. The modern liberalism is based on this idea
of possessive individualism. This gives rise to a society consisting of atomistic individuals.
Society, in liberalism, is not a cohesive organic whole as conceived by Aristotle and Plato
or even in modern times by Rousseau, it is mere aggregation of autonomous individuals
having their own interests and preferences. The social decision should be such that it
maximizes the aggregate interests/preferences of the individuals. This is the biggest
criticism of liberalism by critics on side of communitarianism.

Hobbes through his theory of social contract centered on individuals, is charged with
promoting the modern conception of liberalism focusing on individuals. But here again we
can find some contradictions in Hobbes thought. On one hand he put individual in center
of each of his political ideas- be it state of nature or the state, Political Obligation, etc- but
on the other hand he talks about a political community, a Commonwealth in which
individual surrender their rights, wills and power. The sovereign is the soul of the
Commonwealth and represent it. He also talks about protection of individuals’ family by
the state. Hence, it is not that he totally neglected the family, community or society. But
on the whole, we find more focus on individuals in his political thought.

Thus, we can see that though critics charge Hobbes with promoting absolutism of sovereign
power and individualism in social order but on closer scrutiny we find that on both counts
his views were mixed. On one hand he conceptualized the sovereign as Leviathan, the sea
monster having unparalleled, unprecedented power, who is above laws and answerable to
none but on the other hand he rejected divine right of king to rule and supported people’s
right to revolt against the state/govt/sovereign. Same is the contradictions on his thoughts
on individualism. On one hand he constructs his Social Contract theory of state keeping
individual at center but on the other hand he conceptualized a political community- the
commonwealth as the outcome of the contract. Hence, he supported both absolutism and
individualism. But on both counts he had some contradictory thoughts also.

91

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

NOTES:
1. Materialism in Hobbes’ Thought:

Hobbes materialism: Hobbes was materialist to the core. For him, humans are nothing but bundle
of matter in motion. These motions in turn determine their emotions. Thus, to him, human
psychology and behaviour can be explained by motion of matters in humans’ body and mind. He
did not agree to the duality or separation of mind and body or idea and material. He asserted that
ideas cannot be separated from matter. Thus, he disagreed to a separate world of forms or ideas as
conceived by Plato. He also didn’t agree to Aristotle’s view of ‘essence of being’ contained in all
material substances. To him, we cannot conceive or perceive idea/thought separate from the matter
to which that idea is linked. He had the confidence in the power of science to explain motion in
mind and therefore human psychology and behaviour. Therefore, to him, there was no duality, no
separate worlds of idea and matter. Everything is matter, matter in motion. Even those things which
we cannot see also can be explained by matter in motion. Entire world is mechanistic- matter in
motion- every worldly phenomenon, including political, can be explained by natural laws of
science and laws of motions.
He gave materialistic explanation of human behaviour. Man is composed of matter in motion.
There are two kinds of motion- Vital and Voluntary. Vital motions are those which are essential
for living, for example motion of heart. Voluntary motions are non-essential motion for life, like
movement of our hands. External stimulus which supports vital motions are liked by man, he
develops appetite for that. On the contrary, man has aversions (dis-liking) for external stimulus
disturbing vital motions. Basic human attribute is desire, which is nothing but appetite and aversion
for something. Desires are the driving force for man’s behaviour. This way, Hobbes explains
human behaviour from laws of motion. We can see how far he relied on science and materialism
for explaining psychology and human behaviour.
Therefore, Hobbes was thorough materialist. Later on, he came to think that even God was a sort
of material being. His materialism helped give a kind of autonomy to politics. He separated politics
from religion and theology, which support ideologies, thoughts. and beliefs which are non-
material. Thus, he seems to have rejected the metaphysics of Plato and Aristotle. He also disliked
Philosophers who wander in the world of ideas.

We may question his over-reliance on science, mechanics and laws of motion to understand and
describe human behaviour and therefore politics. But his materialism gave politics autonomy from
religion. He made politics secular. It also gave a scientific underpinning to his political thoughts.
In this sense his political thoughts were considered modern and scientific. But he is also criticized
for promoting materialism in individual and social life, what McPherson called ‘Possessive
Individualism’, which denotes atomistic society in which material possession becomes the end in

92

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

itself. His negation of ideas and anything not tangible make the social life fragmented and
atomistic. Therefore, materialism in the thought of Hobbes has both positive and negative
connotations.

2. Hobbes on Sovereignty

Social Contract of Hobbes visualize Sovereignty of a political community lying with the ruler, the
Government, in whom the contracting Individuals had vested their rights, power, and will.
Sovereignty of the state is represented by the ruler, the absolutist monarch, the artificial man which
is like mortal God; sovereign is soul of the Commonwealth/State. The sovereign had absolute,
unlimited, undivided, unalienable power. His Sovereign is like the Leviathan, mythical sea
monster having unlimited, unparalleled power and force. The sovereign was obliged to secure life
and maintain peace and people were duty bound to obey the laws and dictates of the sovereign.
This was the mutual obligation of the people and the sovereign.

It is interesting to note that Sovereign is the 3rd party in the social contract and is not party to the
contract. Hence, he is not bound by any law, and answerable to none. There was no checks &
balance on his powers. Another feature is that the sovereign can be a person (monarch), Oligarchic
council, or elected assembly, or any other form. However, Hobbes preferred Monarchy. Duty of
the Sovereign was to maintain peace and security, protect individuals from one another and from
external threat. Sovereign had the right to do whatsoever to maintain peace and security. The
people had very limited right of resistance against the Sovereign. Hobbes contended that even the
bad or tyrannical Sovereign is better than anarchy and lawlessness of the state of nature. Hence,
people are better off under a bad sovereign than without him.

But citizen still have some rights vis-à-vis the Sovereign. They retained the right of self-
preservation, and right to do anything as laws says or anything on which law is silent. His idea of
Sovereignty is also linked to his view on political obligation. Sovereign represents the will of the
people, the commonwealth, the body politic of which each one is the creator by his own free will-
hence obeying the sovereign is our duty- law of nature. But to protect right of self-preservation, to
protect family and honour, and when the sovereign is not able to maintain peace and security, the
people were justified in not obeying the laws & dictates of the Sovereign. They can resist the
Sovereign. They may change their loyalty to another Sovereign.

Thus, Hobbes gave an absolutist idea of sovereign, who had absolute, unlimited, undivided,
unalienable power. He was above law, and answerable to none. He is criticized for being
conservative to have supported such absolutist and despotic sovereign. But he should be praised

93

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

for rejecting divine right of Kings to rule, considered the sovereign as artificial creation of
individuals for their purpose, and gave right of dissent and resistance to people. These were
revolutionary ideas about sovereignty at that time.

It is individuals who created the absolute sovereign for their own purpose. Individuals retained the
right to resist the sovereign if it fails to fulfil the duties for which it is created. The sovereign was
having no right to interfere in personal liberty of the individuals. It had limited role- to maintain
peace, order, and security. Thus, we can say that Absolute power of the sovereign was really a
necessary complement to individualism in Hobbes thought.

