Machiavelli: Doctrine of

Statecraft, Dual Morality,

and the Role of the Prince
By:Politicalsciencesolution.Com
Date:
18 September 2023
Niccolò Machiavelli, the Renaissance thinker
whose profound insights
into politics and power continue to captivate
and intrigue generations of scholars and
leaders.

Niccolo Machiavelli (1469 – 1527)

Introduction:
Machiavelli, born in Florence, Italy, in 1469,
stands as a pivotal figure of the Renaissance,
evoking both admiration and criticism. As a
champion of civic republicanism, his ideas
have significantly shaped the thoughts of
subsequent thinkers. Antonio
Gramsci commends Machiavelli for
distinguishing politics from ethics,
emphasizing his pragmatic approach to
governance over abstract philosophical ideals.
His contributions heralded a new intellectual
era, leading Maxey to designate him as
the “First Modern Political Thinker.”
The Renaissance was marked by various
forces that disrupted the concept of a unified
Christian order. Economic growth fostered
commerce and urbanization, while innovations
like the printing press revolutionized
communication. This period also saw a
transition from barter to monetary systems,
alongside groundbreaking scientific and
geographical discoveries. The rise of
centralized states with distinct national
languages, a renewed respect for scientific
inquiry, and demographic shifts contributed to
the formation of a secular order.
Universities emerged, challenging the Church’s
educational monopoly and promoting literacy
and the revival of the human
spirit. Individualism and humanism flourished
as central themes. Jacob Burckhardt noted
that the essence of the Renaissance lay in the
“new man,” who pursued glory and self-
realization over religious asceticism. Harold
Laski remarked on this remarkable
transformation, stating that the essence of the
Renaissance is found in Machiavelli’s writings.
Machiavelli depicted the evolving nature of
the state by understanding the complexities of
statecraft, where decisions were influenced by
 political realities rather than religious doctrines
or idealized concepts of governance. He is
recognized as the father of political realism,
prioritizing the practical aspects of politics.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction:
2. Influences on Machiavelli
3. Important Works of Machiavelli
4. Methodology of Machiavelli
5. Political Ideas of Machiavelli
6. On Human Nature/Universal Egoism

7. On Morality

8. On Religion

9. On State and Its Preservation

10. Advice on the Amount of Power

11. Machiavelli on Prince

12. Machiavelli On Fortune

13. Machiavelli on Forms of Governments

14. Machiavelli on “AGGRANDISEMENT”

15. Quotes by Machiavelli

16. Comments on Machiavelli

Influences on Machiavelli
“Machiavelli was the child of his times” –
Dunning
“The whole of Renaissance is in Machiavelli.” –
Laski
“Machiavelli was narrowly dated and narrowly
located.” – Sabine
Machiavelli: Child of his
time
Niccolò Machiavelli, born in Florence in 1469 to
a wealthy family, was well-educated for a
political career. He rose quickly in government
and gained diplomatic experience through
missions abroad. However, in 1513, political
turmoil in the Florentine Republic led to his
downfall, including a year in prison. After being
released, Machiavelli was forced to retire from
politics.
During this time, he wrote influential works,
most notably The Prince and Discourses on
the First Ten Books of Titus Livy. His
writings reflected a pragmatic approach to
politics, often
advocating for the use of ruthless tactics if
necessary. Machiavelli believed that political
leaders were often driven by self-interest rather
than public good, influenced by the chaotic
state of Italy, which was divided into five
regions and plagued by foreign domination.
The Catholic Church’s desire to maintain
power further hindered Italy’s unification.
Inspired by the idea of a unified Italy under a
strong monarchy, similar to France and Spain,
Machiavelli’s thoughts marked a transition from
medieval to modern political
theory. Machiavelli, according to Dunning,
“stood on the borderline between the
Middle Ages and the Modern Ages.
Let’s discuss some key developments
influenced his thought
Renaissance
The Renaissance, known as the rebirth of
logic and civilizational values, revitalized the
spirit of inquiry and humanism, which found
expression in Machiavelli’s ideas. At its core
was the emergence of a new individual
driven by self-interest, seeking glory and
fame. This modern individual became the
focus of Machiavelli’s philosophy. Concurrently,
the notion of a modern state, powerful and
pervasive, developed, shaping Machiavelli’s
understanding of statecraft.
Reformation
The Reformation, marked by the separation of
the public and private spheres in religion,
led to the rise of secularism and
the separation of church and state. These
developments significantly influenced
Machiavelli’s political thought, earning him the
title of the Father of European Secularism.
 Breakdown of Feudalism
While the old feudal order crumbled, the
emergence of the territorial nation-state as a
sovereign entity was still in its infancy.
Machiavelli’s preference for common people
over nobility reflected the changing times.
Rise of Nation-State
Machiavelli was deeply concerned with Italy’s
need to become a strong nation-state, making
Italian unification a primary objective. His
dream was to see a united, regenerated, and
glorious Italy, requiring the defense and
preservation of the state and its people.
Machiavelli’s emphasis on the spirit of his
times is evident in his advocacy for a national
army.
Rise of Capitalism
Machiavelli’s portrayal of human nature
as self-centered, materialistic, and
possessive mirrors the psychology of the
emerging bourgeois class.
Important Works of
Machiavelli
17. Art of war (1521) – It is a classic on theory of
war and Military in the west. It explains the
 relation between war and politics in
Machiavelli’s political thought.
18. History of Florence (1525) – It talks about

Machiavelli’s work in the city of Florence and

the forces which shaped its history.
19. The Discourses (1531) – Here Machiavelli

has described Republicanism. His criticism of

feudal order and nobility is reflected in his
book.
20. The Prince (1532) – Machiavelli’s book

‘Prince’ is one of
the best books written on statecraft (Art of
Politics). He is compared to Chanakya in this
regard. Machiavelli in Prince gives advice to
the Prince (ruler) about ruling the states in a
realist manner.
Methodology of Machiavelli
Machiavelli was deeply influenced
by Aristotle, valuing historical methods over
church teachings. He dismissed religious
doctrines, believing human nature and its
problems remain constant across time. Thus,
he focused on real political situations rather
than abstract constitutional theories. His
analysis was rooted in the conditions of his
own era, making him a keen observer and
realist.
According to Sabine, Machiavelli used history
to support conclusions he reached
independently, and Dunning described his
work as emphasizing the “art of government”
rather than a theory of the state. While
narrower in scope than Aristotle, Machiavelli’s
insights into political dynamics reveal strengths
and weaknesses in situations, offering practical
judgments on policy limitations and event
forecasts.
His pragmatic views, such as “might is
right” and “the end justifies the
means,” suggest that he prioritized outcomes
over methods. Often considered the Father of
Political Realism, he embraced a cyclical
view of history, emphasizing psychology and
historical patterns. The Prince focuses on
state security, while The Discourses delves
into liberty.
Political Ideas of Machiavelli
On Human Nature/Universal
Egoism
Machiavelli’s political philosophy, alongside his
concept of “moral indifference,” is “Universal
Egoism.” He rejected the idea of inherent
goodness in human nature, arguing that
all individuals are fundamentally selfish and
driven by egoism. For Machiavelli, fear is a
more powerful motivator than love, with the
desire for security being the primary concern of
human behavior. Human nature is aggressive
and acquisitive; people strive to keep what they
have and seek more, leading to constant
competition due to the scarcity of resources.
To maintain security, a ruler must embody fear.
A prince who is feared understands how to
relate to his subjects and ensures their safety.
Machiavelli noted that individuals often
misjudge their hopes and desires, suggesting
that balancing opposing interests is essential
for a stable society.
During Machiavelli’s time, Italy was rife with
corruption, violence, and inequality. He
believed that the establishment of an absolute
monarchy with despotic powers was necessary
to restore order. He emphasized that rulers
must understand human nature, which remains
consistent throughout history, noting traits like
selfishness and ingratitude. He famously
remarked that “people could forget a father’s
loss but not the loss of their
property. Consequently, he concluded that
individuals prioritize their self-interest,
supporting a ruler only as long as their own
interests are met, highlighting the need for
rulers to remain attentive to their subjects’
needs.
On Morality
Machiavelli is renowned for his assertion that in
politics, ends justify means. He firmly
separated religion and politics, as well as
ethics and politics, establishing the autonomy
of politics from these moral frameworks. He
argued that political actions should be
evaluated based on political standards rather
than religious or ethical ones. What may be
considered ethnically or religiously wrong can
be politically correct in Machiavelli’s view.
To illustrate this, Machiavelli introduced the
concept of “Dual Morality”. According to this
concept, the morality of a prince differs from
that of a common person. While an ordinary
individual may be willing to sacrifice their life
for their principles, a prince cannot afford to
sacrifice the nation-state for personal
principles. Here Machiavelli gave the idea
of “Flexible Disposition”, which states that
Prince must act as per demand of fate and
circumstances. The morality of a prince, as
defined by Machiavelli, revolves around
ensuring the security and preservation of the
nation and its people.
“There is nothing like ethics for Prince. He is
everything”. – The originality of
Machiavelli written by Berlin.
On Religion
Machiavelli did not hold a stance against
religion itself but rather took issue with the
institutionalized Church of his time. He saw
the Church as a corrupt entity and attributed
Italy’s lack of unification partly to its influence.
Consequently, he advocated for a separation
between the Church and the state, aiming to
prevent the Church from guiding governmental
affairs.
Machiavelli’s approach to religion was
utilitarian in nature. He advised princes
to utilize religion in the interest of the
nation. He viewed religion as a disciplinary
force that could assist rulers in governing their
people effectively. Machiavelli even
recommended that a prince should maintain a
public appearance of religiosity, even if the
prince personally lacked faith. He believed
that people preferred their rulers to be
religious.
On State and Its Preservation
Machiavelli regarded the state as the highest
authority to which subjects should
wholeheartedly submit. He believed that the
prosperity of the subjects was the yardstick for
evaluating the success or failure of a state. In
his view, a successful state was one ruled by a
single leader, favoring monarchy over
aristocracy. He emphasized the importance of
a reliable army composed of native troops
instead of relying on foreign soldiers.
While Machiavelli considered a republican
state as the best form of government in
theory, he acknowledged that the prevailing
conditions of his time favored a monarchical
government. He firmly asserted the secular
nature of the state, subordinating the Church to
the authority of the state.
Machiavelli viewed politics from the ruler’s
perspective, prioritizing state preservation over
constitutional excellence. He examined
government mechanisms that strengthen the
state and identified errors leading to downfall.
As Sabine noted, “The purpose of politics is
to preserve and increase political
power,” with success being the main criterion
for judgment.
Advice on the Amount of
Power
Machiavelli famously declared, “It is better for
the Prince to
be feared than loved”. He advocated that a
prince should skillfully employ both hard power
and soft power. While he acknowledged the
value of soft power in generating goodwill, he
argued that goodwill alone was insufficient to
ensure compliance, as human beings were
inherently selfish and ungrateful. Machiavelli
believed that people acted in their own self-
interest, so a policy of love and goodwill was
not adequate.
The prince, in Machiavelli’s view, should exploit
the weaknesses of human nature. Force
should not be the first resort but should be
applied when absolutely necessary. When the
prince decided to use force, it should be
employed decisively to completely crush the
opponent and leave no room for revenge.
Machiavelli recognized the potency of the
desire for revenge in humans and believed that
it could override rational self-interest, driving
individuals to take actions even against their
own wellbeing.
Machiavelli on Prince
Machiavelli offers clear guidance on the
attributes a prince should possess. He
famously advises that a prince must embody
both the cunning of a fox and the bravery of
 a lion. To elucidate these qualities further:
21. Cleverness – Like a fox, a prince should be

astute and discerning, able to recognize and

navigate the various traps and pitfalls that may
be set for him.
22. Courage – Similar to a lion, a prince should

exhibit courage and strength, capable of

defending himself against potential threats,
often symbolized as wolves.
Machiavelli’s counsel regarding the qualities of
a prince
stems from his understanding of human nature
and his observations of historical events.
Machiavelli On Fortune
Machiavelli expounds on the concept of
fortune, which he characterizes as
circumstances beyond an individual’s control.
He primarily employs the term “fortune” in a
negative sense, associating it with bad luck or
unfavorable situations. He suggests that even
if a prince possesses all the requisite qualities
for success, they may still encounter adverse
turns of fortune.
In response to the capriciousness of fortune,
Machiavelli advises a prince to confront it with
courage. He advocated his idea of fortune to
a woman who may embrace or disfavor men
unpredictably, implying that a prince should
face the uncertainties of fortune with resolve
and adaptability.
Machiavelli on Forms of
Governments
Machiavelli’s classification of government
forms is inconsistent and unsystematic. In “The
Prince,” he focuses on monarchies or absolute
governments, while “Discourses” reflects his
admiration for the Roman Republic’s liberty
and self-governance. Despite his support for
absolute monarchy, Machiavelli emphasizes
the necessity of laws for the preservation of the
state, which he sees as vital for civic virtue. He
advocates for legal remedies against official
abuses to prevent lawlessness.
Both works reveal his indifference to the use of
immoral means for political ends and suggest
that governments largely rely on force and
cunning. While he does not develop a general
theory of absolutism, he expresses a genuine
enthusiasm for popular government, deeming it
impractical for Italy. He champions shared
government and believes in the virtue of an
uncorrupted populace over that of a prince.
As Sabine notes, Machiavelli juggles two
conflicting views: one favoring despotism
for reform and another for republican
ideals.
Machiavelli marks the beginning of a new
political thought era, earning the title of the
Father of Realism. He introduces the Western
concept of secularism, advocating for a clear
separation of religion and politics. He asserts
that understanding politics requires prioritizing
history and psychology over ethics.
Emphasizing the lawgiver’s role as the
architect of the state, he maintains
that nationalism should prevail over religion.
Ultimately, Machiavelli’s legacy lies in his focus
on power dynamics and practical governance,
viewing politics as separate from philosophy or
religion. In “Discourses,” he critiques all
governments, condemning monarchy and
feudal nobility as defective.
Machiavelli on
“AGGRANDISEMENT”
Machiavelli’s doctrine of aggrandizement,
presented in both “The Prince” and
“Discourses,” emphasizes the necessity of
expanding the state’s territory. He argues that
without such expansion, a state is destined to
perish. However, this expansion does not imply
merging different political entities; rather, it
involves subjugating multiple states under a
single ruler or commonwealth. Machiavelli
views the Roman Empire as an ideal model for
this approach, highlighting that the use of
military force is essential for both political
aggrandizement and state preservation, but it
must be applied judiciously alongside cunning.
In a monarchy, the prince must respect the
established customs and institutions valued by
the people, as these can be dearer than life
itself. He believes that in times of corruption, a
strong monarchical government is preferable to
restore order. Despite his cynicism towards the
prince, Machiavelli expresses esteem for
liberal governance and prefers popular
government when feasible.
Machiavelli contends that a well-trained army is
vital for any government, as ultimate authority
relies on force. He envisions an enlightened
despot who inspires the populace through
grand schemes and supports arts and
literature. He sees both monarchy and
republicanism as ideal, but holds a low opinion
of aristocracy and nobility, viewing them as
obstacles to stability. His disdain for mercenary
soldiers stems from their potential to create
disorder and undermine state stability.
Machiavelli’s emphasis on military strength
reflects his belief that national patriotism and
the unification of Italy are paramount, asserting
that duty to one’s country supersedes all other
obligations.
Quotes by Machiavelli
⮚ “The lion cannot protect himself from traps,
and the fox cannot defend himself from wolves.
One must therefore be a fox to recognize traps,
and a lion to frighten wolves.”
⮚ “Never attempt to win by force what can be
won by deception.”
⮚ “Law, Religion, and Citizen. Army makes for
stronger state”
⮚ “Men are driven by two principal impulses,
either by love or by fear.”
⮚ “Since love and fear can hardly exist
together, if we must choose between them, it is
far safer to be feared than loved”
⮚ “He who wishes to be obeyed must know
how to command”
⮚ “Therefore, it is necessary to be a fox to
discover the snares and a lion to terrify the
wolves”
⮚ “There is no avoiding war, it can only be
postponed to the advantage of your enemy.”
⮚ “Men sooner forget the death of their father
than the loss of their patrimony”
Comments on Machiavelli
Negative Comments –
⮚ Machiavelli was regarded as “teacher of evil”
by Leo Strauss in his Book – Thoughts on
Machiavelli
⮚ A Murderous Machiavelli, a damned
Machiavelli – William Shakespeare
⮚ Machiavelli as “Father of Absolutism” –
Holland Sabine
Positive Comments –
⮚ Machiavelli a lover of Liberty because of his
book “Discourses” – Montesquieu
⮚ A republican, A satirist of a tyranny, a good
citizen – Rousseau
⮚ Machiavelli as a Champion of Democracy –
Geovanni
Thomas Hobbes: Politics,
Philosophy and Social
Contract
By:Politicalsciencesolution.Com
Date:
20 September 2023
Thomas Hobbes, was a 17th-century
philosopher who believed that without
government, human life would be “solitary,
poor, nasty, brutish, and short,” and argued for
a social contract where individuals surrendered
some freedoms in exchange for security and
order.

Introduction
Thomas Hobbes, born on April 5, 1588, in
England, is a key figure in Western political
thought, particularly known for his views on
human nature, political authority, and the need
for an all-powerful sovereign. He was famously
called the “Monster of Malmesbury” due to
widespread criticism for atheism and impiety.
Both Parliamentarians and Royalists disliked
him, as his ideas challenged popular
representation and the Divine Right of Kings.
 Hobbes’ philosophical status wasn’t fully
appreciated until the 19th century, when his
ideas influenced English utilitarians and French
Encyclopaedists. His philosophy combined
mechanical
materialism, radical individualism, and
psychological egoism. Sir Frederick
Pollock remarked that utilitarianism adapted
Hobbes’ ideas, especially from his Leviathan.
By the mid-20th century, Hobbes was
recognized as a leading English political
philosopher, with Michael Oakeshott
calling Leviathan a masterpiece.
Hobbes developed the absolutist theory
of sovereignty and contributed to the positivist
theory of law. Though often seen as
authoritarian, scholars like Gauthier found
connections between Hobbes’ ideas and
modern liberalism. His philosophy also
influenced Marxist thought, with Karl
Marx noting, “Hobbes was the father of us
all.” Today, his ideas remain influential in
political, ethical, and legal discussions.
Table of Contents
23. Introduction
24. Early Life of Thomas Hobbes

25. Major Works by Thomas Hobbes

26. Thomas Hobbes’ Political Thoughts
27. Human Nature by Hobbes

28. State of Nature by Hobbes

29. The Role of Power and Conflict

30. Natural Rights and Morality

31. Theory of Natural Laws by Hobbes

32. The Social Contract and the Sovereign by

Hobbes
33. Rights and Duties by Thomas Hobbes
34. The Church and the State in Hobbes’ Political
Thought
35. Political Obligation in Hobbes’s Philosophy

36. Women and the Gender Question in Hobbes’s

Philosophy
37. Comments on Thomas Hobbes

38. Important quotes by Hobbes

39. Conclusion

Early Life of Thomas Hobbes

Thomas Hobbes, born prematurely on April 5,
1588, in Westport, near Malmesbury, England,
came into the world during the looming threat
of the Spanish Armada. He died in 1679,
having lived through a period marked by
significant political upheavals and scientific
breakthroughs, referred to as the “century of
genius.” His experiences during the English
Civil War, and the events of that time, deeply
shaped his political philosophy.
Educated at Oxford, Hobbes found the
scholastic teachings, particularly those
of Aristotle, uninteresting. In 1608, he
became a tutor to the son of William
Cavendish, the Earl of Devonshire, with whom
he remained closely connected for many years.
Through his travels across Europe, Hobbes
encountered great minds like Galileo,
Descartes, and Kepler, whose scientific ideas,
particularly in geometry and mechanics, greatly
influenced him. Hobbes became convinced
that human behavior and political
structures could be understood through the
laws of motion.
In 1640, fearing for his life after the dissolution
of Parliament, Hobbes fled to France, where he
stayed for 11 years. During this time, he
wrote De Cive (1642) and his
 masterpiece Leviathan (1651), which
advocated for a strong, undivided sovereignty
to prevent societal chaos. Though some
believed Leviathan was written to flatter
Cromwell, its philosophical reach went far
beyond contemporary politics. He later
returned to England in 1651, engaging in
intellectual debates with figures like John
Bramhall and mathematician John Wallis. In his
final years, Hobbes wrote his autobiography
and translated works like
Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey. He passed away in
1679, leaving behind a lasting legacy as one of
the most influential political philosophers in
history.
Major Works by Thomas
Hobbes
Hobbes left a significant intellectual legacy
through his major works:
40. Thucydides’ History of Peloponnesian War

(1628): Hobbes’ English translation of this work

aimed to critique Athenian democracy. It was
his first work.
41. De Cive “On the Citizens”

(1642): Anticipating themes in his later work

“Leviathan,” this book discussed natural laws
 and the necessity of stable government. ‘War
of all against All’, the famous phrase first
appeared in this book.
42. Elements of Law, Natural and Politic (1650):

An exploration of legal and political concepts.