94

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

THEME 6: JOHN LOCKE

5.A: CBCS Syllabus:

• Laws of Nature, Natural Rights, Social contract

• Justification of Property, Right to Dissent

6. B: Key Points:

• John Locke (1632 –1704), born in Somerset in England, is considered guiding and
spiritual father of 18th century enlightenment, classical liberalism, capitalism and free
market economy.
• His political thoughts influenced both French and American revolution and American
declaration of Independence.
• His political philosophy is mainly contained in his seminal creation Two Treatises of
Government (1689).
• Following are the gist of his political thought:

• Human nature: humans are God's creation and hence cannot be naturally bad or
wicked. God has given sense of reason to humans by using which they are capable
of living with decency, goodness, social inclination, and capability of self-
governing. Men are seeker of pleasure and avoid pain, are also self-interested, but
rational. Hence, even without any political authority men are able to leave
somewhat in peace and harmony with others. Thus, we can see that Locke had a
positive view about nature of man unlike Hobbes who had a very negative and
Pessimistic view of human nature.

• State of nature: Locke defined state of nature as human life and its conditions
without any supreme political authority. To him, in any time, even today, people
may find themselves living in the state of nature. Since humans have Godly sense
of reason, they are able to live with somewhat in peace and harmony with others
even without supreme political authority. But such peace is fragile (easily
breakable), for everyone may interpret law of nature differently. Also, everyone
becomes judge, jury, and executioner in their own case and cases involving others.

95

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

In the state of nature each individual has full natural right, that is perfect freedom
and equality, right to preserve his life, liberty and property, to interpret the law of
nature, and to judge and punish breaches of natural law. But such situation may
lead to a very inconvenient social life.

Thus, Locke had somewhat positive view about the state of nature. People can
manage their social life without a supreme political authority by God given sense
of reason, but social life would be somewhat inconvenient and cannot bring long
lasting peace and order.

• His Theory of social contract: People came out of the state of nature by using
their sense of reason. To remove the inconvenience of state of nature and to better
protect their rights, men entered into contract/covenant with one and all to set up
sovereign community by transferring some of their rights. They formed sovereign
political community by surrendering their rights to be judge in their own case and
in case of others to a superior political authority. But they did not surrender their
natural rights of life, liberty and property.

It was 2-step contract. In the first step a sovereign political community was formed
by pooling their powers and vesting their right in the community. In the second
stage the political community by majority set up legislative and executive arms of
government. Legislative was supreme, it represented popular sovereignty,
executive was subordinate to legislative. Govt was not absolute, it also was party
to the contract and bound by its obligation to act for common good within the
parameters of natural laws. It was constitutional and limited Government. Citizens
have rights to resist and change Govt acting arbitrarily, tyrannically, and failing to
protect the rights of life, liberty, and property.

• Nature of Govt: The Govt was formed by the majority in the second stage of the
Social Contract. The government so formed was duty bound to protect the natural
rights of the contracting individuals, that is protecting their life, liberty and
property. The government is also party to the contract hence all provisions of the
contract are applicable to government also. While framing laws, Government is to
follow natural law. It had limited power and limited role. It is to protect the natural
rights of citizen, maintain law & order, and provide security. For that, it is
authorized to collect just enough of revenue through moderate taxes.

96

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

Government has two parts- legislative and executive. Legislative is superior to

executive. Legislators are supposed to frame laws conforming to the laws of nature
whereas the executive are to apply those laws in particular cases to maintain peace,
order and security. One of the executive functions was to manage foreign policy
and international relation. This Locke termed federating functions. people had right
to overthrow and change government if it failed to protect their natural rights and
to maintain peace and order, acted arbitrarily, and became tyrannical.

• Popular sovereignty: Sovereignty resides in the community, and NOT in the

govt/ruler, expressed through its majority by the representative legislative. Govt
should act as a trustee to the community in which the sovereignty is vested. Thus,
Locke was first to give the notion of Popular Sovereignty.

• Theory of property right: resources of Earth are common property of the humans
but anyone who mixes his enterprise and labour into the unowned natural resource
obtain the right to own the property created out of his labour. Locke gave the logic
that like humans are God's creation and owned by God, similarly a person can
create property by his own labour and own it. Thus, to him, property is fruit of
labour.

But he gave 3 conditions for use of property. First is wastage (property should
not be accumulated without use) restriction. Second is sufficiency (only as much
as is sufficient) restriction, and third is labour(should be acquired only by one’s
own labour) restriction. The government has no right to take away the right of
property neither it has the right to redistribute the property. His theory of property
right became the base of capitalism and free market economy. His theory of
property rights is controversial and criticized by political thinkers of all ideologies.

• Why Locke is considered father of classical liberalism? his political thought

about natural rights of life, liberty and property of individuals, limited
constitutional government, consent as base of legitimate government, tolerance,
pluralism tourism, focus on individuals etc formed the base of the classical
liberalism. Theory of property rights, minimum taxation, no right to government
to redistribute properties, etc became the foundation of capitalism and free market
economy.

97

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

• Critique of Locke political philosophy: Many criticized his theory of private

property and limited government. His contention that by mixing one’s labour into
natural resources one owns the property created out of that is criticized by thinkers
such as Nozick who ridiculed it by giving an example that if he mixed orange
juice, made by his labour, in ocean, did the ocean belonged to him?

His theory of natural law is also vague. Whether it is natural command, moral
percepts, natural sense of reason or God’s command? it is not clear. He seemed to
have mixed religion and theology into politics. He also seems to have justified
hired or wage labour, no political right to atheists, and practice of slavery. Many
felt that Locke’s writings provided theoretical basis to emerging capitalist and
Bourgeois classes and constitutional monarchy at that time in England.

98

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

6. C: MODEL ANSWER TEMPLATES TO QUESTIONS ASKED AND

OTHER IMPORTANT QUESTIONS:

Q1: Discuss Locke’s theory of Social Contract.

Similar Question:
1.Compare Locke’s Social Contract theory with that of Hobbes.
2. “Locke’s view on nature of human and state of nature is much more positive in comparison
to those of Hobbes, and that is reflected in his theory of social contract which is more liberal
and favourable to Individuals’ rights and liberty.” Discuss

Introduction:
Locke’s view on human nature and his conception of social life without political authority,
called state of nature, forms the base of his Social Contract theory. In view of Locke,
humans are God's creation and hence cannot be naturally bad or wicked. God has given
sense of reason to humans by using which they are capable to live with decency, goodness,
social inclination and capability of self-governing. In state of nature men have perfect
freedom and equality, reason and rationality to self-govern themselves, acquire property
and live socially with peace, goodwill, mutual assistance and preservation. But in the
absence of universally accepted laws, impartial judge, and higher power to settle disputes,
peace is fragile, danger of conflict and war loomed large. Thus, life was somewhat
peaceful, full of natural rights but inconvenient.
Hence, to remove the inconvenience of social life in the state of nature, and to better protect
their rights, men entered into contract/agreement with one and all to set up sovereign
community by transferring some of their rights. Political community, then by majority, set
up the representative Govt.- legislative and executive; legislative was to frame laws
conforming to laws of nature and was supreme, executive was to implement those laws in
particular cases and was subordinate to legislative. Govt/sovereign was not absolute, it also
was party to the contract and bound by its obligation to act for common good within the
parameters of natural laws. It was constitutional and limited Government. Citizen had
rights to resist and change Govt acting arbitrarily, tyrannically, and fails to protect the
rights of life, liberty, and property.
Locke’s Social Contract was 2-step process. In the first step a sovereign political
community was formed by individuals pooling their powers and vesting their rights into
the State. In the second stage the political community, by majority, set up legislative and
executive arms of government. The Govt. so formed was a limited Govt, had main duty to
protect the natural rights of the citizen, maintain law & order, and secure the people from
external aggression. We can see how his Social Contract theory became the foundation of