43. Leviathan (1651): Considered one of his

masterpieces, this work argued for the social

contract and the rule of an absolute sovereign.
The original source of Leviathan is “The book
of Job”.
44. De Corpore (1655): Explored concepts related

to body
 and matter.
45. De Homine (1658): Further elaborated on his

ideas about human nature.

46. Behemoth (1681): A comprehensive analysis

of the causes of the English Civil War.

Thomas Hobbes’ Political
Thoughts
Hobbes’ political philosophy is grounded in his
views on human nature and the state of nature.
Human Nature by Hobbes
Thomas Hobbes viewed human beings as
inherently selfish, isolated, and egoistic,
motivated by self-interest, pleasure-seeking,
and pain-avoidance. His concept of “Moral
relativism” emphasized that what pleases an
individual is good. Hobbes referred to the
continuous fulfillment of desires
as “Felicity,” a constant pursuit of what
individuals deem beneficial. He explained that
humans operate based on two types of
voluntary motions: appetite (moving towards
something) and aversion (moving away from
something). People, in his view, were driven by
bundles of these appetites and aversions.
Though humans possessed reason, Hobbes
emphasized that no one’s reason is absolute,
thus creating the need for an arbitrator or judge
to resolve conflicts.
State of Nature by Hobbes
Hobbes’ theory of the state of nature is central
to his political thought. He described the state
of nature as a pre-political condition where
humans lived without civil laws or political
authority. In this condition, life was marked
by perpetual conflict, insecurity, and a
constant state of warfare. There
were no laws to prevent individuals from taking
advantage of each other, leading to a world
where each person was an enemy of everyone
else. As Hobbes famously characterized it, life
in the state of nature was “solitary, poor,
nasty, brutish, and short.“
According to Hobbes, individuals in the state of
nature were motivated by the desire
for power, a relentless pursuit that only
ceased with death. He noted, “individuals
have a desire for power after power that
ceases only in death,” leading to what he
termed a “war of all against all.” In such a
chaotic situation, self-preservation becomes
the driving force behind human actions.
The Role of Power and
Conflict
Hobbes viewed human behavior through a
mechanistic lens, seeing people as primarily
driven by two kinds of motion: vital
motion (involuntary, physiological processes)
and voluntary motion (actions initiated by
external stimuli). The voluntary motions, driven
by external stimuli, caused internal sensations,
which Hobbes described as desires and
aversions. He connected these motions to
emotions like hope, diffidence, glory,
courage, and more. Pleasure and pain were
tied to desire and aversion.
Hobbes argued that power was central to
human nature, claiming that all desires and
actions were linked to the pursuit of power.
Without power, individuals could not secure the
goods they desired. He emphasized that once
power was acquired, it had to be continually
augmented to prevent it from dissipating, which
explained the endless struggle for power.
This struggle, coupled with the natural fear,
insecurity,
 and pride of individuals, resulted in constant
competition and conflict.
Hobbes identified three main causes of conflict
in the state of nature:
47. Competition: Individuals fought for gain.

48. Diffidence: People sought security.

49. Glory: Individuals sought reputation.

Hobbes summarized this as a “perpetual and

restless desire of power after power,” which
only ends with death. The fundamental
contradiction of power lies in the fact that those
who possess it must constantly seek more to
prevent losing it. Thus, individuals were
trapped in a cycle of power accumulation that
could never truly be satisfied.
Natural Rights and Morality
In the state of nature, Hobbes introduced the
concept of natural rights, which he defined as
the liberty of each individual to use their
own power to preserve their life. This natural
right allowed individuals to do anything they
deemed necessary for self-preservation.
Hobbes’ notion of natural rights was distinct
from traditional morality. It was not rooted in
virtue or law but rather in the individual’s ability
to preserve themselves.
Hobbes’ approach to natural rights was
groundbreaking for modern political theory,
marking a departure from earlier views that
saw the state as natural to humans (as in
Aristotle’s view). Hobbes argued that natural
right was about self-preservation and that in
the state of nature, it was precarious, as
everyone had the right to everything, even to
each other’s lives.
Criticisms and Interpretations
While Hobbes’ theory of psychological
egoism has been widely accepted, some
scholars challenge this view, arguing that
Hobbes also acknowledged altruistic
virtues such as sympathy, kindness, and
benevolence. Though Hobbes stressed the
selfish nature of humans, critics like John
Plamenatz have noted that Hobbes did not
fully dismiss the possibility of altruistic actions.
Others, such as Bernard Gert, have argued
that Hobbes’ emphasis on desires for things
beneficial to one’s life does not necessarily
imply selfish motives.
Hobbes’ theory also made a clear distinction
between right and might, though not in a
purely moral sense. His concept of natural
right was seen as legal rather than moral,
distinguishing it from traditional natural law,
which was often linked to virtue. However,
Hobbes was not entirely consistent in his use
of the term “natural right,” at times equating it
with power, while at other times associating it
with liberty or the absence of obligations.
Theory of Natural Laws by
Hobbes
In his seminal work, Leviathan, Thomas
Hobbes presents the Laws of Nature as a
pivotal mechanism to persuade individuals to
exit the chaotic State of Nature. According to
Hobbes, the State of Nature is characterized
by a perpetual war of “every man against every
man,” where life is “solitary, poor, nasty,
brutish, and short.” Hobbes argues that the
only way out of this state of constant fear and
violent death is through the creation of a civil
society governed by a powerful sovereign. The
foundation of this escape lies in the Laws of
 Nature, which Hobbes defines as rational
principles that guide human beings toward
peace and self-preservation.
Hobbes explains that the Laws of Nature
exist even in the absence of formal
authority, as they are discovered through
reason. However, they are often disregarded
because, in the State of Nature, individuals are
primarily driven by their passions, such as fear,
greed, and distrust, rather than by reason.
Hobbes defines a Law of Nature (or lex
naturalis) as “a precept or general rule, found
out by reason, by which a man is forbidden to
do that which is destructive of his life, or taketh
away the means of preserving the same.” This
definition emphasizes self-preservation as the
ultimate goal of these laws.
Hobbes outlines 19 Laws of Nature
in Leviathan. Among these, three are of utmost
importance for escaping the State of Nature:
50. The First Law of Nature states that every

individual should seek peace as long as they

have hope of obtaining it, but when peace is
unattainable, they should defend themselves
by all means possible. Hobbes describes this
as the “first and fundamental law of
nature,” which advocates for peace, while the
 second part represents the “right of
nature,” allowing for self-defense.
51. The Second Law of Nature builds on the first

by advocating that individuals should be willing

to relinquish their natural right to all things in
order to achieve mutual peace. Hobbes asserts
that people must be content with the same
amount of liberty they are willing to allow
others. This law is aligned with the
 Biblical Golden Rule: “Whatsoever you
require that others should do to you, that
do ye to them.”
52. The Third Law of Nature emphasizes the

necessity of keeping covenants or promises.

According to Hobbes, without the fulfillment of
covenants, society would revert to chaos, as
trust and cooperation would break down. He
insists that honoring contracts is essential for
maintaining peace and order.
In addition to these fundamental laws, Hobbes
also outlines several others that promote moral
behavior conducive to peace, such as justice,
equity, humility, and the rejection of arrogance
and pride. The Nineteenth Law is particularly
significant, as it prohibits individuals from being
judges in their own cases. Hobbes believed
that allowing self-judgment would lead to
partiality and conflict, further undermining
peace.
Hobbes acknowledges a paradox: in the State
of Nature, rational laws are ineffective as
individuals, driven by fear and self-interest,
often disregard them. He differentiates
between “obligation in foro interno” (the
internal desire for peace) and “in foro
externo” (external actions driven by
fear). This dilemma is illustrated by the
Prisoner’s Dilemma, where rational individuals
may betray each other despite mutual
cooperation yielding better outcomes.
The Earl of Clarendon critiques Hobbes,
questioning how he can describe the State of
Nature as disordered yet propose immutable
natural laws to guide individuals toward peace,
stating, “How comes it to pass that Mr.
Hobbes… would… set down a body of laws
prescribed by Nature itself, as immutable and
eternal?”
Critics like Adam Smith argue Hobbes’
doctrine lacks moral authority, suggesting that
right and wrong are mere constructs of civil
authority. Conversely, scholars like Howard
Warrender and A.E. Taylor interpret Hobbes’
Laws of Nature as commands from God, thus
possessing moral force. David Gauthier
counters this divine interpretation, viewing
Hobbes’ natural law as a rational dictate for
self-preservation. Critics note that without a
sovereign, individuals may resort to preemptive
strategies. Ultimately, Hobbes contends that
only sovereign power can enforce these laws,
as reason alone cannot quell human distrust.
The Social Contract and the
Sovereign by Hobbes
Thomas Hobbes proposed that individuals, in
the chaotic State of Nature, collectively
abandoned their natural state through a single
contract, which led to the formation of a civil
society and a sovereign authority. This social
contract required every individual to come
together, surrendering their rights to a
sovereign in exchange for peace, security, and
order. Hobbes emphasized that the sovereign
authority was established through “legal
sovereignty” because it was legitimized
through this social contract.
Hobbes described this social contract as a
mutual agreement where individuals authorized
and surrendered their self-governing rights to
the sovereign, with the condition that others
would do the same. He expressed this idea
in Leviathan: “I authorize and give up my
right of governing myself, to this man, or to
this assembly of men, on the condition, that
thou give up thy right to him, and authorize
all
his actions in like manner.” This contract led
to the formation of an all-powerful and
undivided sovereign, a “Mortal God,” to ensure
peace and defense.
Crucially, the sovereign created by the
contract was not a party to it but rather a
beneficiary. All individuals became subjects of
the sovereign, and the sovereign had no
reciprocal obligations toward them. This
meant that individuals surrendered their
natural rights permanently, except for the
right to self-preservation, which was the core
reason for creating a civil society. Hobbes
warned that if individuals reclaimed their rights
or tried to overthrow the sovereign, society
would collapse into the dangerous and lawless
State of Nature once again.
Hobbes sharply diverged from Aristotle, who
believed that the state was a natural institution.
Aristotle argued that humans are political
animals, and the state naturally arises from
human social instincts. In contrast, Hobbes
believed the state was “mechanical” in
nature and had to be artificially established
through the social contract. He viewed the
state not as a natural outcome of human
nature but as a necessary construct to avoid
the chaos of the State of Nature.
One of Hobbes’ central ideas was his rejection
of the right to revolt. He believed that once the
social contract was formed, it could not be
undone, and individuals had no right to
overthrow the government. Any attempt to do
so would lead to the destruction of society and
a return to anarchy. This concept is known as
“unlimited political obligation,” where
individuals have an unbreakable obligation to
obey the sovereign authority.
Hobbes made a distinction between a contract
and a covenant. A contract, in his view, was the
mutual transferring of rights, whereas a
covenant implied a promise and trust between
parties regarding future performance. He
explained that a covenant is when “one of the
contractors may deliver the thing contracted for
on his part, and leave the other to perform his
part at some determinate time after, and in the
meantime be trusted.” This concept of trust
was essential in Hobbes’ theory, as it
underlined the idea that individuals had to trust
the sovereign to uphold the terms of the social
contract. However, critics such as Samuel
Pufendorf and modern commentators
like Jean Hampton have downplayed the
philosophical significance of Hobbes’
distinction. Hampton argued that the concept of
trust and keeping promises was already
embedded in Hobbes’ arguments.
Through the social contract, individuals not
only surrendered their rights but also
established a third party, the sovereign, to
enforce the contract. The sovereign had the
power to use force to ensure compliance, as
Hobbes famously remarked that “covenants
without the sword are mere words and of
no strength to secure a man at all.” For
Hobbes, fear of punishment by the sovereign
was a crucial factor in maintaining social order.
He argued that without this fear, society would
fall back into the chaos of the State of Nature.
Some scholars, like David Gauthier, have
argued that Hobbes’ political theory is less
about the social contract itself and more about
the concept of “authorization.” Gauthier
believed that “authorization, rather than
covenant, is the dominant metaphor in Hobbes’
political thought,” suggesting that individuals
authorized the sovereign’s
actions on their behalf. However, Jean
Hampton critiqued Gauthier’s interpretation,
claiming it made Hobbes appear closer
to John Locke, who emphasized limited
government and individual rights. Hampton
argued that Hobbes’ theory remained focused
on absolute authority and unbreakable political
obligation, far removed from Locke’s ideas.
Hobbes also discussed a second type of
sovereignty, which he referred to
as “sovereignty by acquisition” or conquest.
In this form, a commonwealth is established
not through mutual agreement but through
force. Individuals, driven by fear, submit to the
rule of a conqueror in exchange for security.
Hobbes emphasized that fear was a valid basis
for political obligation, stating that “fear is no
less a basis of obligation than free
consent.” The conquered individuals enter
into a contract with the conqueror, exchanging
obedience for protection, much like in a
commonwealth established by institution.
Hobbes’ overall argument suggests that
without a powerful sovereign to keep
individuals in awe, society would descend into
chaos and war. He famously stated that “the
bonds of words are too weak to bridle man’s
ambition, avarice, anger, and other passions,
without the fear of some coercive power.” For
Hobbes, the ultimate foundation of civil society
lay in the coercive power of the sovereign to
enforce laws and maintain order. Some critics
have questioned whether this emphasis on fear
undermines the importance of the social
contract itself, reducing it to a “contract in a
Pickwickian sense,” as some have put it.
Rights and Duties by
Thomas Hobbes
Hobbes articulated a modern conception
of liberty as the “absence of external
impediments to motion,” framing individual
rights in relation to liberty and property. He
argued that individuals are free to act in all
matters except those explicitly prohibited by
the laws of the Sovereign. Thus, liberty is
defined by what the law permits and remains
silent on. Hobbes describes freedom as the
private pursuit of the individual, where all
existence is understood as matter in motion.
Individual liberties encompass various aspects,
including property transactions, trade, dietary
choices, education of children, private beliefs,
and rights of conscience. While the Sovereign
possesses absolute authority over its subjects,
there is a fundamental limitation: the right of
self-preservation. Hobbes famously stated
that “fear is my twin brother,” emphasizing
that the right to self-preservation is the sole
absolute right of individuals. The Sovereign
cannot infringe upon an individual’s right to life,
as the primary motivation for submitting power
to the Sovereign is the assurance of self-
preservation. If the Sovereign fails to protect an
individual’s life, that individual retains the right
to resist the Sovereign’s authority.
Hobbes posits that sovereignty is absolute,
indivisible, inalienable, and perpetual, meaning
the Sovereign is not limited by the rights of
subjects or customary and statutory law.
Although the Sovereign is expected to adhere
to Natural Law, Hobbes claims it is the sole
interpreter of this law. Since justice, in his
framework, involves acting in accordance with
promises and the Sovereign has made none,
its actions cannot be deemed unjust or
injurious. Subjects authorize the
Sovereign’s actions as their own, existing in a
perpetual state of nature.
The Sovereign’s authority includes declaring
war, making peace, levying taxes, and
exercising ultimate administrative, legislative,
and judicial power. Hobbes defines law as the
command of the Sovereign that dictates right
and wrong. Natural law and customs gain their
authority only when endorsed by the
Sovereign, a significant departure from
medieval traditions, particularly Sir Edward
Coke’s advocacy for the supremacy of
common law.
While Hobbes allows for the Sovereign’s
absolute authority, he acknowledges the right
to self-preservation. Subjects are not obligated
to obey commands that would lead to their
death, such as orders for suicide. The
establishment of civil society aims to protect
life, and although the Sovereign may impose
capital punishment for the common good,
subjects retain the right to refuse life-ending
orders. Hobbes defines liberty as “the silence
of the law,” suggesting that individuals are
free to act in ways not explicitly commanded or
prohibited.
Hobbes firmly rejects any general right to
disobedience or rebellion. The Sovereign’s
authority is irrevocable; resistance is self-
contradictory because subjects have
authorized the Sovereign to act on their behalf.
Disobedience risks returning society to the
State of Nature, where rights and wrongs do
not exist. However, Hobbes notes that the
obligation of subjects lasts only as long as the
Sovereign can ensure their protection. If a
rebellion succeeds in establishing a new
regime that provides security, that regime
becomes the legitimate authority. This
perspective helps justify Oliver
Cromwell’s rule, emphasizing that effective
power is crucial for legitimate
governance. Hobbes contends that the quest
for justice or liberty often leads to confusion or
hypocrisy, underscoring the necessity of
upholding the Sovereign’s power to prevent
anarchy.
The Church and the State in
Hobbes’ Political Thought
In the 17th century, the interplay between
religious freedom and the relationship between
the Church and the State was a pivotal theme
in political discourse, and Hobbes devoted a
substantial portion of his work, Leviathan, to
this issue. He acknowledged the importance of
freedom of religious belief, recognizing that
individuals cannot be coerced in matters of
conscience. However, Hobbes asserted that
the public expression and practice of religion—
specifically, worship and the propagation of
faith—are matters of public concern that fall
under the jurisdiction of the political sovereign.
Hobbes criticized the notion of the Church as
the “Kingdom of God,” deeming it a cardinal
error that was as irrational and harmful as the
metaphysical idea of non-material substances.
He argued that such abstract notions
contributed to the obscurantism and
superstition prevalent in society, which often
led to divisions among people and conflict. His
nominalist theory of knowledge rejected these
abstract concepts, dismissing ideas of “spirits”
and “ghosts” as mere figments of the
imagination that misled individuals into a
“Kingdom of Darkness.”
For Hobbes, the Church was merely a
corporation, akin to any other association that
operates within the framework of
 the commonwealth. He contended that no
profession of faith could be considered lawful
unless it received the sovereign’s sanction.
This view placed religious authority firmly in the
hands of the sovereign, undermining any
competing authority that might challenge the
state’s power.
Hobbes was particularly critical of the Papacy,
which claimed authority over the subjects of
sovereign states in ecclesiastical matters. He
dismissed the Papacy’s influence as the “ghost
of the deceased Roman Empire,” implying that
it was an obsolete power attempting to exert
control in a modern political landscape. This
critique reflects Hobbes’ broader aim to
establish the supremacy of the sovereign over
all aspects of public life, including religion.
Political Obligation in
Hobbes’s Philosophy
Thomas Hobbes, a prominent philosopher of
his time, presented a compelling argument for
unwavering political obligation towards an
absolute sovereign. He provided several
reasons to support this notion.
53. First, Hobbes believed in using sanctions and

punishments to ensure individuals’ compliance

 with the sovereign’s authority.
54. Second, he emphasized the importance of

individuals respecting their contractual

agreements, as these contracts formed the
bedrock of a functioning society.
55. Third, Hobbes considered the sovereign as the

representative of individuals since they

voluntarily vested power and authority in this
figure.
56. Finally, he posited that civil law and the law of

nature
were intertwined, both stemming from divine
commands.
Thus, Hobbes grounded political obligation in
morality, providing a solid foundation for the
sovereign’s authority. Hobbes’s theory of
political obligation ultimately strengthened the
position of the sovereign, reinforcing the need
for an absolute authority in maintaining societal
order.
Women and the Gender
Question in Hobbes’s
Philosophy
In his exploration of human nature and society,
Hobbes also delved into the role of women and
gender dynamics. He held that in the state of
nature, women who gave birth held a unique
position as both mothers and authorities over
their children. Their authority derived from the
act of protection and nurturing that childbirth
necessitated.
However, as societies evolved into civil
societies, Hobbes observed a shift in the status
of women. They became subordinated and
were denied the right to participate in the
political process. Despite being an advocate for
human equality in principle, Hobbes did not
grant equal authority to both men and women.
He defended the prevailing patriarchal
structure by granting fathers exclusive
jurisdiction within the family unit. Hobbes’s
belief that males possessed greater wisdom
and courage led him to endorse this patriarchal
system further. Even in the broader context of
the commonwealth, Hobbes assigned
succession solely to male children, citing their
natural fitness to rule.
Hobbes’s stance on gender equality remained
complex. While he acknowledged the idea of
gender equality, he did
 not overtly challenge or oppose the prevailing
patriarchy of his time.
Comments on Thomas
Hobbes
57. ‘The leviathan is the greatest perhaps the sole
master of Political Philosophy written in English
Language’ – Oakeshott
58. ‘Hobbes was the first one to lay down the

science of Power Politics and also he is the

spokesperson of Bourgeois morality’ –
Machpherson
59. ‘Hobbesian conception of human nature was

libel on individuals for he characterized them

worse than bears and Wolves’. – Bramhall
60. ‘Hobbesian State is authoritarian’ – William

Ebinstien
61. ‘Hobbesian state of nature is classical example

of “Prisoner’s dilemma of game” – John Rawls

Important quotes by Hobbes
62. ‘Fear and I were born twins’.
63. “Curiosity is the lust of mind’.

64. ‘It is not wisdom but Authority that makes a

law’.
65. ‘Force and Fraud are in War the two cardinal

virtues’.
66. ‘In the State of Nature, Profit is the measure of
 right’.
67. ‘No arts; no letters; no society; and which is

worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent

deaths: and the life of man, Solitary, poor,
nasty, brutish and short ‘.
68. ‘Science is the Knowledge of Consequences

from Philosophical Reasoning’.

69. ‘Even the worst form of government is better

than anarchy
Conclusion
In conclusion, Thomas Hobbes made
significant contributions to political philosophy
by constructing a systematic theory
encompassing absolute sovereignty, the laws
of nature, human nature, and political
obligation. His philosophy emphasized the
necessity of a sovereign authority to prevent
perpetual war and conflict. Hobbes considered
self-preservation a fundamental law of nature
and believed that the state’s primary role was
to ensure peace, order, and security, in
contrast to Aristotle’s concept of the state as a
granter of a good life.
Hobbes’s political thought was a response to
the changing conditions of 17th-century
England, addressing political conflicts, the
demand for religious virtue, and economic
restructuring. He began with the notion of
natural rights but ultimately constrained them
within a viable civil society. While he restricted
the natural liberty of individuals, he did not
endorse the idea of individuals having the right
to curtail the authority of the state. Hobbes’s
philosophical legacy continues to shape our
understanding of politics and society, shedding
light on both enduring and evolving aspects of
his ideas.
WESTERN POLITICAL THOUGHTFATHER
OF LIBERALISMJOHN LOCKE'S POLITICAL
PHILOSOPHY
John Locke: The
Philosopher of Individual
Rights and Enlightenment
Thinker

21 September 2023
John Locke was an influential Enlightenment
philosopher known for his ideas on empiricism
and natural rights, asserting that individuals
have inherent rights to life, liberty, and property,
which greatly influenced modern political
thought.
John Locke (1632 – 17040
Introduction
John Locke, a prominent figure of the
Enlightenment, was born on August 29, 1632,
in Wrington, England. Renowned as both a
philosopher and physician, Locke is often
referred to as the ‘Father of Liberalism’ due
to his significant impact on Enlightenment
thought, particularly through his advocacy for
the Social Contract Theory, government by
consent, human freedom, and the role of
reason in society. He argued that a
society practicing intellectual and religious
toleration was ideal for stability, earning him
the title of the ‘father of the Enlightenment.’
Locke’s pivotal contribution lies in justifying
the Glorious Revolution of 1688, which
transitioned England from an absolute
monarchy to a constitutional one. His writings
provided essential philosophical foundations
for this significant historical moment. Recent
scholarship on Locke has revealed a wealth of
new material, especially from the Lovelace
collection, enhancing our understanding of his
life and thought.
However, contemporary interpretations of
Locke’s political theory have become
increasingly divergent. Some view him through
a lens of Hobbism, emphasizing an egoistic
and utilitarian ethics, while others argue for a
deontological perspective, presenting him as a
classical natural law thinker. There are further
characterizations of Locke as a “prince of
individualists,” while others depict him as a
collectivist akin to Rousseau.
The complexity of Locke’s philosophy is
evident in the various interpretations, from
Martin Seliger’s “liberal constitutionalism” to
Macpherson’s reading of it as a theory of
“capitalist appropriation.” Each interpretation
has merit, but attempts to fit Locke into rigid
philosophical categories often distort his rich
and multifaceted ideas. This complexity
creates a challenging comparison with
contemporaries like Hobbes, illustrating the
difficulties faced by those analyzing his work.
As noted by J.W.W. Watkins, it is essential to
recognize Locke’s unique contributions while
acknowledging the diverse and sometimes
conflicting interpretations of his
 philosophy.
Table of Contents
70. Introduction
71. Major Works by John Locke

72. Paternal Authority and Political Power

73. Paternal Authority and Political Power by John

Locke
74. State of Nature by John Locke

75. The Social Contract: Transition to Civil Society

76. Right to Property: Labor and Limitations

77. Civil or Political Society

78. The Limits on Government: Protecting

Individual Rights
79. Political Obligation: Obedience Grounded in

the Public Good

80. Consent, Resistance, and Toleration in Locke’s

Political Philosophy
81. Differences between Hobbes and Locke on

Natural Rights
82. Famous Quotes by John Locke

83. Conclusion

Major Works by John Locke

Throughout his prolific career, Locke penned
several influential works that continue to shape
political philosophy and education. Some of his
major works include:
A Letter Concerning Toleration (1689): In
this treatise, Locke argued passionately
for religious toleration as the path to civil
peace, opposing the policy of religious
uniformity.
Two Treatises of Government
(1689): Published anonymously in 1689 and
acknowledged by Locke in 1704, these
treatises critiqued Filmer’s theory and
explained the
true nature and purpose of civil government.
Essay Concerning Human Understanding
(1690): This work delved into the foundation of
human knowledge and understanding,
exploring the intricacies of human cognition. In
this book he gave the concept of “Tabula
Rasa” – White paper, void of all characters to
describe human mind at birth.
Some Thoughts Concerning Education
(1693): Locke’s treatise on education became
the cornerstone of educational philosophy in
England for over a century.
The Reasonableness of Christianity
(1695): An exploration of religious thought,
Locke’s work contributed to the broader
discourse on faith and reason.
Of the Conduct of the Understanding
(1706): This handbook for clear and rational
thinking complemented Locke’s thoughts on
education, providing guidance on self-
education.
Important book on John Locke – “Political
thought of John Locke” – John Dunn
Some Philosophical
Problems in Locke’s Theory
Conflict Between Ideas
There’s a common debate about whether John
Locke’s ideas on knowledge and his ideas
about government can work together. Some
critics think they contradict each other. Locke’s
main book on knowledge, An Essay
Concerning Human Understanding,
argues that all knowledge comes from
experience—what we see, hear, and feel. This
is called empiricism. For example, if you touch
a hot stove, you learn it’s hot and painful
through direct experience.
However, in his other important work, Second
Treatise of Government, he talks about Natural
Law, which suggests that there are universal
moral rules that everyone should follow. For
instance, the idea that stealing is wrong applies
to everyone, even if someone has never
personally been affected by theft.
Critics like C.E. Vaughan and George H.
Sabine argue that these two views don’t match.
They think that if Locke believes all knowledge
comes from experience, he can’t also believe
in these fixed moral laws.
Whereas, Locke himself disagrees with this
criticism. He says that just because he doesn’t
believe in innate ideas (ideas we’re born with),
it doesn’t mean he rejects Natural Law. He
believes that while our knowledge starts with
experience, our minds play a key role in
understanding that information. This makes his
view different from later philosophers who were
stricter empiricists.
Pleasure and Morality
Another debate arises from Locke’s connection
between pleasure, pain, and morality. Critics
claim that if good and evil are based on what
brings pleasure or pain, it may seem like
morality is merely about seeking pleasure or
avoiding pain. For instance, if someone lies
and it brings them pleasure or avoids
discomfort, is that morally acceptable?
Locke insists that pleasure and pain are
consequences of moral actions, not the
foundation of morality itself. He believes that
moral laws exist independently of their
outcomes. For instance, if someone lies to
avoid punishment, they might feel relieved
(pleasure), but that
doesn’t make lying morally right. Locke
states, “Utility is not the basis of the law or
the ground of obligation, but the
consequence of obedience to it.” This
means that just because something is useful or
brings pleasure doesn’t mean it’s the right thing
to do.
Paternal Authority and
Political Power by John
Locke
Locke’s philosophy diverged sharply from the
prevailing beliefs of his time. While Filmer’s
theory justified absolute power in monarchy
through a patriarchal inheritance from Adam,
Locke countered this notion vehemently. He
argued that paternal authority could not be
equated with political authority. Locke rooted
freedom and liberty in reason, maintaining that
as children grew rational, paternal authority
should yield to their individual freedom.
In Locke’s view, political authority was
exercised over equals and rested on consent,
a foundational principle. He advocated three
types of political power: Legislative (Supreme
Power), Executive and Federative (Later
equated with Foreign Policy). Unlike paternal
authority, political power could be transferred
from one government to another through the
consent of the governed if a government failed
to fulfill its responsibilities.
Locke’s utilization of the Social Contract
Theory emphasized that legitimate political
authority derived from the consent of the
people, who retained the power to withdraw
that consent if their freedom was violated or
curtailed.
In the following sections, we will delve deeper
into John Locke’s major works and explore the
nuances of his
philosophical ideas, shedding light on their
enduring relevance in the modern world. Join
us on this intellectual journey as we uncover
the profound wisdom of John Locke, a luminary
who illuminated the path to freedom and
reason during the Enlightenment era.
State of Nature by John
Locke
John Locke’s conception of the State of Nature
serves as a foundational element of his political
theory and ideas regarding civil society. In his
work Two Treatises of Government (1689),
Locke describes the State of Nature as a realm
characterized by complete freedom
and equality among individuals, governed
by “peace, goodwill, mutual cooperation,
and preservation.” He asserts that in this
state, individuals are guided by the Law of
Nature, derived from reason, which dictates
that “no one ought to harm another in his life,
health, liberty, or possessions.” Thus, Locke
emphasizes that the State of Nature represents
a domain of liberty rather than mere license.
Locke makes a critical distinction between
liberty and license, arguing that true liberty
involves acting in accordance with natural law.
He states, “Men being by nature all free, equal,
and independent,” possess the freedom to
pursue their interests, but they must also
respect the rights of others. However, he
acknowledges that some individuals may
choose to act against moral laws for selfish
gain. In the absence of a political authority,
resolving conflicts and
ensuring justice becomes problematic.
The State of Nature, as Locke presents it, is
fundamentally a rational construct rather than a
historical reality, allowing him
to explore the origins of political society. He
posits that while the State of Nature is pre-
political, it is not pre-social, as humans are
inherently social beings. Locke insists that
the State of Nature is marked by cooperation
and mutual assistance. He argues, “Men are
not by nature in a state of war,” suggesting that
this state operates under a law that obliges
individuals to act reasonably and justly toward
one another.
Natural rights emerge as central to Locke’s
theory, particularly the rights to life, liberty,
and property. He states that these rights are
inalienable, grounded in the Law of Nature,
which he views as a reflection of divine reason.
Locke contends that every person is bound not
only to preserve themselves but also to
consider the preservation of others, as long as
their actions do not infringe upon their own
rights.
Although liberty is a key aspect of the State of
Nature, it is crucial to recognize that this
freedom does not equate to anarchy. Locke
emphasizes that individuals must refrain from
harming others, ensuring that their pursuit of
freedom does not violate the natural rights of
their fellow beings. This balance of rights and
responsibilities sets the stage for the
establishment of civil society, where
collective security and justice can be achieved
through mutual consent and governance.
The Social Contract:
Transition to Civil Society
John Locke’s social contract theory addresses
the complexities of governance and individual
rights. He asserts
that individuals in a State of Nature opt to form
a civil society through a social contract,
surrendering certain rights but retaining their
rights to life, liberty, and property.
Locke describes the state as an “unavoidable
evil,” created after society is formed. The
government, characterized as a ‘fiduciary
trust’, operates under the community’s trust,
bound to act within constitutional limits. He
emphasizes that the government must judge
and punish violations of natural laws, requiring
the consent of the governed.
Once individuals enter this social contract, it
becomes irrevocable; they “can never again
be in the liberty of the state of nature.”
Locke argues that humans are compelled
by “strong Obligations of Necessity,
Convenience, and Inclination” to form
societies, where political power is defined as
“the Right of making Laws with Penalties of
Death” for the public good.
Consent is critical, as no one can be subjected
to political power without it. The civil society’s
common consent transforms into the consent
of the majority, obligating all to adhere to the
majority’s decisions. After civil society is
established, a legislative body is appointed to
 execute natural law, which is the ‘supreme
authority’.
Locke asserts that this legislative power is not
arbitrary and must conform to the Law of
Nature, emphasizing:
84. Laws must be duly promulgated.

85. Property cannot be taken without consent.

86. Legislative powers cannot be transferred.

Critics like C.E. Vaughan argue that Locke

lacks a clear theory of sovereignty, attributing it
to individuals rather than an absolute power.
However, Locke acknowledges a higher
law—the Law of Nature—that limits
government power while maintaining its
authority.
George H. Sabine identifies four levels of
authority in Locke’s Two Treatises:
the individual, the community,
the government (legislative), and
the executive. Locke seeks a balance among
these, emphasizing the supremacy of Natural
Law. His theory significantly influences modern
democratic thought, advocating for a
government derived from the consent of the
governed, thereby laying the groundwork for
constitutional governance.
Read more about Thomas
Hobbes – Thomas Hobbes: Politics,
Philosophy and Social Contract
Right to Property: Labor and
Limitations
In Locke’s political philosophy, the theory of
property holds a prominent place. Locke
rebuffs the argument put forth by Filmer,
asserting that God had granted the earth
exclusively to Adam and his heirs.
For Locke, an individual’s physical and mental
capabilities, particularly the capacity for labor,
 serve as the distinguishing factor between
privately owned property and common
resources. When an individual mixes their
labor with natural resources, they transform
them into a form of private property.
Locke imposes three limitations on the right to
appropriation in the State of Nature:
87. Individuals should acquire only as much

property as they can reasonably use.