99

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

modern classical liberalism and liberal democracy. In the next section of the answer, I will
try to elaborate a bit more on his Social Contract theory.
Let me first explain his views on nature of man, and state of nature both of which informed his
Social Contract theory:
Locke’s view on nature of man:
Humans are God's creation and hence cannot be naturally bad or wicked. God has given
sense of reason to humans by using which they are capable of living with decency,
goodness, social inclination and capability of self-governing. Man wants to have pleasure
and avoid pain, is self-interested but rational. Sense of reason help him to discover laws of
nature and enable him to cooperate with others and live somewhat peacefully with others,
recognising one’s rights vis-a-vis others. Therefore, men are able to live somewhat in
harmony with others even without a supreme political authority. Thus, Locke held a
positive view about nature of man unlike Hobbes who had a very negative and pessimistic
view of human nature.
Locke’s conception of the state of nature:
• State of nature denotes human life without any common superior authority to judge
disputes between them - no legitimate political authority to settle disputes, maintain peace
and order.
• Need not be prehistoric, nor a condition peculiar to primitive men, not pre-social, nor
even pre-political- in every era/time people may find themselves in state of nature!
• Each individual is free, equal and independent; but bound by law of nature. Thus, state
of perfect liberty & equality, yet it is not a state of license (do whatever you want)
• Private Judgment: Each one is judge, jury and executioner in his own case and whenever
breaches of natural law committed by others.
• Each individual possesses natural rights: Perfect freedom and equality; right to preserve
his life, liberty, and property and to be judge and punish breaches of natural law. But all
the rights, power and jurisdiction are reciprocal- only as recognized/accepted by others.
• State of general peace, goodwill, mutual assistance and preservation.
• State of precarious peace: Inconvenient and danger of war/conflict looming large because
each one is self-interested, want recognition/power/property, is judge in his own and
other’s case, and violation of some self-interested, aggressive, degenerate men.
• Hence, life was inconvenient in the state of nature.

Locke’s Social Contract:

• People came out of state of nature through mutual agreement by surrendering their rights
to be judge in their own case and in case of others to a superior political authority by a way

100

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

of contract/covenant among themselves. But they didn’t surrender their natural rights to
life, liberty, and property.
• All agreed to pool their natural power and uphold natural rights (of life, liberty, property)
of one another by transferring some of their rights to a sovereign.
• Why social contract? 4 problems/inconveniences in the state of nature:
1. No known, universal, standard Law- private interpretation of natural laws
2. No impartial judge to settle disputes
3. No higher accepted power to enforce punishment for breach of law
4. Licentious, irrational, self-interested behaviours of few aggressive, degenerate
men
• 2 step social contract:
1. First step: contract to form political community by pooling their powers and vesting
their rights; all consented unanimously to obey laws of the state/govt formed by the
contract.
2. Second step: political community by majority set up representative Govt-
legislative and Executive (President/PM, King/monarch).
• Legislatives- make laws conforming to natural laws, executive to interpret and administer
law in particular cases; legislative supreme, executive subordinate to it.
Features of the Social Contract:
• 2 stage contract, 1st stage by express consent of all, 2nd stage by majority vote and tacit
(unwritten, untold) consent.
• Only partial natural right of being judge in own case and in cases of others is surrendered,
natural right of life, liberty, property NOT surrendered.
• Purpose of the contract is to increase the effective natural rights of life, liberty and property
of the contracting individuals.
• The Government is also party to the contract; hence all provisions of contract are
applicable to Govt, too. Hence, Govt. is to follow natural law, is not above law, not
absolute.
• The community is permanent (1st Contract), not the Govt, which can be dissolved (2nd
contract) and changed by the community.
• Sovereignty resides in the community, expressed through its majority by the representative
legislative. Locke was first to pronounce the concept of popular sovereignty.
Conclusion:
Locke’s theory of Social Contract became the bedrock of classical liberalism and
representative democracy. Unlike Hobbes, he held positive view about human nature. He
also mixed theology in politics by asserting that the laws of nature are like God’s moral

101

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

command. His idea of state of nature was unique in the sense that he took out the factor of
time from it. To him, people may find themselves in state of nature in any period, even
today. For example, political condition in Afghanistan for few days after Taliban takeover
in August 2021 may be thought of as Lockean state of nature. His Social Contract was also
much different from that of Hobbes. Sovereignty lied with people, not in the ruler/Govt.
The Govt was like trustee to the community, party to the contract, and bound by the
constitution and laws of nature. Govt was not absolute power, as envisaged by Hobbes.
He also kept individual at the centre of his conception of Social Contract. But he gave
much more rights and freedom to individuals. They retain their natural rights of life, liberty,
and property. They can overthrow and change the Govt in case it is not able to protect their
rights. In fact, his concept of Govt was a constitutional and limited Government.
In a nutshell, unlike Hobbes, Locke didn’t find state of nature as ‘war of all against all’ and
hence unbearable. To him, people could live with somewhat peace and harmony even
without any superior and common political authority, but the peace would be fragile and
life inconvenient. People formed Govt by Social Contract to have a better life, long lasting
peace & order, and better enjoy the natural rights. Thus, his theory of Social Contract is
positive, optimistic, and pro-people. Because of this, modern world adopted his idea of the
Social Contract rather than those of Hobbes or Rousseau.

Q.2: Compare Locke’s Social Contract theory with that of Hobbes.

Similar Question:
Q. “Locke’s view on nature of human and state of nature is much more positive in
comparison to those of Hobbes, and that is reflected in his theory of social contract which
is more liberal and favourable to Individuals’ rights and liberty.” Discuss
Introduction:
Hobbes was first political philosopher to have propounded Social Contract theory of origin
of state/Government in modern era. He was also pioneer( first one) to give natural law
theory, concept of individualism, and negative liberty. His Social Contract theory was
secular and scientific, straightforward, to the point and logical. Despite all these pluses,
John Locke’s and not Hobbes’ Social Contract theory gained wider acceptability and
popularity. This was perhaps due to two minuses in Hobbes Social Contract theory. First
was he held very negative view on nature of human and therefore on the state of nature.
His famous quote that life of man in state of nature was solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and
short gave a very pessimistic view of human condition without civil
society/state/Government. Second, his idea of Government as absolute, unlimited,
indivisible sovereign power denoted his support for absolute monarchy. In fact, Hobbes
compared the sovereign with Leviathan- the mythical sea monster having unlimited force
and power. Such conception of absolutist Government became out of favour in the advent
of modern era brought in by the Enlightenment movement.