88. They must leave enough and of sufficient

quality for
 others.
89. Property rights extend only to what individuals

acquire through the labor of their body and

mind. Labor, according to Locke, determines
the value of property by enhancing its utility
and productivity.
Locke contends that the introduction of the
concept of money in the State of Nature
distorts these limited rights to appropriation, as
property is converted into the form of money.
Crucially, Locke asserts that property precedes
the government, as it is a natural right derived
from natural law. Consequently, no government
can deprive an individual of their property
without their consent. The state’s primary role,
in Locke’s view, is to safeguard individuals’
rights to liberty and property.
Locke’s emphasis on the right to property leads
him to advocate for a minimal state with limited
government power, the protection of individual
rights, and a rejection of the hereditary
principle of government.
John Locke’s theory was criticized by various
thinkers such as Nozick, Waldron and simons
etc on the basis that it is contradictory in nature
as on one hand he is saying that right to
property is a natural right while on the other
hand he is restricting it with these limitations.
Civil or Political Society
Addressing the Inconveniences of the State of
Nature, John Locke, in his profound exploration
of political philosophy, outlined three key
inconveniences that propelled individuals to
transition from the State of Nature to a Civil or
Political
 Society:
90. Need for Established Known Law: In the

State of Nature, there was a pressing need for

a recognized and established legal framework
to regulate human interactions.
91. Need for an Impartial Judge: To resolve

disputes fairly, an impartial and well-recognized

judge was required—a role not fulfilled in the
State of Nature.
92. Need for Power to Support Justice: The

absence of a centralized authority meant that

there was no power to enforce just sentences
and ensure their execution.
To address these challenges, individuals
collectively established a Civil or Political
Society by entering into the social contract.
This newly formed society came complete with
a government tasked with preserving the life,
liberty, and property of its members.
The Limits on Government:
Protecting Individual Rights
John Locke, a luminary in political philosophy,
articulated a crucial principle regarding the
boundaries of government authority. According
to Locke, a government can be deemed
illegitimate and subject to replacement if it
infringes upon an individual’s natural right to
liberty and property.
Moreover, Locke emphasized the importance
of consent in governance. He contended that
the government could not levy taxes on
property without the explicit consent of the
people. In essence, the authority to govern
must rest on the will and agreement of the
governed.
Individuals enter into the social contract to
transition from
 the state of nature to civil or political society,
making the legislature the supreme authority in
this new social order. However, Locke
emphasized that even the legislature is not
above the law of nature. To ensure just and
equitable governance, Locke delineated four
essential limits on the legislature:
93. Governance through Established Impartial

Laws: The legislature must govern through

established laws that are impartial and treat all
members of society fairly.
94. Laws Designed for the Common

Good: Legislation must be designed to

promote the welfare and well-being of the
people as a whole.
95. No Property Taxation Without

Consent: Taxation on property cannot be

raised without the explicit consent of the
people, safeguarding their economic interests.
96. No Transfer of Legislative Power: The

legislature is prohibited from transferring its

power to make laws to any other body,
ensuring the continuity of the social contract.
Political Obligation:
Obedience Grounded in the
Public Good
Locke’s theory of political obligation centers on
the idea that individuals are obligated to obey
the government when the public power is
wielded for the “peace, safety, and public good
of the people.” In other words, a government’s
legitimacy hinges on its commitment to serving
the common welfare.
Crucially, Locke argued that individuals grant to
the government only the powers they
themselves possess in the
 state of nature—no more. This principle acts as
a safeguard against the emergence of arbitrary
and absolute governmental authority that could
encroach upon individual liberties.
Furthermore, Locke introduced the concept of
conditional political obligation. Citizens are not
bound by unconditional obedience; they
possess the legitimate right to change or
dissolve the government under specific
circumstances. These circumstances include:
97. Establishment of Arbitrary Rule: When a

leader imposes their arbitrary will above the

law.
98. Obstruction of the Legislature: When a ruler

obstructs the legislature from fulfilling its

designated purposes.
99. Alteration of Elections Without

Consent: When electoral processes are

changed without consent and against the
common interests of the people.
100. Submission to Foreign Powers: When
the people are subjected to foreign authority by
the ruler or the legislature.
101. Neglect of Laws: When the supreme
executive power fails to uphold the laws.
Importantly, Locke asserted that the right of
disobedience could be exercised by the
majority rather than isolated individuals or
small groups, reflecting a collective approach
to addressing unjust authority.
Consent, Resistance, and
Toleration in Locke’s
Political Philosophy
Resistance and the Right to
Revolt
Locke is often seen as a defender of the
Glorious Revolution, positing that a ruler who
abuses power forfeits legitimate authority and
may be removed, potentially by force. He
maintains that government dissolution can
occur through foreign conquest or legislative
obstruction. Although he suggests that the right
to revolt typically belongs to the majority, Locke
holds a conservative view, believing revolution
should be a last resort. George H. Sabine
observes that, despite advocating for the right
to revolt, Locke was not inherently
revolutionary.
Critics have argued that Locke restricts the
right of revolution to the aristocratic class,
suggesting that only educated property owners
should resist tyrants. In contrast, In
Revolutionary Politics, Gary Ashcraft critiques
John Locke’s defense of the Glorious
Revolution, arguing that Locke’s perspective
on resistance is too narrow and elite-focused.
He emphasizes that “resistance to tyranny is
everyone’s business,” advocating for a more
radical interpretation of political action where
all individuals have a moral duty to oppose
oppression, not just in cases of violated natural
rights.
Religious Toleration
Locke passionately advocates for religious
toleration, maintaining that individual
conscience should remain free from external
control. While he opposes religious
persecution, he imposes limits on toleration,
asserting that views contradicting essential
moral rules should not be
accepted. He specifically excludes atheists
from toleration, claiming that removing God
undermines the foundational bonds of society.
Differences between Hobbes
and Locke on Natural Rights
AspectThomas HobbesJohn LockeView of
Human NaturePessimistic: Believes humans
are inherently self-interested and competitive.
State of Nature: Characterized by chaos and
violence, leading to a “war of all against all.”
Life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and
short.”Optimistic: Views humans as rational
and capable of cooperation.
State of Nature: Generally peaceful, governed
by natural law, where individuals respect each
other’s rights.Concept of Natural
RightsSurvival: Individuals have a natural
right to do whatever is necessary for self-
preservation, including harming others if
needed.
Relinquishment: Rights are not absolute; they
are surrendered to the sovereign in exchange
for protection.Inherent Rights: Identifies
natural rights as life, liberty, and property,
which are inherent and cannot be surrendered.
Inalienable: These rights remain intact even
within society.Social ContractAbsolute
Authority: Individuals agree to give up their
rights to a powerful sovereign to escape the
state of nature.
No Right to Revolt: The sovereign’s power is
absolute, and rebellion is not justified as it
would return society to chaos.Government for
Protection: The social contract is an
 agreement to form a government that protects
natural rights.
Right to Revolt: Citizens have the right to
overthrow a government that fails to protect
their rights.Nature of
GovernmentAuthoritarian: Advocates for a
strong, centralized authority (absolute
monarchy) to maintain order and security.
Focus on Stability: Emphasizes security over
individual freedoms.Limited Government:
Supports a government accountable to the
people, operating under the rule of law.
Focus on Rights: The primary role of
government is to protect individual rights and
freedoms.
Famous Quotes by John
Locke
102. ‘I have always thought the actions of men
are the best interpreters of their thoughts’.
103. ‘What worries you, masters you’.
104. ‘Government has no other end, but the
presentation of property’.
105. ‘All mankind….being all equal and
independent, no one ought to harm another in
his life, health, liberty or possessions’.
106. ‘All wealth is a product of Labour’.
107. ‘Everyman has a property in his own
person. This nobody has the right to, but
himself’.
108. ‘Individuals are subjected to laws of
nature’.
109. ‘Laws are the command of sovereign
backed by force”
110. ‘Right to appeal to heaven’
111. ‘Law does not restrict liberty as much as
defend or enlarge it’.
112. ‘White paper, void of all characters to
describe human
mind at birth’. – Concept of Tabula Rasa
Conclusion
John Locke remains one of the most
controversial and influential figures in the
history of political thought. His key emphases
on constitutionalism, consent, and toleration
have become integral components of modern
political theory.
Locke was a pioneer in championing the
doctrine of civil society and formulating the
concept of government as a trust. He sought to
empower people as the ultimate arbiters of
government accountability by granting them
the right to rebellion or revolution when
their fundamental rights were threatened.
In today’s world, Locke’s ideas continue to
resonate, inspiring discussions on governance,
individual rights, and the essential relationship
between the state and its citizens. His legacy
endures, offering a framework for
understanding and evaluating the role and
limits of government in our lives.
Read More:
Jean-Jacques Rousseau:
Philosopher of the Social
Contract and Noble
Savage

By:Politicalsciencesolution.Com
Date:
22 September 2023
Jean-Jacques Rousseau was an 18th-century
French philosopher known for his ideas on
social contract theory and the belief in the
innate goodness of humans, while also
advocating for a more egalitarian society.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712- 1778)
Introduction
Born on June 28, 1712, in the picturesque city
of Geneva, Jean-Jacques Rousseau emerged
as a pivotal figure during the Enlightenment
era, leaving an indelible mark on the
intellectual landscape of his time. Often
referred to as the intellectual Father of the
French Revolution, Rousseau was a
trailblazer who challenged established norms
and institutions in the pursuit of modern values
such as equality, liberty, and democracy.
 Rousseau’s philosophy underscores the
profound distinction between society and
human nature. He posited that in the state of
nature, humans were inherently good but
became corrupted by the artificial constructs of
society, particularly critiquing the concept of
private property. Additionally, he championed
the idea of human equality within society and
aimed to harmonize liberty and equality.
Rousseau also advocated the concept of the
General Will as the true foundation of
legitimate power and authority, all while
advocating simplicity, innocence, and virtue as
the means to unlock the full potential of human
nature. His philosophy resonated deeply with
those who yearned for a return to a more
natural and unspoiled existence, free from the
trappings of modern society.
Table of Contents
113. Introduction
114. Early Life of Rousseau
115. His Major Works
116. Revolt Against Reason
117. Rousseau’s Political Philosophy
118. State of Nature
119. The Emergence of Private Property
120. Analyzing Inequality
121. Concept of “General Will”
122. The Social Contract Theory
123. Popular Sovereignty
124. Challenging Representative Government:
The Call for Direct Democracy
125. Rousseau’s views on Family and Women
126. Critical Appreciation
127. Famous Quotes by Rousseau
128. Conclusion: Rousseau’s Vision of a Just
Society
Early Life of Rousseau
Jean-Jacques Rousseau was born into a poor
family in Geneva, with his mother dying shortly
after his birth. His father struggled to provide a
coherent upbringing, and at the age of twelve,
Rousseau was apprenticed to various masters
but failed to establish himself in any trade.
Throughout his life, he lived in poverty, relying
on his ingenuity and the generosity of women.
For material advantages, he even changed his
religion and accepted charity from people he
disliked.
In 1744, Rousseau moved to Paris, where he
explored various fields, including theatre,
opera, music, and poetry, but achieved little
success. Despite this, his charismatic
personality allowed him to gain access to the
prestigious salons of Paris, where he mingled
with leading encyclopedists and influential
women, some of whom he had close
relationships with. However, he distanced
himself from the upper class, maintaining the
values of his low-middle-class, puritanical
upbringing.
During Rousseau’s lifetime, France was ruled
by the absolutist regime of Louis XV, where
political power and social prestige were
monopolized by the king, clergy, and nobility,
who lived extravagantly at the expense of the
struggling masses. The corrupt bureaucracy
denied even basic needs, fostering widespread
discontent and a desire for change. The
emerging bourgeoisie, feeling restricted by
the current order, allied with the peasantry to
seek reform.
The French Enlightenment significantly
influenced the climate of dissent against the
ancien régime, emphasizing reason and
experience. While Rousseau aligned with
some Enlightenment ideas, he diverged in his
emphasis on feelings over rationality. He
believed modern man had lost touch with his
emotions, leading him to reject the
Enlightenment’s prioritization of reason and
advocating for a more emotional connection to
humanity.
His Major Works
Rousseau’s intellectual contributions
manifested through a series of influential
writings that challenged conventional wisdom
and ignited fervent debates:
Discourse on the Arts and Sciences
(1750): In this work, Rousseau provocatively
asserted that ‘Our souls have been corrupted
in proportion to the advancement of our
sciences and our arts towards perfection’.
Discourse on the Origin and Basis of
Inequality (1755): Rousseau’s second
discourse delved into the origins of inequality,
tracing it back to the establishment of civil
society and the emergence of private property.
Discourse on Political Economy (1755): This
discourse explored the concept of democratic
ideals, further solidifying Rousseau’s
commitment to the principles of equality and
liberty.
Emile (1762): Rousseau’s treatise on
education, Emile, had a profound impact on the
development of the French education system
during the tumultuous period of the French
Revolution.
The Social Contract (1762): In this magnum
opus, Rousseau expounded on the concept of
the General Will as the cornerstone of
legitimate authority, presenting a vision of a
just social contract that resonated with
revolutionary thinkers of his time.
Essay – “Has the progress of sciences and
arts contributed to corrupt or purify
morals” – For this particular essay Rousseau
also won a prize in 1749 sponsored by the
Academy of Dijon.
The Confession – Autobiography of Rousseau
Revolt Against Reason
During the Enlightenment, a time of great
scientific advancement and the belief in reason
as the guiding principle of life, Jean-Jacques
Rousseau emerged as a critical voice. He
challenged the Enlightenment’s focus on
intelligence, science, and reason, claiming that
these elements were harming the faith and
moral values of society. Rousseau believed
that the “thinking animal is a depraved
animal,” arguing that reason suppressed
natural feelings like sympathy and compassion.
He contended that reason led to pride, which
conflicted with sympathy, and he viewed pride
as inherently evil. In his book Political
Thought, Wayper stated, “Rousseau, ardent
apostle of reason, has done more than most to
prepare the way for the age of unreason in
which he lived.”
Rousseau’s criticism of the Enlightenment was
articulated in a prize-winning essay written in
1749, where he addressed the question, “Has
the progress of science and arts
contributed to corrupt or purify morality?”
He argued that
science did not enhance morality but rather
caused moral decline. Rousseau believed
that what was perceived as progress was, in
fact, a regression. He asserted that the arts of
civilized society merely adorned the chains that
bound people. In his view, modern civilization
did not make people happier or more virtuous;
instead, it corrupted them, with greater
sophistication leading to greater corruption.
He was skeptical of the Baconian dream of
creating abundance on Earth, believing that
abundance led to luxury, which was a known
source of corruption. Rousseau pointed to
historical examples, stating that Athens fell
because of its luxury and excess, and that
Rome lost its strength after becoming wealthy
and indulgent. He argued, “Our minds have
been corrupted in proportion as the arts
and sciences have improved.” For
Rousseau, the praised civility and refinement
of society concealed negative traits such as
jealousy, suspicion, and deceit.
Against the Enlightenment’s faith in intelligence
and progress, Rousseau promoted kindness,
goodwill, and moral feelings. He argued that
sentiments and conscience should guide moral
values. He believed that without reverence,
faith, and moral intuition, there could be no
character or society. Rousseau saw modern
society as false and artificial, having strayed
from a true culture that reflects genuine human
nature and the collective will of the people.
Rousseau’s Political
Philosophy
State of Nature
Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s political philosophy
takes us on a
journey back to the origins of human existence,
challenging the conventional wisdom of his
time. According to Rousseau, in the state of
nature, individuals were guided by instinct
rather than reason. He painted a vivid picture
of noble savage i.e. living in idyllic bliss,
leading lives characterized by independence,