102

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

In comparison to Hobbes’, Locke’s Social Contract theory was based on positivity and
curious mix of reason and theology. Locke considered human nature sociable and
somewhat positive. To him, humans were God’s creation and hence possessed God given
sense of reason, morality, and sociability. Humans were able to understand law of nature
by applying reason and were able to live in somewhat peace in the state of nature. Despite
this, people created civil society/commonwealth through Social Contract to have better,
peaceful, ordered life and to better enjoy their natural rights of life, liberty, and property.
Thus, Locke’s Social Contract theory had lots of positivity and optimism. It was in tune
with the changing time. It was based on humanism, individualism, and constitutional
Government. All these made Locke’s Social Contract theory much more attractive and
popular.
In the next part of the answer, I am going to compare the Social Contract theory of Locke and
Hobbes in a tabular format.
Social Contract theory of Hobbes and Locke: A Comparison
Theme/concept Hobbes Locke

Nature of Man Selfish, self-interested, God gifted basic instincts such as

fearful, driven by desire and decency, goodness, socially inclination,
passion than and capability of ruling themselves as
reason/rationality, having per law of nature understood by sense of
inflated sense of his self-worth reason
and judgement Has desire/passions but controlled by
Unending desire to acquire laws of nature- enlightened Self-
power, more power till his interested nature
death
Self-preservation and fear-
two prime motives

State of nature Imaginary, historical past; social arrangement without any

human life without any higher legitimate higher political authority
power to maintain peace and Neither pre-social, pre-political, pre-
order historic; can happen anytime
Competition, Conflict, Somewhat peace, goodwill, mutual
confrontation- War of ‘all assistance and preservation
against all’
Private judgement- everyone is judge,
Private judgement- everyone jury, executioner
is judge, jury, executioner
Fragile peace, inconvenience, constant
Life is Solitary, Poor, Nasty, danger of confrontation
Brutish, and Short

103

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

Social Contract Contract/covenant of one with Contract/covenant of one to other and

other and with all to come out with all to come out of state of nature by
of state of nature by forming a forming a civil
commonwealth/political society/commonwealth/political
community community
Single step process to set up 2 step process, 1st step to set up a
society and state- a sovereign, political community by transferring only
a 3rd party to which they some of the natural rights, 2nd step : set
surrendered all their rights and up representative Government-
powers legislature and executive by majority.
Aim was to have peaceful Aim was to better protect natural rights,
ordered life. have peace & order
The sovereign is not party to The Government is party to the contract.
the contract Constitutional Government.
Individuals surrender all their Individuals surrender only their right of
rights, except self- judgement, retain natural rights.
preservation to the sovereign;
they had very limited right to
dissent and resist.

Nature of Sovereignty vested in the 3rd Popular sovereignty: Sovereignty vested

sovereignty and party-Absolute, unlimited, in the community, exercised by the
Government indivisible, alienable power representative Government
Sovereign is not party to the • Artificial and temporary creation
contract • Constitutional and limited Govt.
Government: Artificial • Government as trustee of citizens
creation, not party to the
• Government was party to the
contract, had absolute,
contract
unlimited, undivided power.
• Divided power- Legislative and
Individuals had very limited
Executive; legislative supreme.
rights against the Government

Conclusion:
From the above comparison it is obvious that Hobbes and Locke had very different
conception of human nature and state of nature. This reflected in very different Social

104

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

Contract theories by them. To Hobbes, due to selfish and egoistic nature of humans, life in
the state of nature was horrible. It was war of all against all. Hence, he conceptualized a
monster like absolute sovereignty which was to maintain peace and order. To avoid
instability, conflict and civil war he kept the sovereign out of the contract, denied rights
against the sovereign and gave very limited rights to individuals. For him, maintaining
peace & order was of paramount importance, everything else was secondary.
Locke, on the other hand, believed in decent and good nature of human and hence
considered life in state of nature of somewhat peace, cooperation, and harmony. But still
the peace was fragile (breakable), life was inconvenient as everyone was judge, jury,
executioner in his and other’s case. Therefore, people formed civil society and Government
by a 2-step Social Contract. The Government so formed was a limited and constitutional
Government. It was to protect the natural rights of individuals apart from maintaining peace
& order. Individuals had the right to dissent and change Government in case it acted
arbitrarily and failed to protect their natural rights. Legitimacy of Lockean Government
was based on consent of the governed.
Thus, Locke, in comparison to Hobbes, gave a very positive and optimistic account of civil
society and Government in the modern era. It was more in tune with the changing times. It
matched the Enlightenment movements’ focus on humanism, reason, individuality, liberty,
and rights. It had in it seeds of liberal democracy and free market capitalism. Hence, it
gained wider acceptability and popularity in comparison to Hobbes’ Social Contract
theory.

Q.3: Why John Locke is considered as father of classical liberalism?

Answer Template: (Better to write this answer in paragraphs, instead of breaking it into Intro,
Body, Conclusion)

We associate following as core of classical liberalism ideology:

• Primacy to Individualism
• Rights of liberty, life, property are natural, inviolable, and prior to State
• Support Negative Liberty
• Limited or Minimal Govt: Govt as necessary evil.
• Constitutional and representative Govt
• Capitalism and free market economy

105

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

All these core ideologies of classical liberalism are rooted in Locke’s political philosophy. His
idea of unalienable natural rights of life, liberty, and property is considered cornerstone of classical
liberalism. In his theory of social contract, he conceived idea of a representative and constitutional
Govt, whose powers vis-à-vis citizen are limited. The Govt cannot take away the rights of life,
liberty, and property. The Govt, is also bound by constitutional law. It is not absolute. The Govt.
has limited role, to maintain law & order, secure the people and the nation. For this Govt should
collect bare minimum revenue through moderate taxes. The laws Govt frames should conform to
natural laws. All these ideas make the core of idea of Govt in classical liberalism.

The liberal democracy denotes representative forms of Govt chosen by the majority. Constitution
guarantee rights of life, liberty, and property to citizen. Govt is constitutional, that is constitutional
laws are binding on Govt. Thus, Locke’s conception of constitutional, representative, and limited
Govt forms the core of classical liberalism.

Capitalism and free market economy, another feature of classical liberalism also emanates from
Locke’s idea of nature of property and property rights. His assertion that by mixing our enterprise
and labour into natural resources we become rightful owner of the property created by that process,
is the essence of capitalism. He raised the status of right to property to include right to life &
liberty. He denied Govt the right to take away or re-distribute properties. Thus, Locke provided
Philosophical bases to limited Government, capitalism and free market Economy.

His conception of rights was absence of constraints or restrictions on the activities of citizen. Thus,
right to liberty meant that Govt is not interfering in the domain of individual actions till they are
as per law and not harming others. Thus, Locke supported negative freedom and negative rights.
Classical liberalism also supports negative Liberty. It abhors positive liberty, which, in the views
of liberals, may leads to totalitarianism. People should be left alone by the Govt to live life
according to their choice & preference. Govt has no business to guide citizen how to dress,
entertain, spend, what to own, eat, and so on. Govt should treat citizen like adult children, who
have the right to live as per their choice. This is exactly what Locke suggested through his political
philosophy.

He combined Individualism, utilitarianism, and capitalism with moral reasoning and theology to
give a solid moral foundation to classical liberalism. Like Hobbes, he also promoted possessive
individualism, may be even more than what Hobbes could do. But he declared individual as
creation of God, possessing sense of reason given by God, have power to comprehend God’s
command. Similarly, on property rights, he placed conditions to make it look morally correct.
Though he asserted that Individuals seek pleasure and avoid pain, and hence promoted utilitarian
ideology, but once again he linked all these to moral command of God. Thus, he gave moral
foundation to classical liberalism.

106

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

Thus, Locke’s political philosophy becomes the base or foundation of classical liberalism.
Mainstay of classical liberalism- Individualism, natural rights of life, liberty, property, negative
liberty, limited Govt, constitutional and representative Govt, capitalism and free market economy,
etc came out of Locke’s political thought. His core belief that each individual has inalienable right
to live life as per choice & preferences is the essence of classical Liberalism. Thus, there is no
doubt that Locke is the philosophical father of classical liberalism.

Q.4: Discuss Locke’s theory of natural Rights, especially property Rights.

Introduction:

Locke considered human as God's creation. God has created the world and humans are his
most beautiful creations. Some rights to human have been given by nature as God's gift.
Most important of these rights are the right to life, liberty and property. Man, by nature is
given the inalienable right of self-preservation, to live life as he wishes without harming
others, and right to acquire property by mixing his enterprise and Labour into the natural
resources. Locke asserted that these natural right of life, liberty and property cannot be
taken away by any political power or government. In his theory of social contract, he
visualized humans living in state of nature without any common superior political
authority. In the state of nature, the people enjoyed their natural rights. They had right of
self-preservation, right to seek pleasure and avoid pain, right to do whatever they wanted
without harming others, and right to acquire property. They also had right to be judge in
their own case and cases involving others.

But this right, to be judge and interpret natural laws, made life bit inconvenient and peace
fragile, for if everyone becomes the judge, jury and executioner then there will be chaos
and anarchy. Hence, people came out of the state of nature to form a sovereign political
community and then by majority a representative government through the device of social
contract. They gave away their right to be judge and interpreter of natural laws but retained
their natural rights of life, liberty and property. The government they formed was a
minimalist government assigned the duty to maintain law and order, peace and security. In
no case the government was given the power to take away the natural rights of the citizen.
Thus, Locke’s theory of natural right is a kind of divine right given to individual as creation
of God and therefore no institution created by humans can take away these rights. In the
next section of the answer, I will try to elaborate on his right to property.

107

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

Locke’s Theory of Property Rights: Following are the essence of his theory of property rights
as one of the natural rights:
• God has given the Earth and all its natural resources to all men in common and has also
given sense of reason to man to make use of it to the best advantage of life and convenience.
• Labour theory of property: since persons own their own body and labour, when they mix
their labour with natural resources which is unowned, it becomes their property. Thus,
property as ‘fruit of labour’. Whatever one creates with his labour becomes his property.
• No consent of others required to acquire private property. Thus, everyone is entitled to
acquire property by using their enterprise and labour.
• In the wider sense, right to property includes the rights to life, liberty, and external
possessions. This is because a fulfilled and meaningful life is possible only if one owns
property and using that arrange necessary material requirements of life.
• But 3 principles of property should be met with to make it a moral endeavour- (1) one may
only have as much property as one can use before it spoils (wastage restriction) (2) one
must leave “enough and as good” for others (sufficiency restriction) and (3) one may only
acquire property through one’s own labor (lobour restriction). But if one hires a labour,
then that labour belongs to him, property acquired by that labour also belongs to him.
• Also, one who owns property has a duty of charity toward those who have no other means
of subsistence.
• Taxation rights of Govt:
• Property is a natural right derived from natural laws; it is therefore prior to the
government. It's for the protection of property that men enter into an agreement or
contract.
• Govt has no right to take property to use for the common good without the consent
of the property owner. There should be minimum taxation by the majority vote of
the legislative.
• Thus, Govt has no right to re-distribute income and wealth.

Critical evaluation of his theory of natural rights, especially property rights:

In Locke’s thoughts Natural rights emanate from law of nature. To Locke, laws of nature
are like moral command of God. Natural rights are part of laws of nature. It is kind of gift
of God to humans. Also, to him, both law of nature and natural rights are prior to state or
any socio-political organization. People lived in a state of nature without any superior
political authority. They formed state and government by the device of social contract to

108

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

better enjoy their natural right in peaceful, orderly social life. Hence, to have more peaceful,
fulfilled and happy life under a common political organization they surrendered some of
their natural rights. But they did not surrender their natural rights of life, liberty, and
property to the government which has no right whatsoever to take away those natural right.
We should also note that he linked the right to property to morality and ethics. By proposing
three conditions (no wastage, sufficiency, own labour) and one duty (of charity) he has
given a moral foundation to capitalism.

Contradictions in his theory of property right should also be noticed. Locke’s

contention that by mixing our labour into the natural resource we get the right to own the
property generated from it, is at best questionable. Robert Nozick ridiculed this by stating
that if I mix a fruit juice made by my labour into the ocean does the ocean belong to me?
Similarly, on one hand Locke says that property should be acquired by our own labour but
on the other hand he justifies property created by hired or wage labour. He gives the logic
that property which are created by paid labour also belong to those who own the labour.
But this assertion is at best controversial.

His 3 conditions for acquisition and use of property are also criticized as façade. With the
advent of money, his wastage restriction lost its meaning. Income generation without using
land and other natural resources, such as services, made his sufficiency condition hallow.
His labour condition was questionable from very beginning, as he himself supported hired
or wage labour.

His workmanship model is also criticized. When he says that when we create something,
we own it and compared it with God's creations, like God created human and hence own
them. But many contend his assertion with an example of carpenter making table. Does he
create the table in the same way as God created humans? Or he simply makes the table and
therefore cannot have absolute ownership of that? Hence, we can see that his right to
property is controversial and questionable. In fact, liberalism and liberal capitalism are
criticized on the very grounds on which Locke’s theory of property are criticized. This is
natural because Locke’s theory of property forms the foundation of the modern capitalism
and free market economy.