self-sufficiency, and a profound connection with
nature. In this pristine state, happiness was not
contingent on reason but thrived in simplicity,
free from the artificial desires that reason often
gave birth to. He further quoted – ‘A happy
individual was not much a thinking being’.
Rousseau’s critique of reason was rooted in
the belief that it led to the unquenchable
desires of individuals, making them perpetually
unhappy. The more one embraced reason, the
more their desires multiplied, creating a cycle
of discontentment.
“Rousseau observed that although life was
peaceful in the state of nature, People were
unfulfilled” – Edward W. Younkins
The Emergence of Private
Property
The advent of civilization, marked by the
discovery of metals and agriculture, brought
about the division of labor and the rise of
private property. He asserts that the cultivation
of land resulted in property claims, famously
remarking, “The first man who after felling off a
piece of land, took it upon himself to say ‘This
belongs to me,’ and found people simple-
minded enough to believe him, was the true
founder of civil society.” With the concept of
property came inequality, as differences in
talents and skills led to varied fortunes. Wealth
enabled some individuals to enslave others,
provoking
competition and conflict. This conflict created a
demand for a legal system to maintain order,
particularly from the wealthy, who feared losing
their possessions in a state of violence.
According to Rousseau, this demand resulted
in the formation of civil society and laws that
imposed new constraints on the poor while
empowering the rich. He claimed that these
developments destroyed natural liberty,
established laws of property and inequality,
and transformed wrongful usurpation into
accepted rights, subjecting humanity to labor,
servitude, and misery for the benefit of a few
ambitious individuals.
Rousseau argued, however, that things need
not have turned out so poorly. He suggested
that when men willingly entered chains with the
establishment of government, it was because
they recognized the advantages of political
institutions without the experience to foresee
their potential dangers. This idea would be
revisited in his later work, Social Contract. It is
crucial to note that Rousseau did not depict the
transition from the state of nature to civil
society as a historical fact; rather, he employed
hypothetical reasoning to explore the nature of
humanity and society, rather than ascertain
their actual origins.
Analyzing Inequality
Rousseau’s analysis of inequality was rooted in
the stark contrast between the natural state of
individuals—pure, good, and roughly equal to
one another—and their corrupted, unequal,
and degraded state within society. He
classified inequality into two types – Natural
inequality (Based on birth,
skills, talent, age, sex etc) and Conventional
equality (Constructed by society primarily with
the advent of private property).
He further advocated for social equality,
although not absolute equality, permitting
distinctions based on contributions to society
and natural factors like age and wealth.
Concept of “General Will”
Rousseau posited that the General Will should
serve as the foundation for all laws, with its
embodiment realized through direct
democracy. He distinguished between
the actual will, driven by immediate self-
interest, and the real will, which is motivated
by the collective good. The General Will
functions as a unifying force, aligning individual
interests with those of the community, thereby
crucial for achieving social and political
equality.
He emphasized that the General Will must
genuinely originate from and focus on the
common good, ensuring that decisions involve
every member of society. Rousseau viewed
economic equality as essential for preserving
individual liberty and attaining true social and
political equality.
However, critics have described Rousseau’s
concept of the General Will as “forced to be
free.” Scholar Jacob Talmon labeled
Rousseau a “totalitarian
democrat,” while Bosanke argued that
Rousseau’s theory misleads readers by
establishing sovereignty on an uncertain
foundation. By making the General Will
sovereign and viewing individuals as
participants in it, Rousseau reconciled authority
with freedom more effectively than his
predecessors.
In his Discourse on Political Economy,
Rousseau stated that the General Will aims
for the preservation and welfare of both the
whole and each part, serving as the source of
laws. He differentiated it from the “will of all,”
which merely aggregates private interests. The
General Will is not merely a numerical majority
but reflects moral quality and goodness,
emerging when individuals sacrifice personal
interests for the collective good.
Rousseau recognized that unanimity on the
General Will may not always be possible, as
individuals might not fully understand the
common good. He suggested that if one
removes conflicting particular interests from
individual wills, what remains is the General
Will.
Moreover, he asserted that those who refuse to
obey the General Will would be “forced to be
free.” This compulsion is justified, he argued,
because individuals have already consented to
be governed by the social contract, which
promotes their long-term interests. In essence,
obeying the General Will reflects an individual’s
moral freedom, representing rational self-
governance that aligns with the common good.
Thus, when the General Will prevails,
individuals should not perceive it as a loss of
liberty but as adherence to their rational self.
The Social Contract Theory
In his influential work, The Social Contract,
Rousseau proposed that a political community
should protect the general interests of its
members while transforming the noble savage
into a cooperative and humane member of
society. He asserted that liberty is the most
cherished
possession of individuals, and the right kind of
society could enhance this freedom by
governing through what he called the “General
Will.”
For Rousseau, the social contract was a
method to reconcile liberty with authority,
where consent served as the foundational
principle. He emphasized that a community
exists to serve the individual by safeguarding
their freedom. This community reflects the
collective best interests of all its members,
operating in harmony with the General Will,
which represents the shared will of individuals
thinking beyond their self-interests.
While Rousseau criticized ‘civil society’, he did
not advocate for a return to a savage
existence, as some of his contemporaries
misinterpreted him. For instance, Voltaire
mocked Rousseau’s ideas, suggesting he
wanted people to revert to walking on all fours.
In the Discourse, Rousseau exclaimed, “What
then is to be done? Must societies be totally
abolished? Must meum and tuum be
annihilated, and must we return again to the
forests to live among bears? This is a
deduction in the manner of my adversaries,
which I would as soon anticipate and let them
have the shame of drawing.”
Rousseau believed there was no going back to
the state of nature. He argued that society is
inevitable; without it, humanity could not fulfill
its potential. His critique of civil society was
rooted in its unjust foundations and corrupting
influences. Therefore, he aimed to create a
new social order that would enable individuals
to realize their true nature.
To this end, Rousseau dedicated himself
in The Social Contract. He sought to address
the issue of political
obligation, asking why individuals should obey
the state through a proper reconciliation of
authority and freedom. He felt that previous
philosophers had inadequately tackled this
critical task. The Social Contract opens with
the powerful declaration, “Man is born free, and
he is everywhere in chains.” Rousseau’s goal
was to legitimize the chains of society,
contrasting them with the illegitimate chains of
contemporary governance.
Rousseau’s theoretical challenge was to find a
form of association capable of defending and
protecting each individual’s person and
property while ensuring that each person, in
uniting with all, could still obey themselves and
remain as free as before through a social
contract. This contract requires “the total
alienation of each associate, together with all
his rights, to the whole community.” Each
individual gives themselves to all, thereby
giving themselves to no one in particular. As
Rousseau explains, “As there is no associate
over whom he does not acquire the same right
as he yields over himself, he gains an
equivalent for everything he loses, and an
increase of force for the preservation of what
he has.”
In essence, participants in the social contract
agree to place their person and all their power
at the common use, under the supreme
direction of the General Will, with each
member being viewed as an indivisible part of
the whole. As a result, the private individual
ceases to exist; the contract generates a moral
and collective body that gains its unity,
common identity, life, and will from this act.
This public person formed from the union of all
individual members becomes the State when
passive, the Sovereign when active, and a
Power when
compared with similar institutions.
After establishing a state, Rousseau envisions
a significant transformation in human beings.
This transformation replaces instinct with a rule
of justice, bestowing a moral character to
actions that were previously lacking. He goes
so far as to say that humanity evolves from a
“stupid and limited animal” into an intelligent
being.
However, Rousseau acknowledges that this
transformation would be implausible if the
contract were viewed as a singular event.
Instead, he posits that the social contract
represents a way of thinking, indicating that it is
a process rather than an isolated occurrence.
Consequently, the evolution of human nature
occurs gradually alongside the deepening of
social relationships, fueled by ongoing
participation in the General Will. This
perspective presents a vision of humanity
whose moral sensibilities and intellectual
capacities evolve in tandem with the expanding
nature of their social interactions.
Popular Sovereignty
Rousseau introduced the radical concept of
Popular Sovereignty, significantly shaping
modern political thought. For him, sovereignty
resided not in a distant monarchy but directly
within the political community. He synthesized
John Locke’s idea of popular government and
Thomas Hobbes’ notion of absolute
sovereignty to formulate his concept of Popular
Sovereignty.
Rousseau asserted that sovereignty originates
from the people themselves, not as a gift from
natural or divine laws, but as an organized
power derived from the collective will.
This supreme authority empowers the people
to determine right from wrong, making them
responsible for lawmaking, enforcement, and
adjudication. He referred to this as cosmic
sovereignty.
Rousseau famously stated, “the moment
there is a master, there is no longer a
sovereign,” illustrating his departure from
Hobbes and Locke. In Hobbes’s view, people
create a sovereign and relinquish their powers
to him, while Locke’s social contract
establishes a limited government for specific
purposes but avoids equating sovereignty—
whether popular or monarchical—with political
absolutism. In contrast, Rousseau’s
sovereign is the people, formed into a
political community through the social contract.
Unique among political thinkers, Rousseau
regarded the sovereignty of the people as
inalienable and indivisible, asserting that they
cannot transfer their ultimate right to self-
governance. Unlike Hobbes, who proposed a
ruler as sovereign, Rousseau maintained a
clear distinction between sovereignty, which
resides entirely with the people, and
government, a temporary agent of that
sovereignty.
Rousseau also emphasized that since the
sovereignty of the General Will is inalienable
and indivisible, it cannot be represented or
delegated. He criticized representative
assemblies for developing their own particular
interests, thus forgetting the community’s
needs. This is why he favored direct
democracies, such as those in Swiss city-
republics, despite their anachronism during the
rise of modern nation-states. He insisted that
any attempt to delegate the General Will
signifies its end, famously stating, “the moment
there is a master, there is no longer a
sovereign.” For Rousseau,
the “voice of the people” embodies the
“voice of God,” emphasizing the profound
connection between popular will and moral
authority.
Challenging Representative
Government: The Call for
Direct Democracy
Rousseau’s critique extended to the prevalent
systems of government in his time, particularly
the English Parliamentary System. He argued
that these systems offered a mere illusion of
freedom. In reality, people were only free
during elections, and once they elected their
representatives, their freedom dwindled.
Rousseau advocated for a more direct form of
democracy where people actively participated
in the decision-making process.
He championed participatory democracy, a
system that not only secured individual
freedom but also promoted self-rule, equality,
and virtue. In his view, true democracy required
the active involvement of citizens in shaping
the laws that governed them.
Rousseau’s views on Family
and Women
Rousseau, like Aristotle, considered the family
as the fundamental unit of society. He
defended the patriarchal family structure,
seeing it as a natural institution grounded in
love, affection, and the inherent differences
between the sexes. However, his stance on
women in society mirrored the prevailing views
of his time. Rousseau assigned a
subordinate position to women, both in the
family and society at large, with male authority
prevailing.
Rousseau believed that women should be
represented by men in a liberal democracy,
and he discouraged their participation
in politics. His rationale stemmed from a fear
that women would prioritize the interests of
their families over the public good, unable to
transcend their love and affection for the
particular to embrace the general.
Critical Appreciation
Rousseau’s philosophical journey reveals a
fundamental logical divide between his earlier
work, Discourse on Equality, and his later
work, The Social Contract. Vaughan notes that
while the former is characterized by
“defiant individualism,” the latter embraces
“equally defiant collectivism.” However,
Rousseau himself did not perceive this
opposition; in his Confessions, he asserts that
the strong ideas in The Social Contract were
previously articulated in Discourse on Equality.
Sabille supports Rousseau’s viewpoint, yet
acknowledges the presence of seemingly
contradictory ideas in his writings.
The distinction between the two works lies in
Rousseau’s transition from freeing himself from
systematic individualism to formulating a
counter-philosophy. Systematic individualism,
as criticized by Rousseau, posits that humans
are moral and rational beings motivated by
enlightened self-interest, leading to the
creation of a community primarily for the
protection of rights and promotion of
happiness. Rousseau contended that this
framework did not align with human nature. He
argued that attributes such as rationality
and self-interest are acquired through societal
living rather than being inherent traits.
Rousseau challenged the notion that reason
alone could unify individuals focused solely on
their happiness, emphasizing that self-interest
is as socially constructed as the innate social
needs that bring people together. He posited
that human sociability is based on feelings, not
reason. In his analysis, he rejected Hobbes
and Locke’s views of the state of nature,
asserting that the Hobbesian portrayal of man
as a natural egoist is a fiction.
Drawing insights from classical Greek thought,
Rousseau emphasized that individuals achieve
their true nature only within a community,
where rights, freedom, and morality are
cultivated. He maintained that the community
serves as the primary moral agent and
stressed the necessity for collective thinking
about public good rather than individual
interests.
Rousseau’s concept of the General Will aims
to reconcile authority and freedom, but it
inadvertently lends itself to totalitarian
interpretations. Critics argue that his theory
could justify coercive governance, with Sabine
highlighting that dissenting moral views might
be seen as capricious and suppressed.
Despite criticisms, Rousseau’s significance
endures. Ebenstein points out that he was
the first modern thinker to attempt to
synthesize good governance with self-
governance through the General
Will. Furthermore, he highlighted that
government must not only protect individual
liberties but also promote equality. Rousseau’s
reflections on civil society’s limitations resonate
today, urging vigilance against executive
overreach and the need for moral integrity
 in governance.
Famous Quotes by
Rousseau
129. ‘Man is born free and everywhere is in
chains’.
130. ‘I prefer liberty with danger than peace
with slavery’.
131. ‘I would rather be a man of paradoxes than
a man of prejudices’.
132. ‘No man has any natural authority over his
fellow men’.
133. ‘Our greatest evil flows from ourselves’.
134. ‘Everyman has a right to risk his own life
for the preservation of it’.
135. ‘What wisdom can you find that is greater
than kindness’.
136. ‘The moment there is a master, there is no
longer a sovereign’.
137. ‘Voice of the People may be the voice of
the god’.
138. ‘The larger the state, the less the liberty’.
139. ‘The strongest is never strong enough to
always be the master, unless he transforms
strength into right, and obedience into duty’.
Conclusion: Rousseau’s
Vision of a Just Society
In conclusion, Rousseau’s political philosophy
envisioned a moral and just society, one that
prioritized the welfare of all individuals. He
sought to transform human nature from a
narrow, self-seeking state into a public-spirited
one. His writings challenged the modern
institutions of his time, exposing their
shortcomings in delivering on promises of
democracy, liberty, and equality.
Rousseau‘s state represented the pinnacle of
human existence, a source of morality,
freedom, and community that not only resolved
conflicts but also liberated the individual. He
emphasized the close relationship between
liberty and equality, arguing that without
equality, true liberty could not exist. His
philosophy aimed to reconcile individual
interests with the broader interests of society,
promoting a harmonious coexistence.
Yet, Rousseau’s ideas were not without
paradoxes. He championed the inalienable
right to freedom while acknowledging that
individuals could be forced to be free. He
considered reason unnatural and artificial but
recognized that without it, moral development
was impossible. These paradoxes underscore
the complexity of Rousseau’s thought and its
enduring influence on political theory and the
quest for a just society.
Read More:
J.S Mill: The Philosopher
of Liberty and
Representative
Government