Conclusion:
Locke’s theory of natural rights, especially right to property forms the core of his political
thought. To him, nature has given each human being some rights; these are right to life,
liberty, and property. No one, not even the State/Govt can take away these natural rights
from people living in the State. His theory of property right is very extensive. In fact, right

109

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

to property include right to life and liberty. This is because to Locke, only with adequate
personal property dignified life is possible.
But his assertion that whenever one mixes his labour into nay unclaimed natural resources,
that become his/her property is at best contentious (controversial). Many refuted such
blanket sanction of personal property out of the shared natural resources. Critics such as
MacPherson called this as theory of possessive individualism. In such theory the individual
owns his body, his faculties and anything earned or acquired using them. Such acquired
property belongs to the individuals for which he doesn’t owe anything to anyone, not even
to the community or society in which he/she lives. Thus, conception of absolute ownership
of property makes individualistic and atomistic society.
Locke’s theory of natural rights, especially the right to property, underpins the liberal
democracy and capitalism. For this, Locke is considered as father of classical liberalism
and free market economy.

NOTES:
1. Consent Theory of Locke

Consent is the basis of social contract. People living in state of nature, without any superior
political authority and Government, agrees voluntarily to form a political community. This
covenant, compact, or contract is based on acceptance, agreement, or consent by all. Since
people have voluntarily consented (agreed) to form the Civil Society (political community,
body politic, commonwealth), they are morally bound to fulfill the political obligation
towards the Government formed by the social contract. Thus, Locke gave consent theory
of political obligation.

Locke discussed two kinds of consent. First was express or explicit consent. Second was
the tacit (implicit, untold) consent. 1st step of the contract to form political community by
pooling their powers and vesting their rights was by unanimous express or explicit consent
by all. 2nd step of the contract forming Government by majority was through implicit/tacit
consent as people voted to choose their representatives. The minority, those voting against
the chosen ones, understood to have offered tacit consent to the legitimate Government.
Successive generations, thereafter, supposed to have given tacit consent for the continuance
of the political community and Government formed by the social contract.

However, Locke’s concept of tacit consent is problematic. It raises many questions. How
can one determine that subsequent generations have given tacit consent? How one
withdraws one’s consent and with what result? Is tacit consent mandatory obligation of
next generations or is optional?

110

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

As per Locke, enjoying the property rights, peaceful and ordered life makes one understood
to have given tacit consent to be part of that political community/state. It is same as eating
food in a restaurant is understood as tacit consent to pay for the price of the food! Thus,
the successive generations, by virtue of enjoying the peaceful and ordered life under a civil
society/state are understood to have offered their tacit consent to the social contract made
by their forefathers. Hence, the current generations are morally bound to offer Political
Obligation to the state/Government.

However, such political obligation ( by way of tacit consent) is not unconditional and
unlimited. People may withdraw their consent if Government acts arbitrarily and fails to
protect their natural rights of life, liberty, and property. Against such Government, people
have right to dissent, resist, and revolt.

In sum, consent is the very base of the Lockean Social contract. It was the basis of the
Political Obligation. But his concept of tacit consent is highly contested. Locke attempted
to offer logical arguments justifying the tacit consent but still many questions on it
remained unanswered.

2. Locke on right to dissent

Locke's conception of right to dissent can be understood at multiple levels. One aspect of
this right is when the citizens are justified in withdrawing their consent to the ruler/Govt.
This is reverse of political obligation. By exercising their right to dissent they withdraw
their political obligation from the government. Second aspect of the right to dissent is the
right of the minority to have their separate practices, conventions and standards of morality.
In this sense right to dissent refers to right to differ from the mainstream or majority. This
pertains to toleration in multi-cultural society. The state allows right of dissent to the
minority. The State tolerate the socio-religious practices of the minority.

However, in this note I am focusing on the political aspects of the right to descent as given
by Locke. In the theory of Social Contract of Locke, people came out of state of nature to
setup a sovereign political community by entering into a contract/covenant with one and
all. Then in the second step of the contract, through majority vote, the government was set
up. The people as party to the contract gave their consent to the government to rule over
them. This is the basis of the Political Obligation as per Locke. But this was conditional.
The people reserved their natural right of life, liberty and property. They also reserved their

111

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

right to judge, on moral and ethical ground, the validity of the positive laws framed the
government. In Locke’s view the government is supposed to frame laws which are in
conformity with the law of nature. He defined the law of nature as God's moral command.
He also claimed that human as creation of God have natural sense of reason to understand
the law of nature. Thus, the citizen who gave their consent to the government at Political
Obligation have the capability and right to judge whether the laws framed by the
government fulfill the moral standard of law of nature. In case they find the positive laws
not morally correct or in in contradiction to the law of nature, they have the right to dissent.
This means that may not comply or obey those laws. They can resist those laws even by
force.

Thus, right to dissent the unjust law or any immoral law in view of the citizen is also a
natural right. We can note the parallels between Locke’s idea of right to dissent and
Gandhiji’s idea of civil disobedience and Satyagraha against unjust law. Locke also
asserted that citizen have right to dissent if the government fails to maintain peace and
order, protect their natural rights, protect them from one another and from external
aggression, act arbitrarily and becomes tyrannical. Citizens have right to dissent, resist,
withdraw their Political Obligation and force change of government/ ruling power.

We can see that right to dissent is a very fundamental and natural right available to citizen
in a Lockean state. We also note that right to dissent is a fundamental right of citizen in
modern democracies. It is also related to right of the minority in a multicultural state.
Therefore, Locke‘s idea of right to dissent is a very broad right touching many aspects of
modern-nation state, and relation of citizen and state in modern democracies.

3.Possessive individualism in thoughts of Hobbes and Locke:

C. B. Macpherson, A Canadian Political philosopher, in his book “The Political Theory of

Possessive Individualism: Hobbes to Locke” (1962) raised the narrow conception of
Liberalism based on the conception of Possessive Individualism. In this version of
liberalism, liberty is equivalent to freedom of possession. Individual possess his body, his
own self, and his property. No one, not even the State/society, can interfere his possessions.
Such interferences shall be treated as infringing his liberty.

By nature, individuals have unequal capabilities. If individuals are free to have material
possession as much as he desires, there shall be ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ in society. Those
who possess material resources will control means of production and will have unequal

112

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

relationship with those who lacked material resources. The individual is seen neither as a
moral whole, nor as part of larger social whole, but as an owner of himself. Society is
merely an aggregation of atomistic individuals having their own interests and preferences.
Individuals create political community for protection of their possessions- life, liberty, and
property. Society/state ceases to be moral and ethical institutions helping individuals lead
a virtuous life. Thus, Possessive Individualism denotes degeneration in community and
social life.

Possessive Individualism in the political thoughts of Hobbes and Locke: Hobbes

promoted materialism in individual and social life. To him, everything, including human
mind, is nothing but matter in motion. He rejected separate existence of idea or essence of
being. Thus, morality, ethics, virtue were hallow concepts, not having any substance. His
theory of social contract is materialistic theory of society/state consisting of atomistic
individuals. Individuals driven by desire/passion for more possessions developed
competing and conflicting relation with fellow individuals in the state of nature. This led
to war of all against all. Individuals created the political community and the sovereign to
protect their material possessions.