By:Politicalsciencesolution.Com
Date:
24 September 2023
John Stuart Mill was a 19th-century
philosopher and economist known for his
influential writings on individual liberty,
utilitarian ethics, and the potential dangers of
majority tyranny in democratic societies. His
ideas continue to shape modern political and
ethical discourse.
J.S Mill (1806 – 1873)
Introduction
John Stuart Mill, one of the most influential
philosophers and economists of the 19th
century, was a key figure in the development of
utilitarianism and liberalism. Born on May 20,
1806, in London, he was the eldest son of the
historian and philosopher James Mill. Unlike
many of his contemporaries, Mill’s education
was unconventional; he was privately tutored
by his father and the utilitarian thinker Jeremy
Bentham, bypassing formal schooling
altogether. This unique upbringing significantly
shaped Mill’s intellectual outlook, embedding
within him the principles of utilitarianism
and rationalism from a young age.
Utilitarianism, with its economic
foundations rooted in Adam Smith’s The
Wealth of Nations (1776), was politically
developed by Bentham, who applied a
rationalistic approach to societal issues.
Bentham harbored a deep suspicion of the
“sinister interests” of those in power and
advocated for reforms like annual elections,
secret ballots, and recall mechanisms to
protect public interest. He famously
declared, “pushpin is as good as
poetry,” suggesting that all pleasures are of
equal value and can be measured
quantitatively.
Mill, however, found this perspective
unsatisfactory. Despite being Bentham’s most
notable pupil, Mill later critiqued his mentor’s
simplistic view of pleasure, admitting he
was “Peter who denied his master.” Drawing
inspiration from romantic poets like
Wordsworth, Mill attempted to synthesize
rationalism with romanticism, thereby
transforming Benthamite utilitarianism. He
introduced the idea that not all pleasures are of
equal value, arguing that “it is better to be a
human being dissatisfied than a pig
satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied
than a fool satisfied.”
In addition to his reformation of utilitarian
thought, Mill made lasting contributions
to liberalism. He is widely recognized for his
robust defense of freedom of speech and
individuality, as well as his belief that a liberal
society is a necessary foundation for a
liberal state. Mill’s writings on these subjects,
particularly in his work On Liberty, have left an
enduring legacy in political theory, positioning
him as a crucial advocate for individual rights
and freedoms in modern democratic societies.
 Table of Contents
140. Introduction
141. Early Years and Career
142. Major Works by J.S Mill
143. An Equal Freedom for Women
144. Concept of Liberty by J.S Mill
145. Concept of Liberty
146. Critique of Utilitarianism
147. Democracy and Representative
Government
148. Economy and State Intervention by J.S Mill
149. Economy and State Intervention
Early Years and Career
John Stuart Mill, born in London on May 20,
1806, was the eldest of nine children. His
education was entirely orchestrated by his
father, James Mill, a historian and philosopher.
John Stuart Mill’s formative years were
characterized by an intensive intellectual
regimen, focusing on the same books his
father used for his own writing, such as The
History of British India (1818). By the age of
eleven, Mill was already assisting his father by
proofreading his works, and by fourteen, he
published Elements of Political
Economy (1820), an introductory textbook on
economics, marking his early immersion in the
subject.
James Mill’s appointment as Assistant
Examiner at the East India House in 1819
provided the family with financial stability and
allowed him to focus on his philosophical
pursuits. In 1823, John Stuart Mill secured a
position as Assistant Examiner in the British
East India Company, where he worked for
nearly three decades until his retirement.
Mill’s education was unconventional. Denied a
formal school experience, he learned Greek at
the age of four and Latin by eight. By ten, he
had read Plato’s dialogues and was familiar
with works by Euripides, Homer, Sophocles,
and Thucydides. His education extended to
higher mathematics, including algebra,
geometry, and calculus. Mill’s upbringing under
the strict guidance of his father left him with
little recollection of his mother’s role in his early
life. In his Autobiography (written in the
1850s), Mill acknowledged that his intense
education deprived him of a normal childhood,
though it deeply shaped his intellectual
abilities.
Mill’s intellectual growth continued as he
explored the works of thinkers like Thomas
Carlyle, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Auguste
Comte, Goethe, and Wordsworth. The poetry
of Wordsworth and Coleridge had a profound
impact on Mill, especially after a “mental crisis”
in 1826, where he struggled with severe
depression. Romantic poetry helped him
recover, broadening his perspective and
allowing him to integrate emotion and
imagination into his previously rationalist
worldview.
Mill’s political writings gained prominence in his
twenties as he contributed to newspapers and
periodicals. His System of Logic (1843),
which he began writing in the 1820s, was a
groundbreaking work that combined British
empiricism with a Newtonian approach to
social sciences. His essays On Liberty (1859)
and The Subjection of Women (1869), co-
authored with his wife Harriet Taylor, became
classics in the defense of individual rights,
freedom of speech, and gender equality.
Mill’s reexamination of Jeremy Bentham’s
utilitarianism
 marked a significant shift in his thought. While
Bentham’s “greatest happiness principle”
quantified pleasure and pain equally, Mill
introduced a qualitative distinction, famously
stating, “it is better to be Socrates dissatisfied
than a fool satisfied.” This critique was further
explored in his pamphlet Utilitarianism (1863),
where he argued that happiness could only be
defended if distinguished from mere pleasure.
Mill’s relationship with Harriet Taylor, whom he
met in 1830 and married in 1851, was a major
influence on his work. Harriet contributed
significantly to his writings on liberty and
women’s rights. Mill described her as the
“honor and chief blessing” of his life,
believing that had she lived in an era with
greater opportunities for women, she would
have been “eminent among the rulers of
mankind.”
John Stuart Mill died in 1873 in Avignon,
France, leaving behind an enduring legacy in
philosophy, political theory, and social reform.
Major Works by J.S Mill
Mill’s major works are a testament to his
profound impact on philosophy and politics:
150. A System Of Logic (1843)
151. Principles Of Political Economy (1848)
152. On Liberty (1859)
153. Considerations On Representative
Government (1861)
154. Utilitarianism (1863)
155. The Subjection Of Women (1869)
Note – Philosophy of J.S Mill – R.P Anschertz
An Equal Freedom for
Women by J.S
Mill
In The Subjection of Women (1869), John
Stuart Mill opens with a radical assertion: “the
principle which regulates the existing social
relations between the two sexes—the legal
subordination of one sex to the other—is wrong
in itself, and now one of the chief hindrances to
human improvement; and… it ought to be
replaced by a principle of perfect equality” (p.
119). Mill’s criticism was directed at 19th-
century English law, particularly the marriage
contract, which legally subordinated women to
men. Married women could not hold property in
their names; any property or income they
earned automatically belonged to their
husbands. Even if gifted property by their
parents, it was transferred to their husbands
upon marriage. Moreover, fathers were the
sole legal guardians of children, and no laws
addressed marital rape, underscoring women’s
lack of rights.
Mill was struck by the inconsistency of modern
society, which had embraced liberty and
equality in many domains but still denied these
principles to women. While slavery had been
abolished, women were still often treated
worse than slaves. Mill explained this
 persistence by asserting that all men, unlike
slaveholders and despots, had a vested
interest in maintaining women’s subordination.
Mill refuted four main arguments for women’s
inequality:
156. Universal Tradition: The first argument
was that women’s subordination had been
universal across history, implying its
justification. Mill countered by stating that
universal acceptance did not make a practice
just. He pointed to slavery, once universally
 accepted, which had been abolished, arguing
that women’s subordination could similarly be
overcome.
157. Natural Inferiority: The second argument
claimed that women were naturally inferior to
men. Mill rejected this, asserting that
differences between the sexes were due to
socialization, not nature. He noted examples of
accomplished women, such as European
queens and Hindu princesses, who excelled
despite societal limitations.
158. Voluntary Acceptance: The third
argument was that women accepted their
subordination willingly. Mill demonstrated that
this was false, as many women had written
against inequality and were already protesting
for their rights in London. He argued that
women feared worse treatment if they resisted
their husbands’ control, hence their silence.
159. Family Leadership: The final argument
held that for families to function smoothly, a
single decision-maker was necessary, and that
role naturally fell to the husband. Mill dismissed
this, asserting that both husband and wife were
adults capable of shared decision-making.
Mill further argued that granting women
equality would benefit society in four ways.
First, it would abolish the patriarchal family, a
“school of despotism” that taught inequality.
Second, it would “double the mass of mental
faculties” available to society by unleashing
women’s intellectual potential.
Third, equality would improve relationships, as
women would
no longer assert their wills through subversive
means.
Finally, it would increase happiness for
women, aligning with Mill’s utilitarian belief in
promoting the greatest happiness for the
greatest number.
Mill also emphasized that democracy itself
would remain fragile unless egalitarian families
were established, linking private life with public
democratic citizenship. His critique of the
patriarchal family remains central to feminist
discussions today, though some feminists
argue that modern capitalism reinforces, rather
than eliminates, patriarchal structures.
Concept of Liberty by J.S
Mill
John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty (1859) is a
powerful defense of individual liberty, arguing
that personal freedoms are essential for the
intellectual, moral, and material advancement
of human beings. Mill emphasized the
importance of liberty in nurturing mental and
moral faculties such as perception, judgment,
decision-making, and self-control. These
faculties, he argued, develop only when people
are free to make their own choices. He said,
 “The human faculties of perception, judgment,
discriminative feeling, mental activity, and even
moral preference, are exercised only in making
a choice… the mental and moral, like the
muscular powers, are improved only by being
used.”
Mill advocated for three specific liberties:
160. Liberty of Thought and Expression: Mill
argued that freedom of thought and expression
is fundamental for the progress of society. He
stated that if all of humanity but one person
held the same opinion, silencing that one
person would be unjust. He declared, “If all
mankind
 minus one were of one opinion, mankind
would be no more justified in silencing that
one person than he, if he had the power,
would be justified in silencing
mankind.” Mill further emphasized the
importance of this freedom by
stating, “Placing restrictions on freedom of
expression of human beings is like robbing
off the present and the future races.” For
Mill, even if a minority opinion is wrong,
allowing it to be expressed ensures that the
truth of the majority opinion is not taken for
granted and becomes a “living truth” rather
than a “dead dogma.”
161. Liberty of Action: Mill introduced
the “Harm Principle” to define the limits of
personal freedom. He stated, “The only
purpose for which power can be rightfully
exercised over any member of a civilized
community, against his will, is to prevent
harm to others.” Mill believed that individuals
should have complete control over their own
actions and choices, so long as they do not
harm others. He noted, “Over himself, over
his own body and mind, the individual is
sovereign.” Mill also discussed the difficulty of
distinguishing between self-regarding and
 other-regarding actions, using examples like
property destruction to explain that some
actions, while appearing personal, can
indirectly harm others.
162. Liberty of Association: Mill argued that
individuals should have the right to associate
freely, forming groups to pursue common
interests. He believed that association
contributed to personal and social
development. Mill wrote, “When the thing to be
done is likely to be done better by individuals
than by the
government… allowing individuals to get
together to do something, even if they do not
do it as well as the government might have
done it, is better for their mental education.”
Mill warned that liberties are often more under
threat in democratic societies than in despotic
regimes. In democracies, where people feel
less threatened by their own government, they
can become complacent, making it easier for
social pressures and customs to erode
individual freedoms. He argued that individuals
must remain vigilant not only against
government oppression but also against
societal norms that could stifle personal liberty.
He concluded, “The only unfailing and
permanent source of improvement is
liberty, since by it there are as many
possible independent centers of
improvement as there are individuals.”
Mill’s belief in individual liberty was rooted in
the idea that human improvement is achieved
through freedom, and a society that promotes
liberty fosters continuous moral, intellectual,
and material progress.
Critique of Utilitarianism by
J.S Mill
John Stuart Mill consistently identified himself
as a utilitarian, despite the evolution of his
principles. Even when discussing concepts like
rights, Mill subsumed them under the broader
framework of utility. He defined rights as
extremely important utilities, emphasizing that
his utilitarian foundation remained intact. Mill’s
upbringing under his father, James Mill, a close
associate of Jeremy Bentham (the founder of
utilitarianism), deeply influenced his intellectual
formation. Although Mill faced an emotional
crisis in his early twenties, he continued to
defend utilitarianism in his work, always
applying the standard of utility in his
arguments. For example, he believed that
granting equality to women would increase
overall happiness. Similarly, he defended
liberty on the grounds that it promoted social
utility, and he supported a modified liberal
democracy because it proved useful for social
progress.
Mill’s key text Utilitarianism (1862) was written
to address criticisms of the philosophy. He
opened by pointing out that moral philosophers
had long disagreed on the criteria for
differentiating right from wrong. Rejecting the
idea that humans have a natural moral sense
—similar to physical senses like sight or smell
—that can intuitively detect right actions, Mill
proposed utility, or the Greatest Happiness
Principle, as the true foundation of morality.
This principle dictates that an action is moral if
it increases pleasure and reduces pain.
A notable divergence from Bentham’s
utilitarianism was Mill’s emphasis on the
quality, not just the quantity, of pleasure. While
Bentham had viewed all pleasures as
essentially equal and calculable, Mill argued
that certain pleasures were qualitatively
superior to others. He famously stated that it
is “better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a
pig satisfied,” indicating that higher
intellectual and moral pleasures should be
valued above base physical pleasures. This
marks a significant shift in the philosophy, with
Mill asserting that some forms of happiness
carry more weight because of their intrinsic
quality.
One major criticism of utilitarianism is that it
assumes
humans act purely from self-interest, akin to
animals seeking pleasure. Mill responded by
highlighting the “social feelings of
mankind”—the natural human desire for unity
with others, which he believed was a powerful
aspect of human nature. According to Mill,
people inherently care about the happiness of
others because the “social state” is natural,
necessary, and habitual for humanity. This led
Mill to argue that an interest in others’
happiness was not a forced or artificial
condition but an organic aspect of human life.
The most significant objection Mill faced was
the idea that justice, rather than utility, should
be the foundation of morality. In response, Mill
linked justice to rights. He argued that injustice
occurs when someone’s rights are violated, but
crucially, these rights themselves are justified
through utility. For Mill, rights are valuable
because they serve a social purpose: they
allow individuals to enjoy a secure and
progressive society. He concluded that society
should defend rights not because of an
inherent moral sense but because doing so
benefits the general utility. As Mill
explained, “To have a right is to have
something which society ought to defend
me in the possession of,” and society should
defend rights purely because of their utility.
Mill took issue with some aspects of Bentham’s
original utilitarianism, which he felt overlooked
the importance of individual character and
moral motives. In response, he modified
utilitarianism to include a sense of universal
altruism, empathy, and impartial justice. For
Mill, the ultimate goal of life was not merely the
pursuit of pleasure but a more nuanced
happiness that included moral virtues, self-
control, and the balance of individual and
collective interests. Mill
also rejected the idea of Bentham’s “felicific
calculus”—the notion that pleasures and
pains could be objectively measured and
compared. He considered this approach overly
simplistic and impractical.
In his writings, Mill maintained the utilitarian
creed while modifying it to address its
shortcomings. He incorporated elements of
morality, social feelings, and justice into his
framework, defending rights and liberty based
on their utility. For Mill, happiness was more
than just pleasure—it was the perfection of
human nature and moral virtue, making him a
pivotal figure in the development of a more
sophisticated utilitarian philosophy.
Democracy and
Representative
Government by J.S Mill
John Stuart Mill began his work Considerations
on Representative Government by asserting
that the best form of government is one that
most effectively fulfills its purposes. According
to Mill, the government must serve two
primary functions: utilizing the citizens’
talents and skills to serve their interests and
improving their moral, intellectual, and active
qualities. A despotic government may achieve
the first function, but it would fail at the second.
Only a representative government can achieve
both, by combining the principles of
participation and competence to protect and
educate its citizens.
Mill introduced Bentham’s idea of “sinister
interests” to explain how representative
government could ensure the common interest
of society is advanced rather than the partial
interest of a group or class. He believed that all
individuals, including different social classes,
are the best judges of their own interests. Mill
dismissed the idea that people may not
understand their “real” interests, asserting that
their current habits and choices reflect their
actual interests. Therefore, participation in
government should be as widespread as
possible, extending to all individuals, including
women. He advocated for suffrage to everyone
except those who could not read or write, didn’t
pay taxes, or were reliant on parish relief.
To ensure minorities were also represented,
Mill supported Thomas Hare’s system of
proportional representation. While Mill
championed widespread participation, he also
believed in competence, advocating for plural
voting. He argued that the franchise should be
extended, but with educated citizens receiving
additional votes to ensure better-caliber
representatives. For example, professionals
and university graduates would receive
more votes based on a “graduated scale of
educational attainment.”
Mill sought to combine participation and
competence in other democratic institutions,
such as the representative assembly. He
envisioned it as a “committee of grievances”
and a “congress of opinions,” where every view
in society would be voiced. However, he
argued that this body should not handle
legislation or administration, which required the
expertise of a Codification Commission and a
competent bureaucracy. Mill differentiated
between instrumental competence—the ability
to find the best means to fulfill given goals—
and moral competence, which involved
recognizing the general interest over partial
interests.
On the issue of improving citizens, Mill
believed that
representative government was superior to
despotism because it elevated the intellectual
and moral qualities of the citizens. He
advocated for open voting, where voters must
justify their choices publicly, fostering
intellectual and moral growth. Participation in
local government and voting would help
citizens develop their capabilities, but this
participation needed to be guided by
competence to have an educational effect.
Mill also warned that civil liberties could be at
risk in democratic regimes unless citizens
remained vigilant, but he still considered
democracy the most favorable form of
governance. However, Mill argued that
representative government could only work in
active, self-reliant societies; passive citizens in
backward civilizations could not sustain it. He
believed that democracy required plural voting
to balance the majority and ensure that
educated individuals had more influence. His
famous quote, “Liberty cannot be utilized
properly if people are not educated
enough,” emphasized the importance of
education in a functioning democracy.
He further quoted that “No one but a fool and
only a fool of a peculiar description, feels
offended by the acknowledgement that there
are others whose opinion and even whose
wish is entitled to greater amount of
consideration than this”.
As Mill supported democracy, critics like
Wayper called him a “reluctant democrat,”
while Ernest Barker regarded “Mill as
prophet of an empty liberty and an abstract
individual” because of his double standards of
liberty where he gives more consideration to
people who are more educated and restricts
the essence of actual liberty that
every individual deserves irrespectively.
Tyranny of Majority
Mill’s perspective on safeguarding individual
liberty is broad, as he does not solely rely on
popular sovereignty for protection against
threats to human freedom. Instead, he aligns
himself with thinkers like Benjamin Constant
and Alexis de Tocqueville, sharing the view that
the tyranny of the majority poses a significant
danger in an era of popular governance. Mill’s
concern about potential encroachments on
individual liberty extends beyond the idea that
popular rule alone is sufficient for safeguarding
human freedom.
He further provides a view that due to this
popular government there are three potential
threats to minorities – State, Mass society and
Populism. These threats can undermine the
interests of minorities. Mill was worried that the
influence of public opinion has the potential to
suppress individuality, and he sees these
informal societal pressures as a type of
coercion. He believes that the dominance of
public opinion can be just as detrimental to
human freedom as the imposition of legal
constraints.
Economy and State
Intervention by J.S Mill
When did not represent the classical economic
theory of laissez faire he advocated that some
areas of interference should be there. He
preferred laissez-faire to state intervention in
matters of social and economic policy. Even
though the idea of laissez faire is ideal, it could
be set aside for welfare works like education
and child care etc. He
believed that the state must ensure that no one
is starving. He further quoted “Political liberty in
absence of economic liberty is a myth”.
Mill viewed the State as a moral institution with
a primary concern for promoting virtue and
excellence in individuals’ lives. He stressed
that the concept of a good life was more crucial
than a life solely devoted to pursuing pleasure.
“State is the moral institution with a moral end”.
But at the same time the state should not
interfere in the affairs of individuals.
Wayper contended that J.S Mill shows a good
deal of sympathy for socialism and wishes to
use the state to remove obstacles in the way of
individual development.
Conclusion
John Stuart Mill‘s liberalism provided the first
major framework for modern democratic
equality, particularly in his advocacy for
women’s rights. He sought to end the
subjugation of women, becoming the first male
philosopher, as noted by Okihiro, to explicitly
address women’s oppression. As a Member
of Parliament, Mill campaigned for women’s
suffrage but was disappointed when it did
not pass. He also emphasized protecting
individual liberty from societal intrusion,
distinguishing between self-regarding actions,
which belong to the private sphere, and other-
regarding actions, related to the public domain.
This distinction was crucial in safeguarding
minority rights within a democracy.
Mill recognized the flaws of classical
utilitarianism, advocating for compulsory state
education and social control to address them.
He understood that his views
differed from Bentham’s utilitarianism and
described himself as a socialist. Mill envisioned
a future where individual liberty was balanced
with collective ownership of resources and
equitable distribution of labor’s benefits. In
his Autobiography, he reflected on this shift: “I
was a democrat, but not least of a
socialist.” He believed the social problem of
the future lay in uniting individual freedom with
common ownership, questioning the
compatibility of capitalism and democracy.
Mill’s revision of liberalism laid the groundwork
for thinkers like T.H. Green, who incorporated
the idea of a common good into liberal
philosophy. His works, including “On Liberty”
and “Utilitarianism,” remain influential, shaping
discussions on individual freedom, the role of
the state, and the balance between personal
liberty and collective welfare.
Read More:
WESTERN POLITICAL THOUGHTCLASS
STRUGGLEMARXISM
Karl Marx: Class Struggle,
Historical Materialism and
Communism
By:Politicalsciencesolution.Com
Date:
26 September 2023
Karl Marx, a 19th-century philosopher and
economist, revolutionized political thought with
his critique of capitalism and advocacy for a
classless society. His ideas continue to
influence social and economic discourse to this
day.