Locke’s theory of social contract further promoted Possessive Individualism. He

asserted that individuals own their body and self and also any natural resources in which
he mixes his labour. The right to life, liberty, and property is, therefore, natural rights, given
to human by nature as gift of God. Political community/state was human creation for
protection of natural rights. Justice is served by simply protecting the possessions of
individual citizens. His theory of property rights, in particular, contributed maximum
towards Possessive Individualism. This theory formed the core of capitalism, free-market
economy, and market society. Though Locke, unlike Hobbes, didn’t discard morality and
ethics in individual and social life, neither he supported pure materialism, yet his theory of
natural rights, especially right to property denoted the individual as solely an owner of
himself, for which he owes nothing to society. In Locke’s view Human society consist of
a series of market relations. Thus, Locke perhaps promoted even more than Hobbes
towards the conception of Possessive Individualism.

113

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

SECTION 2

SAMPLE
PAPERS
3 Sets

114

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

SAMPLE PAPERS

SET 1

Total 8 questions. Attempt any four questions:

Q.1: Critically analyze different approaches to interpret texts as proposed by Terrence Ball.

(Hint: straightforward question; refer to answer at page 11)

Q.2 : Discuss Plato’s conception of an ideal State with special reference to his idea of
Philosopher King.

(Hint: you should explain how Plato visualized State as moral & ethical institution of highest order
which ensures virtuous life of its citizen; Plato attempted to build an ideal State based on perfect
Justice in which 3 classes represent 3 elements of soul, each class perform its duty best of its
abilities without entering into other’s domain. also, his logic for Philosopher ruling the State
should also be discussed. Refer answer at page 31.)

Q.3: Compare and contrast theory of Justice given by Plato and Aristotle.

(Hint: refer answer at page 44.)

Q4: “Italian renaissance is reflected in political thought of Machiavelli”. Discuss the

statement highlighting Machiavelli as first modern political thinker.

(Hint: Another way of asking how Machiavelli was child of his time. You should link time of Italian
renaissance and how it was reflected in the political thoughts of Machiavelli; refer to answer at
page 69)

115

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

Q5: “Absolute power of the sovereign was really a necessary complement to his
individualism” Discuss this statement on Hobbes by Sabine and through this highlight the
relationship between the individual and state in the thoughts of Hobbes.

(Hint: you should highlight how individualism was in center of each of the political thought of
Hobbes including his conception of absolute sovereign. His conception of state of nature, social
contract and sovereign as 3rd party were aimed for peaceful and ordered life of individuals. The
absolute sovereign was creation of individuals and for the individuals. His conception of the state
was not plural. There were no groups or communities between the individuals and the State. The
individual was directly linked to the sovereign, whose absolute power was in the interest of the
individuals. Refer the answers at pages. Refer to answer at page 89.)

Q.6 : Critically analyze Locke’s theory of natural rights with special emphasis on his theory
of right to property.

(Hint: refer answer at page 107)

Q.7: “Aristotle’s best state was Plato’s second-best state” Discuss the statement by
highlighting differing views of Plato and Aristotle on nature of State and Government.

(Hint: For Plato, State was an ethical political community of highest order. State ensures virtuous
life of individual. His ideal State was one in which each class represent one of the dominant
elements of human soul. His ideal state was just state, in which each class performs its duty best
to its ability without entering into domain of other class. In just state statecraft becomes soul- craft.
There would be no need for formal laws and remedial judicial system in Platonic State. In platonic
state, rulers are philosophers, knowing the objective truth, those who could see the world of
Forms- intelligible world. People were ignorant. They needed the guidance of the philosopher king
to lead a Good life. His scheme of education and communism of wife and property were essential
elements of his ideal state. Of course, Platonic state was an utopia. He himself stated that his ideal
state couldn’t be realized, for people are not so virtuous and knowledgeable. Hence, in ‘Laws’ he
suggested state based on formal laws, as his second best state.
In comparison to Plato, Aristotle was much more realist and pragmatic. His best State was one
based on formal law and constitution. Justice in Aristotle’s view included both ethical and political
justice. The latter includes remedial judicial system (system of court, judges, punishment).
Aristotle’s state is a natural human association of highest order. Individuals form household,

116

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

which in turn forms village, which give way to state. But state is prior to individuals, that is state
is very much required for survival of the individuals. Aristotle gave an elaborate classification of
constitution and Government. His best state had mixed constitution- in between Aristocracy and
Polity. It followed the principle of golden mean. It had everything in moderation, not too much
neither too less. In many ways Aristotle’s best state was similar to Plato’s second-best state
mentioned in his book ‘Laws’. Thus, Aristotle’s best State was only the 2nd best state of Plato. Refer
the answers at page 60)

Q.8: Describe Plato’s theory of transcendental Forms and explain the relevance of the ‘Form
of the Good’ in his political and ethical philosophy.

(Hint: refer the answer at page 22. Note that transcendental means beyond the visible world, which
is what Platonic Forms are.)

117

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

SAMPLE PAPER:
SET 2

Q.1 : “Interpreting classic texts is challenging”. Discuss with reference to challenges in

interpreting texts as proposed by Terrence Ball.
(Hint: refer to answer at page 11)

Q.2: “Plato’s theory of Justice was idealistic, normative, and utopic” Discuss giving
arguments in for or against the statement.

(Hint: refer answer at page 24)

Q.3: “Aristotle’s view on practice of slavery and role of women are conservative, status
quoist, and outdated”. Discuss.

(Hint: you should explain and critically evaluate Aristotle’s views on Slavery and role of Women.
Refer to answers at page 51 and 54)

Q.4: Bring out Machiavelli’s advice on statecraft or art of politics as contained in his book
‘the Prince’.

(Hint: straightforward question; refer to answer at page 72)

Q5: Critically analyze Hobbes theory of Social Contract. How was it different from Locke’s
Social Contract?

(Hint : refer answer at page 102)

Q.6: “Locke’s view on human nature and state of nature was much more positive than those
of Hobbes.” Discuss.

(Hint: First explain Locke’s views on human nature and state of nature and then compare them
with those of Hobbes. Refer the answers at page 99 and 102)

118

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

Q.7: “No matter how much we condemn the depiction of politics by Machiavelli, the politics
we see today looks similar to how he described it.” Do you agree? Offer reasons in support
of your answer.

(Hint: this is another way of asking to highlight realism and truth in Machiavelli’s political
thoughts. You should explain his advices on art of politics and statecraft as contained in his
‘Prince’ to highlight how much those are relevant in politics today. Refer answers at page 69 and
72)

Q.8: Compare political thoughts of Hobbes and Locke with special reference to their views
on nature of man, state of nature, sovereignty, and political obligation.
(Hint: refer answers at page 73; in the answer, differences between views of Locke and Hobbes
are given. You should further elaborate them. For that you may also refer to answers on page
102.)

119

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

SAMPLE PAPER

SET 3

Q.1: Critically evaluate the various approaches to the study of political philosophy through
interpretation of texts.

(Hint: you should critically evaluate (pros & cons) of the important methods; refer answer at page
14)

Q.2: “Plato’s idea of communism of wives & property was radical, utopic, and carrying seeds
of totalitarian ideology”. Discuss.

(Hint: refer answer at page 28.)

Q.3: “Aristotle’s scheme of classification of constitutions/Govts was based on sound

principles, robust, relevant, and timeless.” Discuss the statement citing 6-fold classification
of Constitution by Aristotle.