Karl Marx (1818 -1883)

Introduction
Karl Heinrich Marx stands as one of the most
influential and critiqued political theorists in
history. Born in 1818 in Trier, Germany, Marx’s
intellectual journey began at the University of
Berlin, where he was influenced by the young
Hegelians. His later work, in partnership with
Friedrich Engels, notably shaped political
thought through the development of
‘scientific socialism.’ They aimed to distance
themselves from early ‘utopian socialists’ like
Owen, Fourier, and Saint-
Simon.
Marx was deeply influenced by Hegel,
particularly his view of history. However, Marx
rejected Hegel’s dialectical idealism, instead
proposing dialectical materialism. He argued
that human existence is shaped by the mode of
production, which defines relationships within
society. Marx categorized society into two key
structures: the economic ‘base,’ consisting of
the mode and relations of production, and the
‘superstructure,’ which includes political,
cultural, and intellectual dimensions. According
to Marx, individual consciousness is a product
of these societal processes.
He viewed history as a series of class
struggles, identifying five stages of social
evolution: primitive communism, slavery,
feudalism, capitalism, and communism. Marx
focused primarily on analyzing capitalism,
highlighting its ability to revolutionize
production while condemning its exploitation
and inequalities. He believed that capitalism’s
demise was imminent, although history proved
otherwise.
Marx and Engels criticized early forms of
socialism as idealistic, opting instead for a
more scientific approach to understanding
 capitalism. While Marx refrained from outlining
a detailed vision of a future communist society,
his critique of 19th-century capitalism remains
a key point for understanding his work. Many
scholars believe that the best way to grasp
Marx’s ideas is to view him as a sharp critic of
the capitalist system of his time.
Table of Contents
163. Introduction
164. The Early Years – Karl Marx
165. Major Works of Karl Marx
166. Important concepts of Karl Marx and his
Philosophy
167. Theory of Alienation
168. Commodity Fetishism
169. Dialectical Materialism
170. Theory of Class Struggle
171. Historical Materialism
172. Stages of History
173. The Theory of Class War
174. State and Revolution
175. State and Revolution by Karl Marx
176. Vision of a Communist Society
177. Famous Quotes by Karl Marx
178. Conclusion
179. Some Important Comments on Karl Marx
180. Chronological Order of Karl Marx Work
The Early Years – Karl Marx
Karl Marx was born in Trier, Rhineland
(Prussia), into a Jewish family, but he
converted to Christianity during childhood. He
studied History, Law, and Philosophy at the
universities of Bonn, Berlin, and Jena, and
received his Ph.D. in Philosophy from the
University of Jena. During his student years,
Marx became attracted to socialism, a doctrine
considered highly dangerous by the rulers of
the time. His radical anti-state and socialist
views led to his expulsion from Prussia. He
sought refuge in France and Belgium, where
he continued to organize German workers.
Under pressure from the Prussian government,
the French government expelled Marx, after
which he settled in England
in 1849 and lived there until his death in 1883.
Marx wrote extensively on issues related to
Philosophy, Economics, Politics, and Society.
His wide-ranging intellectual contributions
make it difficult to categorize him strictly within
any single discipline. Initially, Marx was
influenced by Hegelian Idealism during his
student years, but he later shifted his focus to
Humanism and then to Scientific Socialism. His
thought was shaped by the major intellectual
movements of his time, such as Hegel’s
evolutionary ideas and Darwin’s theory of
natural selection. However, Marx rejected both
Hegel’s Absolute Spirit and Darwin’s biological
determinism, developing instead his own
theory of historical evolution—Dialectical
Historical Materialism—to explain human
history.
Marx engaged in debates with many
contemporaries, including Proudhon and
Bakunin, and critiqued various socialist
movements of the time. His career as a writer
began in 1842 when he contributed
to Rheinische Zeitung. In Paris, he met
Friedrich Engels, and they co-authored
the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts.
In 1847, Marx helped found the Communist
League and authored the Communist
Manifesto in 1848, a significant political text.
Central to Marx’s thought was his critique of
capitalism, which he saw as fundamentally
exploitative, subjugating the proletariat and
hindering true human freedom. His intellectual
work is often divided into two phases: the
young Marx, focused on alienation and human
nature, and the mature Marx, who provided a
detailed analysis of capitalist society’s
operations. This distinction was notably made
by philosopher Louis Althusser.
Marx’s intellectual journey was also shaped by
his collaboration with Engels, who continued
publishing Marx’s work after his death. Their
combined works, including The Holy
Family, The German Ideology, and
the Communist Manifesto, remain
foundational texts in socialist theory.
Read More about Hegel – Hegel: German
Idealism and Political Philosophy
Major Works of Karl Marx
“The German Ideology” (1846): Co-authored
with Friedrich Engels, this set of manuscripts
argues that humans distinguish themselves
from animals when they begin to produce their
means of subsistence.
“The Poverty of Philosophy”
(1847): Published in Paris and Brussels, this
book analyzes the capitalist system of
production and distribution, as well as the law
of value. In this book Marx criticized J.P
Proudhon on his book “Philosophy of
Poverty”.
“Communist Manifesto” (1848): This political
document presents an analytical approach to
the class struggle and conflicts within
capitalism and the capitalist mode of
production. In this book Marx quotes that “the
 executive of the modern state is but a
committee for managing the common affairs of
the whole bourgeoisie”.
The Communist Manifesto is classified into
four parts –
181. History of the revolution
182. Doctrines of Communist Party
183. Criticism of existing society
184. Reactionary and Bourgeois socialism
“A Contribution to the Critique of Political
Economy”
(1859): An analysis of capitalism and the
quantity theory of money.
“The Civil War in France” (1871): A pamphlet
written by Marx that explores the tumultuous
events of the French Revolution.
Important concepts of Karl
Marx and his Philosophy
Theory of Alienation by Karl
Marx
Karl Marx’s concept of alienation is a central
element in his critique of capitalism, and it first
appeared in his early work. The idea of
alienation was initially hinted at in his
poem Player and was later elaborated upon in
the Economic and Philosophical
Manuscripts (1844), often referred to as
the Paris Manuscripts. In this text, Marx
provides an in-depth exploration of how
capitalist systems alienate workers. He
observed that, under capitalism, workers
create products through their labor, but these
products are appropriated by the capitalist, the
employer. The workers, therefore, become
estranged from the goods they produce.
Alienation for Marx is fourfold:
(1) alienation from the product,
(2) alienation from the act of labor itself,
(3) alienation from fellow workers and nature,
and
(4) alienation from the worker’s own essence
or self.
In a capitalist economy, labor becomes a
means of survival rather than a source of self-
fulfillment. Workers sell their labor power in
exchange for wages, but the products of their
labor do not belong to them. This dynamic
alienates them from the very activity that
defines their humanity—creative,
purposeful work.
Marx drew upon the ideas of Hegel and
Feuerbach to construct his theory of alienation.
Hegel had viewed alienation as a state of
consciousness, where the external world
seems estranged from the self. For Marx,
however, alienation is rooted in material
conditions, not just in thought. Unlike Hegel,
Marx emphasized the importance of real,
objective relationships in the economy, arguing
that alienation arises from the worker’s
relationship to labor under capitalism. To
overcome alienation, Marx contended, society
must transform the very conditions of labor,
and this would be possible through the
abolition of private property and the
establishment of communism.
Commodity Fetishism by
Karl Marx
Marx’s analysis of capitalism goes further with
the concept of commodity fetishism. In a
capitalist society, exchange value, or the price
a commodity can fetch, takes precedence over
use value, or the actual utility of the product.
Even if an item possesses a useful purpose, it
may not be produced unless it carries a market
value in a capitalist setting.
The key determinant of exchange value is the
amount of human labor invested in the creation
of a commodity. However, Marx astutely notes
that the contribution of workers is often
undervalued and overlooked. Labor power
itself becomes commodified, bought and sold
as if it were any other product on the market.
Capitalist societies tend to flood the market
with an excess of commodities, produced using
human labor and valuable natural resources.
Paradoxically, this overproduction in
capitalism not only diminishes the value of
labor but also depletes precious natural
resources.
“Human is a economical Being” – Homo Faber
Dialectical Materialism by
Karl Marx
Karl Marx borrowed the concept of dialectics
from Hegel but infused it with his own
materialistic perspective. While Hegel applied
dialectics to the evolution of human history,
emphasizing intellectual development, Marx
shifted the focus. He contended that in the
essence of the universe, it’s not ‘idea’ or
‘consciousness’ but ‘matter’ that holds
prominence. According to Marx, social
institutions are manifestations of changing
material conditions, not evolving ideas.
Dialectical Materialism represents the
philosophical basis of Marxism, underscoring
the importance of material factors in shaping
societies and their development.
Karl Marx’s dialectical materialism
encompasses three key dialectical
concepts:
Quantity into Quality: This concept posits that
gradual accumulation of quantitative changes
can lead to a sudden qualitative
transformation. For example, as workers
collectively demand better wages (quantitative
change), it may eventually result in a
qualitative shift, such as a revolution.
Unity of Opposition: Marx argued that
contradictions within a system drive change.
The unity of opposites suggests that opposing
forces within society, like the bourgeoisie and
proletariat, generate tension that can lead to
societal change, such as class struggle.
Negation of Negation: Marx’s dialectics
involve a process where a thesis (existing
social order) encounters its antithesis
(challenges and contradictions), resulting in a
synthesis (a new social order). The negation of
negation describes how a new synthesis can
itself become a new thesis, perpetuating
societal evolution.
These dialectical concepts underpin Marx’s
analysis of historical and social change,
emphasizing the role of contradictions and
conflict in shaping society.
Theory of Class Struggle by
Karl Marx
Class struggle is a central theme in Marxist
theory. Marx observed that relations of
production in societies were fundamentally
shaped by class relations. He famously
stated, “the history of all hitherto existing
society is the history of class
struggles” (Communist Manifesto).
In every society, Marx identified two key
classes: the ruling class, which owns the
means of production, and the working class,
which sells its labor. The relationship between
these classes is defined by exploitation and
domination. Throughout history, different
iterations of these classes have existed, such
as lords and serfs, guild masters and
journeymen, and oppressors and the
oppressed. Marx categorized classes into
“Class in itself” (unaware of their common
interests) and “Class for itself” (conscious of
shared interests).
Marx believed in the revolutionary potential of
the “Class for itself,” represented by the
proletariat (working class). He foresaw a
socialist revolution led by the working class
that would overthrow capitalism and establish a
classless
society, ultimately ending class conflict. He
asked for all the workers to be united. He
propagated for “Dictatorship of Proletariat”.
Contrary to this many philosophers
like George Owell and Bakunin feared that
Marx’s dictatorship of Proletariat would
become dictatorship on the proletariat.
Historical Materialism by
Karl Marx
Marx’s most profound contribution to social
theory is his concept of historical
materialism. According to Engels
in Socialism: Utopian and
Scientific, historical materialism posits that the
ultimate cause driving the course of human
history is the economic development of society.
Marx’s theory explains the entire trajectory of
human history through the changes in the
modes of production and exchange, starting
from primitive communism and progressing
through slavery, feudalism, and capitalism.
These transitions resulted in distinct class
divisions such as slave-master, serf-lord, and
proletariat-capitalist, leading to class struggles
that propel historical development.
Historical Materialism, detailed in
Marx’s “Contribution to a Critique
of Political Economy,” offers a scientific basis
for Marxism. He held that men during social
production centers into definite relations that
are independent and indispensable of their
will ; Relations of production which
corresponds to a definite stage of development
of their material productive force. The sum of
these relations of production constitutes in
Society the economic structure.
In Economic relations of Society, people
undertake production, distribution and
exchange of materials goods for
 their need which again constitutes legal and
political superstructure. However, the economic
structure is the real basis of Society .
Concept of Base and Superstructure
According to Marx, the structure of Society
consists of-
185. Base – Economic Relations (Mode of
Production)
186. Superstructure – Social and Political
Relations (Religion, morals, culture, art, etc)
Further, forces of production and relations of
production are the two components of the
Base’s modes of production. The forces of
production consist of means of production like
tools, land, equipment and Labour power
(human knowledge and skills). With the
advancement in technology, improvement in
means of production over powers the
development of Labour power. While, Relations
of Production in Society are on the pattern of
ownership of the means of production which
give rise to haves and have not, for example
slaves were individuals who owned no means
of production not even their own Labour, The
serfs did own some but not full means of
production, therefore landowning exploits the
serfs , the Proletariat also does not own any
means of production and were exploited by the
property owning capitalists.
Hence, Relations of production revolve around
ownership of means of production and lead to
social stratification. In capitalism, property-
owning capitalists exploit the proletariat, who
lack ownership of the means of production.
Marx believed that capitalism represented the
final stage in class conflict history, poised to be
overthrown by a socialist revolution, ultimately
ushering in a classless society.
5 Stages of History by Karl
Marx
It’s important to note that Karl Marx’s
framework is rooted in his theory of class
struggle and the development of the means of
production. Here are the five stages of history
according to Karl Marx:
Primitive Communism:
This is the earliest stage of human history
when people lived in small, tribal communities.
The means of living was hunting and gathering.
Needs were limited. Private property did not
exist, and resources were shared collectively.
Social hierarchies were relatively undeveloped,
and there was little class distinction.
Slave Society:
This stage emerged with the development of
agriculture and the establishment of surplus
production. The primary mode of production
was based on slave labor, where a privileged
class of slave owners controlled the means of
production.
Class divisions became more pronounced, with
a clear distinction between slave owners and
slaves.
Feudalism:
Feudalism emerged with the decline of the
Roman Empire and lasted through the Middle
Ages. The dominant mode of production was
feudal, where feudal lords controlled land, and
peasants worked the land in exchange for
protection and a share of the produce.
Society was characterized by a hierarchical
structure with a rigid class system, including
kings, nobles, and serfs.
Capitalism:
Capitalism marked a significant shift in the
means of
production, with the rise of industrialization and
the bourgeoisie (capitalist class) controlling
factories, machinery, and resources.Wage
labor became the norm, as workers sold their
labor for a wage to the capitalist class.
Capitalism was marked by the pursuit of profit,
private ownership, and the commodification of
goods and labor.
Socialism (Transition to Communism):
According to Karl Marx, capitalism would
eventually lead to its own downfall due to
inherent contradictions and class struggle.
The working class (proletariat) would revolt
against the capitalist class (bourgeoisie),
leading to the establishment of a transitional
socialist state. In this stage, the means of
production would be collectively owned, and
the state would play a central role in
redistributing resources and eliminating class
distinctions. This predecessor socialism is
regarded as dream socialism by Karl Marx.
Ultimately, this transitional stage was expected
to pave the way for a classless, stateless
society known as communism, where
resources would be distributed according to the
principle “from each according to their ability, to
each according to their needs.”
Here to the idea of communism by
Marx, Edward Bernstein, founder of
evolutionary socialism and Revisionism
criticized him saying that it is only imaginary in
nature and can not be applied in reality as the
end of the middle class is impossible.
The Theory of Class War
The concept of “class” is central to Marxian
philosophy, where a person’s class is
determined solely by their
ownership or control over the means of
production—land, capital, machines, and
technology. Those who own or control these
means form the bourgeoisie (exploiters), while
those who own only labor power make up
the proletariat (exploited). Marx defines
classes based on one’s place in the mode of
production and their position in the relations
of production. The proletariat is characterized
by its lack of ownership or control over means
of production, its absence of property, and its
need to seek work for survival. The
disappearance of class differences is
dependent on the elimination of property as a
determinant of status.
In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and
Engels famously said, “The history of all
hitherto existing society is the history of class
struggles.” They believed that class conflict
drives human history, with capitalism being
the peak of class conflict. In capitalism, class
differentiation is most visible, class
consciousness more developed, and class
conflict most severe, with society splitting into
two hostile camps—the bourgeoisie and the
proletariat.
Marx distinguished between the objective
existence of a class and its subjective class
consciousness. Division of labor is the source
of class formation and antagonism. Marx
argued that each ruling class justifies its
interests as those of society. Through historical
analysis, he showed that major antagonisms,
like that between rich and poor, have always
existed but are polarized in capitalism as the
conflict between capitalists and the proletariat.
Marx believed that the
proletariat’s exploitation and dehumanization
reflect the human condition at large. By
abolishing private property, the
proletariat would not only emancipate itself but
also humanity, leading to a classless and
stateless society, as the state’s existence is
tied to defending bourgeois interests.
Theory of Surplus Value –
Das Capital
Karl Marx’s Theory of Surplus Value is
foundational to his critique of capitalism,
explaining how capitalists exploit the working
class by extracting value from their labor.
Rooted in the labor theory of value, first
proposed by classical economists like Ricardo,
Marx argued that labor is the sole creator of
value, although the working class lacks
ownership of the means of production—such
as land, capital, and machinery—that are
controlled by capitalists.
In capitalist production, four key factors—land,
labor, capital, and organization—are involved.
However, only labor adds new value to society.
Marx noted that the actual labor exerted in
commodity production often diverges from
its market price, which fluctuates according
to demand and supply. When the labor
market is saturated with job seekers, wages
decline, allowing capitalists to maximize their
exploitation of the working class.
The crux of Marx’s theory lies in the concept
of surplus value, which he describes as the
unpaid labor of workers. When a capitalist
purchases labor power from workers and uses
it to produce commodities, the commodities are
sold at a value higher than the wages paid to
the workers. This difference—between
the exchange value of the commodities and
the wages—is called surplus value,
representing the capitalist’s profit. Marx
explains that this surplus value is created
because the worker is paid less than the value
they produce.
Marx broke down the capital invested into two
components: constant capital (machinery,
tools, raw materials) and variable
capital (wages paid to workers). It is
the variable capital—the value of labor power
—that generates surplus value. The capitalist
appropriates part of the worker’s labor, which
goes unpaid, thus increasing profits.
Marx also noted that over time, the portion
of unpaid labor (surplus value) increases. The
worker might get paid for only a portion of their
labor, and eventually, only enough
for subsistence—their own survival and that of
their family. Marx emphasized that this process
is central to capitalist exploitation.
He contrasted capitalist exploitation with earlier
systems like slavery and feudalism, where
the worker (slave or serf) was directly tied to
their master. In capitalism, however, the worker
is seemingly free to choose their employer, but
this freedom is illusory, as they have no option
but to sell their labor power to survive. Marx
famously described this situation as a “freedom
to choose their exploiter.”
At the heart of Marx’s argument is the belief
that if workers owned the means of production,
they wouldn’t need to sell their labor to
capitalists. Instead, they could retain control
over the products they create and be
compensated fully for the value they produce.
This is why Marx advocated for the abolition
of private property and the eventual
emergence of a classless society, where
exploitation would cease.
State and Revolution by Karl
Marx
According to Karl Marx, the fundamental cause
of revolution lies in the disjunction between
relations of production and
the means of production. As technology and
scientific knowledge advance, the means of
production evolve faster than the existing
relations of production. This misalignment
reaches a point where the relations of
production act as a fetter on the production
process itself, creating an immanent
demand for a transition to a new mode of
production. Marx posits that the capitalist
mode of production emerged from the feudal
order in a manner analogous to how the feudal
mode of production arose from slave
society.
Similarly, he asserts that socialism will emerge
from the bourgeois society because
capitalism continuously revolutionizes its own
means of production, ultimately undermining its
own conditions of existence. In this context,
Marx famously noted that the bourgeoisie
produces, above all, its own grave diggers.
Marx’s assertion that bourgeois relations of
production represent the last antagonistic
form of social production is based on the
premise that historical movements (revolutions)
have primarily served the interests of
minorities. In contrast, the proletarian
revolution will be different, as the proletariat—
the lowest stratum of capitalist society—cannot
elevate itself to the status of a ruling class
without uprooting the entire superincumbent
strata of officials.
In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and
Friedrich Engels explicitly stated that
communists do not hide their views and aims,
declaring that their revolutionary goals can only
be achieved through the forcible overthrow of
the entire capitalist order. Therefore,
the emancipation of the
proletariat is tied to the emancipation of
humanity.
It is essential to consider the debate in the
history of revolutions regarding the roles
of subjective (human) and objective
(material) factors. Marx’s position is
noteworthy: he views a dialectical relationship
between philosophical comprehension of the
world and the ability to change it. He asserts
that theory must evolve a proper interpretation
of the world to facilitate change. The ultimate
task of philosophy is not merely to understand
reality but also to transform it. Praxis plays a
crucial role in this transformation, possessing a
dialectical aspect wherein it organizes
conditions for human emancipation while also
facilitating the self-discovery of the proletariat
through organization.
Marx transcended the dilemma
of determinism versus voluntarism by
emphasizing the dialectical nature of
revolutionary consciousness. He argued
that objective conditions alone cannot spark
a revolution unless the proletariat recognizes
that shaping its worldview allows it to change it.
When workers understand that, under
capitalism, they are reduced to mere
commodities, they can evolve from being
passive objects to active subjects.
This revolutionary consciousness is a
necessary condition for the possibility of
revolution, as understanding the internal
dynamics of capitalism enables the proletariat
to initiate the transition from capitalism to
socialism.
Historically, Marx posited that social classes
are the driving forces behind revolutionary
change. Each new property-owning class has
instigated revolutions under the pretense of
benefiting all members of society, ultimately
solidifying its
 status as the ruling class while exploiting those
without property. He maintained that the only
class capable of leading a revolution to abolish
private property and class society is
the proletariat, or working class. In
the Communist Manifesto, Marx referred to
the state as the instrument of the ruling
class, arguing that the proletariat must seize
state power to initiate the revolution.
Marx advocated for the “Dictatorship of the
Proletariat,” a transitional phase in which the
bourgeoisie is excluded from the state until
private property is expropriated and a classless
society emerges.
In addition, Marx identified three types of
colonies during the era of colonialism in his
writings in 1865:
187. Plantation Colonies: These colonies were
established primarily for the cultivation of cash
crops such as sugar, tobacco, cotton, and
coffee. European colonial powers, particularly
the British, French, Spanish, and Portuguese,
set up large plantations in various regions,
including the Caribbean, the Americas, and
Africa. These colonies heavily relied on
enslaved or indentured labor to work on the
plantations, with profits often sent back to the
 colonial powers.
188. Settler Colonies: Also known as Proper
Colonies, these territories were established by
European settlers who aimed to create
permanent communities and eventually
dominate indigenous populations. Examples
include the United States, Canada, Australia,
and New Zealand, where settlers played a
dominant role in shaping social, economic, and
political landscapes, often at the expense of
the indigenous peoples.
189. Well-Populated Colonies: India and
Mexico are cited as examples of this type of
colony, characterized by a significant presence
of indigenous populations under colonial rule.
Through this comprehensive analysis, Marx
elucidated the mechanisms of exploitation
within capitalism and the conditions necessary
for revolutionary change.
Vision of a Communist
Society
Communism, as articulated by Karl Marx, is a
societal structure envisioned to be realized
through the revolutionary efforts of the
proletariat. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx
and Friedrich Engels assert that the interests of
communists align wholly with those of the
proletariat. In his Economic and Philosophical
Manuscripts, Marx defines communism as the
positive abolition of private property, which also
includes the elimination of social classes and
the division of labor. Economically, a
communist society is characterized as a
“society of associated producers.”
Politically, Marx argues that communism
represents the first instance in human history
where political power is utilized for universal
interests rather than partisan agendas,
contrasting sharply with the capitalist state,
which he describes as merely a managing
committee for the bourgeoisie. In capitalism,
the state serves the long-term interests of the
bourgeoisie, legitimizing the exploitation of the
proletariat.
In his Critique of the Gotha
Programme, Marx outlines two stages of
communist society. In the initial stage, the
socialization of the means of production
occurs, meaning these resources are
controlled collectively rather than by a
single class. During this phase, wage labor
persists, with the economic principle
being “from each according to his capacity,
to each according to his work,” indicating
that individuals will contribute according to their
abilities and receive compensation based on
their efforts.
The second and final stage of communist
society aims to eliminate human domination by
objective forces. For Marx, communism is not
solely about abolishing private property; it also
involves the dissolution of the state and the
end of human self-alienation. In this envisioned
classless and stateless society, governance
transitions to the administration of things,
allowing individuals to reconnect with their
inherently social nature.
Marx considers communism as the ultimate
resolution to historical conflicts, enabling
individuals to recognize themselves as both the
architects and products of history. In this
society, social divisions of labor will fade,
allowing individuals the freedom to engage in
diverse activities without becoming defined by
any single role. Furthermore, it is a state of
abundance where everyone works according to
their capabilities and receives according to
 their needs, perpetually creating new needs
and means of satisfaction. While alienation will
cease under communism, labor will remain
essential, with freedom commencing in leisure
time, thereby ensuring that work continues to
be a fundamental obligation within a
communist framework.
Famous Quotes by Karl Marx
190. ‘The history of all previous Societies has
been the history of class struggles’.
191. ‘Men make their own history but they do
not make as they please’.
192. ‘Revolutions are the locomotives of history’.
193. ‘Universe is a product and a prophecy in
every state’.
194. ‘The anatomy of civil society is to be found
in Political economy’.
195. ‘Reason has always existed, but not always
in a reasonable form’.
196. ‘The philosophers have only interpreted the
world, in various ways, the point, however, is to
change it’.
197. ‘The last Capitalist we hang shall be the
one who sold us the rope’.
198. ‘I am nothing but I must be everything’.
199. ‘It is not the consciousness of men that
determines their being, but, on the contrary,
their social being that determines their
consciousness’.
200. ‘If anything is certain, it is that I myself am
not a Marxist’.
201. ‘Religion is the impotence of humankind to
deal with occurrences it cannot understand’.
202. ‘Foreign Policy of a nation is shaped by
Geography’.
Conclusion
Karl Marx is widely regarded as one of the
most influential philosophers of modern times,
and his ideas have evolved into a powerful
ideology. Key concepts such as alienation,
historical materialism, class struggle, surplus
value, and his vision for a proletarian
revolution, dictatorship of the proletariat,
socialism, and communism have been
extensively discussed, debated, modified, and
sometimes
rejected by both supporters and critics. Due to
the voluminous nature of his writings and the
breadth of his themes, interpretations of Marx
vary significantly among scholars.
Some studies differentiate between ‘early’ and
‘later’ Marx. The ‘early’ Marx, exemplified in
his Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts,
is portrayed as a humanist philosopher focused
on redeeming humanity from alienation. In
contrast, the ‘later’ Marx, as seen in
the Communist Manifesto, A Contribution to the
Critique of Political Economy, and Capital, is
viewed as an economist and revolutionary
intent on abolishing exploitation. Others argue
for an underlying unity between these phases.
The interplay between Marx and Friedrich
Engels is also notable; initially, Marx was a
philosopher while Engels was an economist.
Their mutual influence led Marx to integrate
economic considerations into his philosophy,
while Engels incorporated philosophical
perspectives into his economic theories. This
interconnection complicates the task of
providing a universally acceptable assessment
of Marx’s work.
Marx envisioned a new social order devoid of
alienation, exploitation, class conflict, authority,
and state control. This ideal society, while
fascinating, is described by Sabine as a utopia
—albeit a generous and humane one.
However, Marx maintained that his theory was
not open to the same possibilities as historical
developments. Critics like Avineri highlight this
rigidity as a significant flaw. Isaiah
Berlin noted that Marx’s enduring popularity
contradicts his deterministic framework,
while Plamenatz distinguished between
German Marxism and Russian Communism.
Moreover, Michael Harrington characterized
Marx as a critical analyst of capitalism who
failed to provide a comprehensive alternative,
largely because he wrote during an era
when democracy was merely one possibility
rather than a universal reality.
Marx’s radical socialist views are
complemented by his anti-state stance. He
adapted Hegelian concepts of alienation and
dialectics but fundamentally altered them.
While Hegel conflated the existence of objects
with alienation, Marx contended that the
material and ideal realms are fundamentally
different yet interrelated, with material
conditions being primary. This perspective
informed his theory of historical materialism,
which posits that human history progresses
through distinct modes of production: primitive
communism, slavery, feudalism, and
capitalism, leading to class divisions (slave-
master, serf-baron, proletariat-capitalist) and
class struggles.
Marx defined class based on an individual’s
relationship to the means of production,
emphasizing ownership or control of production
and property. He argued that surplus value
emerges in capitalism when commodities
produced by workers are sold for more than
the wages received, highlighting a fundamental
characteristic of capitalist production.
Ultimately, Marx envisioned a classless society
achieved through revolution and the
dictatorship of the proletariat, which he
deemed the resolution to the historical riddle of
humanity.
Some Important Comments
on Karl Marx
203. ‘Marx’s Das Capital is an irrelevant book
which in my view is not only flawed from a
scientific point of view but not interesting or
worth it’. – R.Takkar
204. ‘Marxism is a utopia but a generous and
humane one’.- Sabine
Chronological Order of Karl
Marx Work
205. The Philosophical Manifesto of the
Historical School of Law, 1842
206. Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right,
1843
207. “On the Jewish Question”, 1843
208. “Notes on James Mill”, 1844
209. Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of
1844, 1844
210. The Holy Family, 1844
211. “Theses on Feuerbach”, 1845
212. The German Ideology, 1846
213. The Poverty of Philosophy, 1847
214. “Wage Labour and Capital”, 1847
215. Manifesto of the Communist Party, 1848
216. The Class Struggles in France, 1850
217. The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis
Napoleon, 1852
218. Grundrisse, 1857
219. A Contribution to the Critique of Political
Economy, 1859
220. Writings on the U.S. Civil War, 1861
221. Theories of Surplus Value, 3 volumes,
1862
222. “Value, Price and Profit”, 1865
223. Capital, Volume I (Das Kapital), 1867
224. “The Civil War in France”, 1871
225. “Critique of the Gotha Program”, 1875
John Rawls: Architect of
Justice and Fairness
By:Politicalsciencesolution.Com
Date:
1 October 2023
John Rawls was a prominent 20th-century
philosopher known for his theory of justice as
fairness, which emphasizes equality, human
dignity, and a social contract framework to
guide just societies.