(Hint: straightforward question; refer to answer at page 48)

Q4: “Machiavelli’s recommendations on Republicanism are modern and relevant today”

Explain the statement by highlighting Machiavelli’s views and recommendations on
Republic.

(Hint: straightforward question; refer to answer at page 76)

Q5: “Hobbes had a very dark, negative, and pessimistic views on nature of man and state of
nature.” Discuss.

(Hint: refer answer at page 82)

Q6: Why Locke is considered philosophical father of Classical Liberalism? Explain.

120

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

(Hint: refer answer at page 105)

Q7: “Both Hobbes and Locke are criticized for promoting possessive individualism” Discuss.

(Hint: Refer the notes on possessive individualism at page 112.)

Q.8: “State is individual writ large”. In light of the statement of Plato explain his theory of
Justice.

(Hint: This statement meant that Platonic state was like magnified or enlarged individual. 3 classes
of the state represented 3 elements of individual soul. Just individual made just state. Justice was
perfect harmony of three elements of individual soul and the three classes of society/state. Thus,
state was nothing but magnified individual. refer answers at page 24.)

121

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

SECTION 3

ANSWER WRITING TIPS

122

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

Scoring Answer Writing Tips

How to Write Best Answers in University Exam?

BA Hons Pol Sc Exam Help

• Yes, one may score better marks by writing strategically. Essay type answers
require different skills than MCQs. Structure (Template), organization, flow,
and style matter in essay types of answers. Here are my Tips:

123

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

First Tips : Analyse Past Year’s papers

Select the topics asked

Topic wise analysis of
repeatedly- select
3-4 year’s question
topics to cover at least
papers shall reveal the
70%- 5-6 questions for
question pattern
sure

• This I have done for you. I have analyzed past four year’s paper of DU on Indian Political
Thought. Provided standard answer template on all of those questions.

• In fact, the questions cover the entire syllabus. Thus, only by reading the answers in this
guide carefully and repeatedly, yes at least 7-8 times, you will be covering the entire
syllabus.

• When exam is very near, you may leave some of themes/topics by an intelligent guess.

124

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

2nd Tips: Make Intelligent Guess !

Yes, by carefully
analysing past papers Do it with
you can guess confidence!
expected questions.

• Yes, you should do it. Examiners set paper by going through past 3-4 year’s paper. They
have to meet 2 conditions, 1st the question should be within the syllabus and 2nd they
should be on similar pattern and difficulty level as asked in earlier years. Hence, the paper
setter normally set questions very similar to one asked earlier. They also alternate the
theme/topic. Thus, if a topic is asked in 2017, they repeat that in 2019, and like that.

• Therefore, you can guess!

125

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

3rd Tip: use the question as answer clue!

Answers are
Attentively read Provide standard
expansion of ideas,
question at least 3 Answers to twisted
issues stated in the
times, yes 3 times! questions
questions

• Answers are hidden in the Questions!

• While framing the question, the examiner is thinking about the answer. Hence, by carefully
and on multiple reading you can visualize the answer hidden in the question.

• And, yes, also read the Hindi translation of the question. Sometime, you may not know
exact meaning of the key word in the question. Hindi translation may give the meaning.
Also, many a times, wording of Hindi question disclose more about the hidden answer.
This is due to translation issue. Take advantage of questions in two languages.

126

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

4th Tips: cleverly organise your answers

Write 1st answer on your best Choose 2nd best topic as last
prepared topic question

Because examiners pay more

Least prepared topics as 2nd attention to your first
and 3rd answers; Why? question, then the last, and
least to middle answers…yes!

• Yes, examiners actually browse through your answer, they don’t read word by word.

• Also, they assess your standard by your 1st answer. 2nd and 3rd answer may not change
your assessment. They assign you marks in range in accordance with the bracketing they
do in the 1st answer.
•
• Hence, write your best prepared topic as 1st answer. 2nd best as last, why? Because
examiner try to put some attention while browsing your last answer. Make use of his
attention. He may revise the marks bracket he decided while reading your 1st answer.

127

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

5th Tip : Strategic writing?

How many words per

question? No fixed rule- Use standard answer
Normally, 800-1200 words structure (template)
(4-6 pages)

Numbered or bulleted Sprinkle and underline key

points in ‘Body’ phrases

• How many words to write?

• Actually, it shouldn’t matter. But unfortunately, in our country it does matter.
• Average writing speed is 25 words per minute. In a 180 minute (3 hour) exam, one may
write for about 160 minute, leaving 20 minutes for reading paper and organizing thoughts.
Therefore, in 160 minutes, maximum 4000 words can be written. This comes to 1000 words
per question.
• Write in bigger font, maximum 200 words in one page. Use bullets/number and
indenting. Leave good space between paragraph. They consume space.
• Examiners are used to see answers written in a particular template(structure). Follow them.
Carefully observe how I have tried to write in a fixed structure. I have given a standard
structure in next slide.
• Yes, insert standard phrases in your answer, sprinkle (scatter) them across your answer.
Why? Examiners are interested in seeing the key words/phrases in your answer, this help
them quickly browsing your answer. If the found them they assume that rest of your answer
is also okay.
• And finally, repeat key phrases. Yes! You may write the key phrase in Introduction, in
body and in the conclusion. Why? Simple, because examiners are compelled to note the
key phrase/concept in your answer even if he is browsing through the answer. Hence, don’t
hesitate to repeat. It pays.

128

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])

 lOMoARcPSD|20948325

• Take one example; key phrase in Indian political thought is separation of the two realms
of Politics and spirituality (Dharma and Danda). Examiner will search for this phrase in
your answer.

Answer Template: Example: “Write an essay on

Social contract theory of Locke.”
• Introduction- 20 % of the total words in answer
• Introduce the topic , e.g. social contract, its meaning
• Situate Locke in the series of modern social contraction theorist
• Give a brief about the social contract theory of Locke and how it is different from his
predecessor Hobbes.
• Body: 60-70 % of the total words in answer
• Elaborate on the social contract theory of Locke
• Start with his views on nature of Man, state of nature, and natural laws
• Then explain his social contract theory, its features.
• Analysis and Discussion
• Compare his theory with those of Hobbes and Rousseau or whatever asked in the question
related to his social contract theory
• Provide your own view – crux of your answer
• Conclusion: 10-20% of the total words in answer
• Summarise key points: Paraphrase introduction
• State your final view and concluding remarks

• Introduction is where you should focus most. Why? Because examiner read first few lines
of Introduction carefully. It is here he is putting you in a bracket or grade for marking.

• Conclusion is basically introduction in other words. Both give an overview/summary of

the theme, explain a bit about the question asked and give very brief of their final argument.
Difference is in wording. Introduction says I will explain or as explained below, whereas
conclusion say, as I have explained above and so on.

• You can break the body of the answer in two parts. One informative and other analytical.
In the latter part you may critically analyze the statement or theme in context of the
question. You may even merge these two parts into one.

129

Downloaded by avani Malik ([email protected])