John Rawls (1921 – 2002)

Introduction
John Rawls
In the world of 20th-century American
philosophy, few figures stand as prominently as
John Rawls. Often compared to Plato in the
realm of classical political philosophy, Rawls is
celebrated for his role in the revival of political
philosophy and the advancement of
normative political theory. He is not only a
prominent figure but also known as
an Egalitarian Philosopher and a leading
proponent of social liberalism.
 Table of Contents
226. Introduction
227. John Rawls
228. Influences Shaping John Rawls’ Philosophy
229. Key Works of John Rawls
230. Role of Political Philosophy by John Rawls
231. John Rawls’ School of Thought
232. John Rawls’ Methodology
233. Distribution of Primary Goods
234. Original Position and The Veil of Ignorance:
A Thought Experiment
235. Reflexive Equilibrium: Unveiling Rawls’
Approach to Justice
236. The Maximum Principle: Rational
Negotiation for Justice
237. Principles of Justice: Rawls’ Blueprint for a
Just Society
238. Lexical Order: Prioritizing Justice
239. Justice as Fairness: The Essence of Rawls’
Philosophy
240. Justice and Human Dignity
241. Democratic Equality
242. Criticism of John Rawls’ Theory of Justice
243. Communitarian Criticism
244. Feminist Criticism
245. Libertarian Criticism
246. Quotes by John Rawls
247. Conclusion
Influences Shaping John
Rawls’ Philosophy
John Locke
John Rawls built the foundation of his theory of
justice upon John Locke’s social contract
theory. According to Locke, the state of nature
was characterized by peace, goodwill, mutual
assistance, and preservation, but it lacked a
central authority to create, enforce, and
adjudicate laws. Rawls, following in Locke’s
footsteps, constructed his theory within the
framework of the social contract tradition.
Immanuel Kant
Immanuel Kant, a revered German
philosopher, made significant contributions to
the idea of human dignity. Both Kant and
Rawls are contractarians, deriving principles
for social justice from the social contract
model. Rawls drew inspiration from Kant,
particularly in the development of his
philosophy of Justice based on fairness. Like
Kant, Rawls believed that human dignity
should be a foundational principle of justice,
emphasizing the importance of moral
individualism within liberalism.
The Context of his Times
John Rawls was not working in isolation but
was deeply influenced by the socio-political
context of his era. The 20th century witnessed
a plethora of social movements, including the
Civil Rights movement, feminist activism,
environmental concerns, anti-war protests
against the Vietnam War, and disarmament
campaigns. These movements played a pivotal
role in shaping Rawls’ thoughts and contributed
to the resurgence of normative political theory.
Key Works of John Rawls
Rawls left an indelible mark on political
philosophy through his significant works:
 The Theory of Justice (1971): In this seminal
work, Rawls sought to offer an alternative to
utilitarianism while addressing the complex
issue of distributive justice.
Justice as Fairness (1985): This article
delves into Rawls’ conception of justice, where
he lays out his vision of a just society.
Political Liberalism (1993): In response to
criticism from communitarians, Rawls modified
his theory of justice to create a more nuanced
perspective.
The Laws of Peoples (1993): In this work,
Rawls engaged with challenges posed by
cosmopolitan scholars like Charles Beitz and
Thomas Pogge, providing thoughtful responses
and furthering his ideas. In this book John
Rawls espoused the idea of “Global society”.
Further he also explained 5 types of Political
regimes in this particular book:
248. Liberal Society
249. Hierarchal Society
250. Outlaws States
251. Burdened Societies
252. Benevolent Absolutism
Justice as Fairness: A Restatement
(2001): Rawls’ final book revisits and reviews
the theory of justice he initially presented in
 1971, offering a reflective perspective on his
life’s work.
Some other works of John Rawls –
253. Two Concepts of Rule (1955)
254. Ideas of Overlapping Consensus (1987)
255. Distributive Justice
 Role of Political
Philosophy by John
Rawls
John Rawls sees political philosophy as
fulfilling at least four roles:
256. Political Philosophy can discover grounds
for reasoned agreement in society.
257. It can help citizens orient themselves within
their own social world.
258. It can probe the limits of practicable
political possibility.
259. It can show that human life is not simply
domination and cruelty and can help attain
reconciliation.
John Rawls’ School of
Thought
John Rawls, a prominent figure in the realm of
political philosophy, belongs to the school of
Positive Liberalism or Social Liberalism. He
stands in sharp contrast to utilitarianism,
criticizing its idea of justice. Rawls describes
his theory as ‘deontological,’ rooted in duty
rather than utility—a stark departure from the
utilitarian perspective that prioritizes pleasure
as the yardstick of ethics.
For Rawls, justice as fairness hinges on the
concept of human dignity and transcends mere
utility—it rises above it. His theory is purely
procedural, emphasizing the importance of
the process through which principles of justice
are determined.
John Rawls’ Methodology
John Rawls employs the methodology of the
‘social contract.’ In this framework, individuals
act as
representatives who come together to
formulate the principles of justice. According to
Rawls, the social contract ensures that these
principles emerge from rational dialogue and
deliberation rather than being imposed from
external sources. The goal is to achieve a
consensus on the foundational principles that
govern society referred to as well ordered
society. He basically conceived “society as a
cooperative venture for mutual advantage”.
Distribution of Primary
Goods
John Rawls distinguishes between two types of
primary goods: natural and social. Natural
primary goods, such as inherent qualities, are
not subject to distribution. Social primary
goods, on the other hand, encompass
rights, liberty, income, wealth, and dignity.
These social primary goods serve as means to
attain secondary goods, crucial for achieving
individuals’ rational plans.
Rawls does not view individuals through
a Hobbesian lens. In his theory, people are
inherently moral and possess a disinterested,
mutual desire for justice. They have a
fundamental understanding of right and wrong
and recognize the benefits of cooperation. He
propagated for distributive Justice.
John Rawls in his “theory of justice” argued
that a reasonably liberal society would in fact
be based on general and procedural rules that
have no bearing on the question of distribution.
Original Position and The
Veil of Ignorance: A
Thought Experiment
He supported a contractual approach to justice,
rooted in the original position (Primitive
state). In this hypothetical scenario, all
individuals are regarded as equals, shielded by
a veil of ignorance that prevents them from
possessing knowledge about others’ skills,
social backgrounds, incomes, and so on. They
possess only a general understanding of
economics and psychology.
Even though the individuals in the original
position lack information about each other, they
possess rationality and would make rational
decisions to establish principles that lead to a
just distribution of resources in society. In this
scenario, each person would aim to maximize
their own self-interest, but due to their lack of
knowledge about others, they would likely
choose a society that minimizes their potential
losses. Individuals would ensure that even the
most disadvantaged person is not left destitute,
in case they themselves turn out to be in that
position. This principle of maximizing the
minimum welfare is known as the maximizing
principle. The negotiators, or individuals in this
hypothetical situation, would choose the least
risky path and would hypothetically place
themselves in the least advantageous position
while recommending the criteria for distributing
primary goods.
Reflexive Equilibrium:
Unveiling Rawls’
Approach to Justice
In the quest to unravel the principles of justice
that should govern a society, John Rawls
introduced a concept known as “reflexive
equilibrium.” This approach delves into the
idea
that these principles are not merely arbitrary
constructs but are deeply rooted in our inherent
moral sense.
At its core, reflexive equilibrium is the process
by which we refine and validate our judgments.
It occurs when we scrutinize our beliefs,
question our assumptions, and strive to
achieve a harmonious balance within our moral
framework. In other words, it’s a method of
aligning our moral intuitions with our reasoned
judgments, ensuring that our principles of
justice resonate with our innate sense of
fairness. Here he talks about two types of
decision making: narrow and wide based on
the rational choices in consideration of the
overall aspect.
Rawls posits that moral judgments are not
isolated; they are influenced by the broader
society in which we live. Justice as fairness, as
Rawls envisions it, is the embodiment of this
reflexive equilibrium—a system of justice that
emerges from the dynamic interplay of our
moral intuitions and our rational assessments.
The Maximum Principle:
Rational Negotiation for
Justice
Rawls views individuals as rational negotiators
in the pursuit of justice. He asserts that rational
choices aim to maximize advantages while
minimizing disadvantages. In practical terms,
this means opting for an alternative whose
worst outcome is better than the worst
outcomes associated with any other choice.
Principles of Justice:
Rawls’
 Blueprint for a Just
Society

According to John Rawls, when individuals

engage in this rational negotiation for justice,
they are likely to choose the following
principles:
Equal Liberty: Each individual should have an
equal right to the most extensive liberty
possible, as long as it’s compatible with the
same liberty for others. Individual liberty is
more important liberty than any of the
principles.
Social and Economic Inequalities: These
inequalities should be arranged in a way that
serves two essential objectives:
260. To the greatest benefit of the least
advantaged.
261. Attached to positions that are open to all
under conditions of equal opportunity and
equality.
Lexical Order: Prioritizing
Justice
Rawls introduces a critical aspect known as the
“lexical order.” This order ensures that the
principles are sequenced in a specific manner
and subject to a priority rule. The first principle
always takes precedence over the second, and
within the second principle, 2(b) must precede
2(a). This prioritization guarantees that
individual liberty is never compromised for the
sake of others’ liberty.
Justice as Fairness: The
Essence of Rawls’
Philosophy
In Rawls’ worldview, justice is synonymous with
fairness. It means treating all individuals
equitably, whether they find themselves in an
advantageous or disadvantageous position.
His theory of justice takes into account three
fundamental principles: Desert (what one
deserves based on their qualities), Merit (what
society values), and Need (what an individual
requires for survival).
Rawls’ principle of justice is fair to both the
most advantaged and the least advantaged
members of society. He rejects the notion that
liberty and equality are mutually exclusive and
instead sees them as complementary forces.
Rawls considers Justice as the 1st Virtue of
Social Institution.
Justice and Human
Dignity
In the intricate tapestry of John Rawls’
philosophy, the concept of justice is deeply
entwined with the notion of human dignity.
Rawls recognized that individuals possess
varying talents and abilities, making inequality
an inevitable aspect of society. However, he
believed that inequalities related to different
positions and roles in society could only be
morally justified if they contribute to the
development of resources that can uplift the
most disadvantaged members of society.
For instance, John Rawls argued that those
endowed with greater talent should indeed
enjoy higher incomes and wealth. However,
this possession of greater wealth and income
is ethically defensible only when it is utilized for
the
benefit of the weaker and more vulnerable
segments of society. Rawls’ point is clear:
those who have been blessed with more
should use their advantages to support those
less fortunate, thus ensuring a fair and just
society.
John Rawls further contended that what isn’t a
matter of personal talent often boils down to
chance. Therefore, it becomes our moral duty
to compensate those who have not been as
fortunate as others. According to Rawls, what
is not a matter of our talent is also a matter
of chance. Hence we should compensate
those who have not been as advantageous as
we are.
Democratic Equality
John Rawls lived during a time marked by
widespread protests and movements
advocating for equal rights and opportunities.
In this context, he argued that societal stability
could only be achieved when people in a
democratic political culture treat each other as
equal citizens willing to negotiate fair terms.
This negotiation process is what Rawls
referred to as the “overlapping
consensus” on the political conception of
justice.
For John Rawls, democratic equality was not
just a lofty ideal but a practical necessity for
maintaining stability in a society where
individuals adhere to various comprehensive
doctrines and hold diverse worldviews.
Criticism of John Rawls’
Theory of Justice
However, John Rawls’ philosophy was not
without its critics. Let’s look at the major
criticisms of John Rawls’ theory of
Justice from different areas.
Communitarian Criticism
Communitarians argued that Rawls didn’t give
enough importance to the role of community in
shaping individuals and their values. They
raised concerns about Rawls’ highly
individualistic stance and his view of society.
Critics like Michael Sandel, in his book
‘Liberalism and the Limits of Justice,’
questioned Rawls’ conception of the self and
his prioritization of liberty. Communitarians
argued that individuals don’t have absolute
freedom to choose their ends; instead, they
discover their ends within the context of their
communities and cultures.
For communitarians, the concept of the
situated self was crucial. Michael Walzer, in
‘Spheres of Justice,’ advocated that different
goods should be distributed differently, taking
into account the meanings attached to them by
various cultural and social groups. This critique
challenged Rawls’ idea of a one-size-fits-all
approach to justice and called for a more
nuanced understanding that respects the
diversity of human values and communities.
Feminist Criticism
Feminist scholars have argued that Rawls’
theory fails to adequately address the
gendered dimensions of justice. It overlooks
the specific experiences, inequalities,
and power dynamics faced by women and
gender minorities in society. Susan Moller
Okin in her book “Justice, Gender and the
Family,” is that philosophical works on justice,
including Rawls’, often overlook the importance
of the family in discussions of justice. The
family is seen as a private
matter, while justice is seen as relevant only to
the public sphere. However, this assumption
ignores the fact that the family and its
functioning are heavily influenced by the public
world of laws, institutions, and ideas of justice
that shape it.
Another significant criticism, raised by feminist
scholars like Carol Pateman, is that in Rawls’
theory, only the heads of households (typically
assumed to be men) are involved in the
decision-making process and agree to the
principles of justice, excluding women.
Pateman labels Rawls’ social contract as
patriarchal, as it perpetuates male dominance
and marginalizes women in the process.
Feminist critics stress the importance of
incorporating intersectionality, acknowledging
how gender intersects with other social
categories like race, class, and sexuality. By
not considering the interconnectedness of
various forms of discrimination and oppression,
Rawls’ theory falls short in addressing systemic
inequalities.
Libertarian Criticism
Robert Nozick and Friedrich Hayek are two
prominent philosophers from Libertarian
thought who criticized John Rawls’ theory of
justice.
Robert Nozick’s Critique:
Nozick, in his influential work “Anarchy, State,
and Utopia” (1974), presented a libertarian
perspective that directly challenged Rawls’
approach. Nozick argued that Rawls’ focus on
distributive justice and the redistribution of
wealth through a welfare state violated
individual rights. Nozick believed that a just
society should arise from voluntary exchanges
and acquisitions, and any form of
wealth redistribution would be a form of
coercion.
So in opposition to this theory, Nozick
proposed his own theory of Justice:
“Entitlement theory of Justice”. Nozick
argues for an entitlement theory of justice,
where the justice of a distribution is determined
by whether it arises from just initial acquisitions
and just transfers of property. In contrast,
Rawls emphasizes the importance of
redistributive justice to address social and
economic inequalities.
The Wilt Chamberlain Example: Nozick
famously used the example of Wilt
Chamberlain, a successful basketball player, to
illustrate his criticism of Rawls. In this thought
experiment, Nozick showed how voluntary
transactions between individuals could lead to
significant inequalities that are just as long as
they are the result of free exchanges. Rawls’
theory, according to Nozick, would require
constant interference with these exchanges to
achieve its desired equality, which he viewed
as unjust.
Robert Nozick advocates for a minimal or
night-watchman state that only protects
individual rights to life, liberty, and property. He
contends that Rawls’ theory justifies a more
extensive welfare state that would violate
individual liberties by redistributing wealth and
interfering in people’s choices.
Friedrich Hayek’s Critique:
Friedrich Hayek, a leading figure in classical
liberal thought, also criticized Rawls’ theory of
justice from a different angle. Hayek regarded
Rawls’ theory of “Social Justice as a
mirage”.
Hayek emphasized the importance of
dispersed knowledge in society, arguing that
no central authority can possess the
information required to plan and allocate
resources
 efficiently. He believed that Rawls’ approach,
with its emphasis on central planning and
redistribution, would lead to inefficiencies and
unintended consequences.
Hayek contended that Rawls’ theory gave too
much weight to distributive justice at the
expense of individual freedom. He believed
that any attempt to enforce strict equality would
inevitably infringe upon individual liberty and
lead to the suppression of individual initiative
and innovation.
Quotes by John Rawls
262. “Justice is the first virtue of social
institutions, as truth is of systems of thought.”
263. “The natural distribution is neither just nor
unjust; nor is it unjust that persons are born
into society at some particular position. These
are simply natural facts. What is just and unjust
is the way that institutions deal with these
facts.”
264. “Each person is to have an equal right to
the most extensive basic liberty compatible
with a similar liberty for others.”
265. “I assume that to each according to his
threat advantage is not a conception of justice.”
266. “Each person possesses an inviolability
 founded on justice that even the welfare of a
society as a whole cannot override.”
267. “Right is prior to good.”
Conclusion
John Rawls theory of Justice is appreciated for
it is grounded in the concept of Human Dignity.
Only in such
societies where human dignity is a value
system can there be peace and harmony.
Rawls revived the principles of Normative
philosophy. His masterpiece ‘A Theory of
Justice’ is considered as a reference point by
all contemporary political philosophers from
Nozick to Amartya Sen.
Read More: