ARISTOTLE (384BC-323BC)

Brief Introduction:

Book = “Politics” – a Collection of essays & his lecture notes.

He has a very practical approach towards politics.

If Plato stands for “The best” then Aristotle stands for “The best practicable/possible state”. Being a less
ambitious but more a practical realist than Plato, Aristotle’s practical prescriptions have been more
lasting and more influential than the radical and provocative ideas of Plato.

Scientific approach – Inductive, systematic and analytical.

The principle of Golden means as the Golden rule: “The best life is where a person has everything in the
average.”

He believes in equilibrium = the balance.

He is a functionalist.

Functionalist = those who look at the functional utility of the things, “Whatever is existing must be
having something important or some utility.”

For example, he looks at the family & property from functionalist point of view.

He is conservative, although, all Functionalists are conservatives.

Conservatives are in form of Private property.

Conservative gives respect to Customs and traditions.

Aristotle is Teleological i.e. consequential-ism = doing something looking at the consequences.

Teleological = school of destiny.

Note: in considering change, Leftist > Liberal > Conservative.

Comparison b/w Aristotle & Plato.

SIMILARITIES:

Belongs to the Socratic tradition & critics of – Sophism.

Priority to society over self-interest

Believe in the concept of reason.

Belong to the tradition of the school of natural law.

DIFFERENCES.

ARISTOTLE PLATO

Scientist Philosopher
Reformist Radical

Willing to work and build on the actual state Anxious to recast the state afresh

Political realism Political idealism

Inductive approach Deductive approach

concerned for the best practicable state concerned for the best state or the Ideal state

The best form is “Polity”. The best form is “Monarchy”.

State: Unity in diversity Unity in uniformity

Supports property and family Communises property and family

Rule of Law Rule of men

list of ideas of Aristotle.

Theory of state

Theory of citizenship

Theory of slavery

Theory of Property

Theory of Justice

Theory of Equality

Theory of constitution

Theory of Revolution

Theory of law.

THEORY OF STATE

Characteristic features:

State is not structured but growing gradually like a tree

State is prior to individual

It is an association of associations

It is like a human organism

It is self-sufficing institution

State is not a uniformity but unity in diversity

As per Aristotle, it is the “best practicable” which is Plato’s 2nd best state.
“Man is by nature a political animal.”

“State comes into existence for the sake of life & continues for the sake of good life”

“One who can live without state is either a beast or God but can’t be a human being or man”

“State is highest of all associations”

“State is a union of families & villages.”

“Man is by nature a Political Animal”

“But a state exists for the sake of a good life, and not for the sake of life only”.

Above statement tells the importance of the state in the life of the man. The context of the statement is
the dialectics b/w the Sophist’s view of the state which considers the state as artificial and which gives
primacy to the self-interest over the interests of the state. The Socratic tradition established that state is
prior to man and collective interests are prior to the Self-interests.

Aristotle has given the following logic to support his argument that “State is natural and necessary” and
he establishes his argument by establishing that nature has made man in such a way that man can’t lead
a good life without the state.

Aristotle links the Origin of State to the Needs of the man. According to him, man is not self-sufficient
even to fulfil his basic (biological) needs. Hence, man has created the family. Family can fulfil some of
the needs but not all. Hence, man has created villages (union of different families and interests), villages
can fulfil some of the needs but not all. Hence man created the state. The state can fulfil all his
requirements. Hence, only in the state man can have fulfilled life and can achieve Self-actualization.

Hence, Aristotle suggests that “State comes into existence for the sake of life and continues for the sake
of good life.” He also suggests that “the state is the highest of all the association”. Hence state deserves
highest of man’s obligation or obedience. He even goes to the extent that he does not recognize a
person as a human being if a person claims that he can live without the state. To live without the state,
one requires some superhuman qualities. He also gives teleological arguments to suggests that it is the
destiny of a man to be a member of the state. Chronologically, man is prior to the state and man has
created the state but logically state is prior to man and it is stated which makes a man a human being.

The state is like a human organism. Aristotle believes that state, like the human organism, has its own
parts i.e., individuals. Apart from the state, the individuals have no importance and separated from the
body, the parts have no life of their own. The interest of the part of the body – is inherent in the interest
of the body-what separate interest a hand has when away from the body. Likewise, the interest of the
individuals is inherent in the interest of the state.

Thus, he has shown the importance of state and challenges the Sophist’s view of the state.
There are different school of thoughts w.r.t the institution of the state. For idealists, like Plato &
Aristotle, State is necessary for the good life and prior to man. For classical liberals, “State is a necessary
evil”. For Anarchist, “State is unnecessary evil”.

Regarding human nature, there is a lack of consensus among political scholars. If Plato & Aristotle
believed that man is a social or political animal in nature, Hobbes suggested that “man is social not by
nature but by out of necessity.”

“The nature of the authority of the masters differs from the authority of the statesmen or vice-versa”

Context – Criticism of Plato’s theory of the ideal state.

Problems with Plato’s view – Plato has proposed the rule of P-king and assumes that the state is like a
family and the position of P-king is like the head of the family. Hence, P-king takes decisions on behalf of
all citizens. However, the state is not a family. It is a collection of families. Different family combine to
form villages & different villages to form the state.

The state can’t run on the same principle as that of a family. One person should not take decisions at all.
Hence, he recommends the assembly of citizens representing different interests and deliberating to
evolve the consensus.

Hence, Aristotle supports the polity. In order to support his arguments, he suggested that the nature of
the function and the authority of master is different from that of the statesmen. Plato is for unity in
uniformity while Aristotle is for the unity in Diversity. He favours pluralism.

THEORY OF CONSTITUTION.

He used the terms constitution, state and govt. interchangeably.

He studied 158 constitutions.

Aristotle proposed the classification of state w.r.t objective of governance. Two types of objectives are
there:

Normal: Where rulers rule in the interest of people.

Perverted or corrupted: Rulers rule for their self-interests.

“Polity is the best practicable form of govt.”

What’s Polity? It is the rule of many in the interests of the people.

However, the polity is not the rule of so many, unlike democracy. If aristocracy and Oligarchy are the
rules of rich & democracy is the rule of poor then polity is the rule of the middle class.

According to Aristotle, ‘Polity’ is the best practicable form of govt. As the middle class neither have too
much money nor too less, they have average wealth. In the scheme of his constitution, Polity is the
golden mean of oligarchy & democracy. Monarchy is “the best” but it’s not “the best practicable” one.
Polity is the best practicable form of govt. because it’s the golden mean of the rule of rich & poor.

Why the rule of both rich or poor are not good?

Both classes are not in the habit of obedience to law – One is out of arrogance and the other is out of
ignorance. Both are more inclined to commit crimes.

There will be suppression and negligence in the rule by either of them. Rich won’t trust the poor and the
poor won’t trust the rich but both classes will surely trust the middle class.

The middle-class are the men of reason and many lawgivers’ have been from the middle class in their
time. The rule of the middle class is in the interest of stability and order. Hence, the polity is the best
practicable form of govt.

THEORY OF CITIZENSHIP

What’s Citizenship? It’s a person’s legal status in the state. A citizen has certain rights and
responsibilities.

Aristotle’s definition – citizenship as a duty and not as a right.

What duty? Duty to participate in the civic affairs.

What affairs? In deliberations, careful decisions, Judicial functions, policy makings.

Who are citizens? Two basic principle of citizenship:-

Jus – Soli (Soil) – Place of birth.

Jus – Sanguine) – Blood

These both criterion is used in India’s constitution also.

Aristotle excludes :
Women: Since the citizenship is a duty to participate in the civic affairs & women are too much absorbed
in the family that they do not have time for the civic affairs.

Old people: Because of their health & other physical reasons that they may not be able to execute their
duties.

Children: They’re immature.

Slaves: They lack reasons.

Thus for Aristotle, only adult natural born male, belonging to the propertied class is the citizen.

CRITICAL EVALUATION

We may criticize for the narrow concept of citizenship & especially because he excludes women but we
need to appreciate Aristotle for emphasizing on the necessity of participation in the affairs of the state
& on the duty of the citizen.

THEORY OF SLAVERY

Aristotle has been criticized a lot for this theory.

What is slavery? It was practised in Greece.

According to Aristotle – “It’s not the only natural, it’s useful”. Aristotle’s perspective on slavery was from
functional perspectives and suggests many utilities of slavery.

Who are slaves? Which slave is Aristotle talking about? According to Aristotle, a slave is not a human
being. He is subhuman, incomplete, and a barbarian. However, he is an animate means for action and
not intended for production, for he helped in the business within the household. He belonged to the
master. But Aristotle rejected inhumane treatment of slaves and advocated their emancipation as a
reward for their good behaviour. He talks about Two kinds of slaves:-

Slave by law = Prisoners of wars.

Slave by nature = According to Aristotle, nature has made 2 types of persons.

Those who are mentally strong

Those who are Physically strong.

He held that “One should do for what they are naturally suited for.” Hence the functionalities of slaves:
Physically strong can be more productive by working for longer duration & Mentally strong Having the
reason, involved in politics.
Who was a master by nature? Those who are rulers by nature.

Qualities of rulers: Rulers & masters are those who have abilities to take decision & courage to stand by
the consequences of the decision.

Who were the Slaves by nature? Those who lack the capacity of taking the decisions or who lack the
reason. They also lack the courage to stand by the consequences of their decision.

UTILITY OF SLAVERY

It is useful for the economic system because those who are physically strong can work for the longer
duration. It is useful for the political system. Those who have reason & courage are taking the decision.
It is useful for the masters because masters will get the time to participate in the civic affairs. He expects
masters to have a humanitarian approach towards the slave & take good care of slaves.

He proposed that slavery is useful for slaves also:

Since slaves lack the reason therefore laves can’t take decisions on their own even for himself, anyway
he will be requiring masters & masters can take better decisions.

In the company of masters, the slave also has an opportunity to become virtuous. In a situation where
slave develops reason, masters can set him free.

Critically evaluate the theory of slavery proposed by Aristotle.

Aristotle was criticized for the “Justification of slavery“. It goes against the principle of human dignity.
We can quote Immanuel Kant, a liberal thinker; known for human rights theory, “Each man is an end in
itself, no one ought to treat others as a means to an end.”

Thus, even if slavery is useful from Aristotle’s perspective, it can’t be justified at all. However, it is to be
noted that Aristotle’s theory of slavery helped us to understand the necessary qualities of the rulers.

We can see Plato’s impact on Aristotle. Later, Machiavelli also held that “Prince has to be like a fox &
lion.”

THEORY OF JUSTICE

Aristotle gives a very practical approach to the concept of justice; his theory of justice is known as –
“Theory of proportionate justice”.
He describes justice in two dimensions.

Distributive – deals with policy making i.e. Legislative – related to the distribution of resources &
honours etc. – proportionate method.

Rectificatory – Judiciary – Proportionate method

“Rewards should be in the proportion of man’s contribution to the society.“

“It is unjust to treat equals unequally and it is equally unjust to treat unequals equally.“

Above statement comes from Aristotle’s theory of justice. He has given two principles of justice.

Equals should be treated equally.

It will be an injustice if unequals are treated equally.

According to Aristotle, “Rewards should be given in proportion to man’s contribution to the well-being
of accordance of society & state. If we treat less meritorious at par with the more meritorious person, it
will be injustice from the point of the Aristotle. There is a linkage b/w his theory of justice and the
theory of slavery. It would be unjust if we treat masters and slaves equally. Those who are the mentally
strong, ought to be the masters and those who are physically strong ought to be the slaves. If state
overlooks the differences and treats everyone equally it will create conditions for the revolutions against
the state.

His theory of justice is also linked to the theory of revolution. According to Aristotle, the most common
cause behind all revolutions is the feeling of inequality, real or imagined both.

Above discussion shows that Aristotle is a supporter of meritocratic society & merit as a principle of
distributive justice. Aristotle’s idea can’t be appreciated in the society like India where huge inequalities
exist and there is no level playing field in the society. Hence constitution of India provides for affirmative
action in favour of the disadvantaged sections.

Indirectly his theory of justice has similarities with Plato’s theory of justice. For Plato, Justice is proper-
stationed in accordance with the natural qualities. Aristotle is also giving similar arguments. However,
few differences can be seen :
In Aristotle In Plato

Right oriented Duty oriented

Legal Moral and philosophical

Practical; virtue in action, goodness in practice Spiritual

Related to man’s action Related to one’s inner self

Justice is a reward in the proposition to what one contributes Performance of one’s duties to the best
of one’s abilities.

Evaluation

Aristotle’s theory of justice is worldly, associated with man’s conduct in practical life, of course with all
ethical values guiding him. But he was unable to co-relate the ethical dimension of justice to its legal
dimension. His distributive justice (rewards in accordance with one’s abilities) is far, far away from the
realities of the political world. It is, indeed, difficult to bring about a balance between the ever-
increasing population and ‘ever-decreasing opportunities of the state

THEORY OF PROPERTY.

Aristotle’s theory of property is based on his criticism of Plato’s communism of property. Plato thought
of property as an obstacle to the proper functioning of the state and, therefore, suggested communism
for the guardian class. But for Aristotle, property provided psychological satisfaction by fulfilling the
Human instinct for possession and ownership. His chief complaint against Plato was that Plato failed to
balance the claims of production and distribution

Aristotle looks here from the functionalist perspective.

Does not support Plato’s idea of communism of property.

According to Aristotle: “Property is a part of the household and the art of acquiring property is a part of
managing the household; for no man lives well, or indeed live at all unless he is provided with
necessaries.”

Types of Property

Based on living and non – living.

Animate (living). Like slave.

Inanimate (non-living)

Based on fair and unfair.

Legitimate – earned by use of labour.

Illegitimate – earned by unfair means. For ex- Exploitation of the circumstances of some person.

Aristotle says, “To acquire too much wealth will be as gross an error as to make a hammer too heavy”.

Aristotle analysed 3 system of property.

Common ownership & common use – rejected. Why rejected?

“Everyone’s property is no one’s responsibility.”

For a person like Aristotle, the property is a sacred institution. Public property has not maintained the
property.

Common ownership is not productive due to lack of motivation and all.

Common ownership & Individual use – Illogical system – Impractical system

Individual ownership & common use – Accepted. Aristotle says: “property ought to be generally and in
the main private, but common in use.” Because of the productivity, maintenance, achievement.

Why common use? Aristotle was aware of the evils associated with private property which results in the
growth of inequalities in social & economic terms. Inequality or disparity is not in the interest of
stability.

He recommends that person should make the constitution in the interests of society. Since man is by
nature a political animal & society plays a role in the development of man, man is expected to pay back
to the society.

We can find similarities in Aristotle’s theory of property with the Gandhi’s theory of trusteeship. Gandhi
did not favour the abolition of private property. However, Gandhi held that the capitalist class should
not consider itself as the owner of capital but the trustee of capital. He should keep whatever is required
for his enterprise & rest he should contribute to the well-being of workers & poor.

THEORY OF LAW.

“Law is reason without passions”

This statement established Aristotle as a father of the constitution. Above statement is in the context of
criticism of Plato’s theory of P-king. Plato’s P-king is the Benevolent despot, except the limitation of the
constitution, there is no limitation on the P-king, ordinary law & public opinion are not the limitation.
Aristotle does not favour the idea of giving the absolute power to one person even if he/ she is a
philosopher.
According to Aristotle, law and reason are same. The purpose of both is to understand what is right &
what is wrong. Law is a reason, the only difference is that the ‘reason’ is inside the soul, whereas the
‘law’ is in the book of law.

‘Reason’ is the inward manifestation of which law is the outward manifestation. Not only both are same
but there are some additional advantages in the rule of law.

Law represents the collective wisdom of ages. Hence more dependable than the wisdom of one person.
Rule of person is not preferable over rule of law because every person has both reason & appetite. It
may happen that appetite overshadows the reason. Rule of law avoids this possibility as the law is not
related to the person. Law is impersonal and free from passions.

THEORY OF REVOLUTION

Aristotle has dealt with the issue of revolution in a very comprehensive manner. As per Aristotle,
revolution is ‘any change’, smallest or biggest, doesn’t matter. He favours stability (conservatism) and
does not prefer change. However, change is inevitable because the change is the characteristic feature
of the world. During his analysis of constitution, he has tried to be understood the causes of revolution
and has proposed measures to check revolution.

He was so much concerned with the revolution that he has studied revolution in a very exhaustive
sense. Aristotle was an advocate of status quo and did not want political changes, for they brought with
them catastrophic and violent changes. That is why he devoted a lot of space in ‘the Politics’ explaining
the general and specific causes of revolutions followed with his suggestions to avoid them.

General causes – The commonest cause of revolution is the feeling of inequality, either real or imagined.

Other causes include :

Corruption among officials

If ruler give undue importance to certain individual – favouritism

Too much influx of foreigners.

Rivalries b/w different classes & races.

Carelessness by public officials.

Rewarding the undeserving.

Over-looking small changes

If the balance of power disturbs the society due to Universal passions for power & privileges.
Even if there is no reason, still change is inevitable (unavoidable).

Particular causes are such as the Regime specific changes which include :

Monarchy – Family conspiracies.

Aristocracy – Poor won’t accept the rule of rich & will conspire against the rich.

Democracy – rich will not accept the rule of poor & will conspire against the poor

Poor will hardly be able to manage power and will be fooled by demagogic people.

He held that Monarchy, Kingship and tyranny are bad forms of the constitution, to begin with, and are
very prone to dissensions.

Solutions – Opposite of causes

To ensure the feelings of inequality

Cultivate the spirit of obedience to law or constitution.

Educate the citizens.

Giving due respect and recognition to all classes of people.

Keeping patriotism at fever pitch

“Aristotle as the greatest disciple of Plato and the greatest critique of Plato”

Similarities:

Theory of state – Natural

Interrelation b/w Ethics and Politics, Reason and courage

Theory of Justice – Proper stationing.

Differences :

ARISTOTLE PLATO

Conservative Radical

Practical Utopian

Rule of law Rule of reason i.e. P-king

The state is family of different families State is a family i.e. the P-king is head.

Supported Pvt Property.

Ebenstein says, “Plato found the corrective to his thinking in his own student”

Aristotle’s views on revolution were the last words on the subject until Marx came to analyse it
differently.

“Aristotle as a father of political science”.

Plato = father of political philosophy

Aristotle = father of political science

What makes Aristotle as a father of Political science?

In his perspective towards politics. He has the practical bent of mind. He does not look for perfection. If
Aristotle is influenced by Plato when he was also influenced by his father who was a physician.

Aristotle believed that “One has to be worldly wise rather being wise in the world of ideas”. He believes
that everything is in this world only. We require discovering this reality. Aristotle’s theory of forms
differs from Plato’s theory of forms/ideas. For Aristotle, idea & matter is present together & idea does
not belong to some other world.

We can give other arguments to consider Aristotle as the father of Political science such as:

Plato’s book is encyclopaedic in nature while Aristotle’s book is focussed on the issues of political life.
Even the title of the book of Aristotle is the “Politics“.

In his theory of the constitution, he has implemented the approach of biology. There are many ideas in
politics like constitutionalism which emerged in Aristotle. Aristotle is comparatively more inductive than
Plato. He has given his theory of constitution and revolution after studying 158 constitutions.

He is also known as the father of comparative politics & father of political-sociology.

From Plato comes political idealism, and from Aristotle comes political realism. On this basis, it is easy to
understand the comment by Coleridge, ‘that everyone is born either a Platonist or an Aristotelian’ plus
Whitehead has commented, that “Entire western philosophy is nothing but a footnote of the Plato &
Aristotle.”

QUESTION BANK

Comment : “The aims pursued by revolutionaries, like the origins of revolution, are the same in
tyrannies and kingship as they are under regular constitutions.” – Aristotle.
Comment : “The authority of the master and that of the statesman are different from one another” -
Aristotle

Comment : “Rule of law is better than rule of men”

Comment : “Slavery is natural and beneficial both for the master and the slave”. – Aristotle

Comment : “Polity is the best practicable form of govt.” – Aristotle

Comment : “Polity or constitutional govt. may be described generally as a fusion of oligarchy and
democracy”

Comment : “The polis exists by nature and that it is prior to the individual”

Attempt a critique of Aristotle’s ideas on slavery.

Comment : “The state is a creation of nature and man is by nature a political animal.”

Comment : “Personal is political”

Central to Aristotle’s political thought is his classification of the different types of political constitutions
in the politics. Evaluate

Comment : Aristotle’s conception of Equality.

Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1527)

Introduction

Book = “The Prince” – 1513 & “Discourses”

Belonged to the time of renaissance i.e., When medieval was ending and modern was to begin.

Belonged to the State of Florence (Feudal society but not the city-state) to modern Italy.

Laski commenting on this extraordinary change asserted that the entire Renaissance was in the writings
of Machiavelli.

Machiavelli is the father of political realism with the primacy of the real world of politics.

Art of using power = management of power = judicious use of law + physical force = lion + fox. The ruler
is the creator of law and morality.

Dunning held that “Machiavelli stood on the borderline between the Middle Ages and the Modern
Ages. He ushered in the Modern Age by ridding politics of the vassalage of religion.”

It was Dunning who called his study as “the study of the art of government rather than a theory of the
state”.

“Every thinker is a child of his time”. “Machiavelli is a child of renaissance”

His writings are often called “Narrowly dated & Narrowly located”

Machiavelli belonged to Italy. Italy, at that time, was a house divided in itself. This was a time when
nation-state was emerging in Europe. Italy could not be unified to emerge as a strong nation-state. It
was vulnerable to external invasions. Italy of that time was also a highly corrupt society. Italy was the
Seat of the Roman church, by this time become a corrupt institute. There was a direct impact of the
corruption of church on the people of Italy. Church has a vested interest to keep Italy divided.
Machiavelli attributed all problems of Italy to the church. Hence, he recommended the strict separation
b/w church & the state. Italy was once most advanced in both culturally and politically. Even during the
time of Machiavelli, Italy was the seat of Renaissance. Though cultural advancement was taking place
politically it remained backwards, feudal & disunited.

The Prince: The Prince is considered as the best book ever written in the field of ‘Statecraft’. “The
Prince” is like a manual to those who are involved in the field of statecraft. It gives a large no. of advice
to Prince on both internal & external aspects of running the state. The Prince is inspired by the life of
Italian statesmen, Cesare-Borgia. The book is addressed to the ‘Lorenzo – the magnificent’ of Medici
family of Florence.

Who is Machiavelli’s Prince? Machiavelli’s Prince is not a hereditary monarch rather a political
entrepreneur. Like Kautilya’s king.

MACHIAVELLI AS A THINKER

Though some scholars consider Machiavelli as the first modern thinker. It’s better to call Machiavelli as a
transitional thinker. Machiavelli makes a break from the medieval times. He is definitely non-medieval.
Though he is not entirely modern.

Background: In medieval times religion, shaped politics & Machiavelli was a critique of the role of
religion in politics.

The medieval political order was of divided sovereignty with a hierarchy of feudal lords & Machiavelli
wanted to establish Centralized authority under the state. Unifying principalities into the one-motion
state.

He is a realist though the beginning of realism (political realism) is Aristotle. Aristotle’s political theory is
a mixture of idealism & realism with the due influence of his teacher, Plato.

Machiavelli can be treated as a realist in pure sense or the real beginning of realism can be marked with
the Machiavelli.

Who is a realist? Those who believe in ‘What is’ rather than ‘What ought to be’. For the realist, politics is
struggling for power. In Machiavelli, we understand the power-view of politics, politics is about power.
Machiavelli defines statecraft = Management of power. Hence, Prince should know the ‘art of exercising
power’.

METHODOLOGY

According to Machiavelli, understanding of politics has to be based on an understanding of human

psychology along with the history rather than philosophy or religion.
Why Knowledge of History? History is the best guide to politics.

Machiavelli preferred republic as a form of Govt.

What is Republic? It is the Participation of the people.

He believed that human nature, and therefore, human problems were almost the same always, and so
the best way of enlightening the present, according to him, was possible with the help of the past i.e.,
historical.

We can see the influence of Aristotle. However, he suggests that republic is preferable only if people are
virtuous. For the Societies which are corrupt, he recommends the rule of the Prince who rules with the
Iron hand.

Pieces of ADVICE TO THE PRINCE

UNDERSTANDING THE WORLD OF POLITICS

“How we live is far removed from how we ought to live, one who abandons ‘What is’ for ‘What ought to
be’ will ruin himself”

“A man who wishes to make a profession of goodness in everything must necessarily come to grief
among so many who are not good.”

With Machiavelli one enters into the age of realism in political philosophy. Machiavelli’s book “The
Prince” which is considered as the best book ever written in the field of statecraft. Prince is like a
manual to a political entrepreneur, it contains many pieces of advice which Machiavelli gives based on
history & understanding of human psychology.

Machiavelli had served in various political offices including as a diplomat. His suggestions are based on
the observations. One of the first suggestion is that Prince must understand the uniqueness of the field
in which he is entering. Up till now political scholars have either treated politics as a part of ethics (by
Plato) or as a part of religion (during medieval times).

Machiavelli was the 1st person to suggest that politics has its own autonomy, politics has its own laws.
Prince needs to understand the field of politics as it is rather than what he thinks it should be.

Why Prince will not try to find out the goodness in every profession? Politics is not the profession of
goodness. In politics, one need not learn how to be good but one requires to know how to be bad.

In the field of politics, the prince will meet such people who are not so good. Politics is neither ethics nor
religion, it is an uninspiring field but that is how it is. If prince overlooks the reality of politics, he will
bring destruction not only to his people but also to himself.

We can see the contrast b/w Plato & Machiavelli. Plato is an idealist who wants his King to have
knowledge of goodness & Machiavelli is a realist who wants his prince to know the management of
power. It is an irony that Machiavelli has been criticized the most for telling the reality of the politics but
it is also most practised in politics.

ON HUMAN NATURE
The man by nature is :

Ungrateful = forget the fairness or kindness done to him,

Deceitful = Betray the prince without thinking for a while of the kindness done to him,

fickle-minded = Keep on changing the sides,

Coward = fearful

Avaricious = extremely greedy.

Another cardinal principle besides the principle of ‘moral indifference’, which forms Machiavelli’s
political philosophy, is the principle of “Universal Egoism”.

For Machiavelli, statecraft is the art of the use of power or management of power. Prince must know
how to remain in power. Prince must understand the reality of field of politics & the nature of those
with whom he should interact. Machiavelli gives a pessimistic account of human nature. According to
Machiavelli, Laws on politics are to be based on human psychology rather than philosophy. Hence prince
must understand the elements of human nature. In order to prove his point, Machiavelli took the
support of history. History is also guided by politics. History suggests that human nature remained
constant. Man is guided by self-interest. For Machiavelli, being selfish is just a human nature & should
not be considered as a sin. It is a natural fact like any other nature’s fact. Instead of overlooking the
reality of human nature, Prince must understand human nature and choose his actions. As mentioned in
the above statement, Machiavelli suggests that man is ungrateful by nature, he can easily forget the
favours and kindness done by the prince. Hence his advice is that “it’s better for a prince to be feared
than to be loved. People love at their own will but fear at the will of the prince.”

Since man is ungrateful so man is also deceitful. Man can easily change the sides if his interests demand.
Prince can exploit the weakness of human nature to his own advantage. The weakness of human nature
is that man is fearful, he is coward. Hence prince should ensure that man should remain dependent on
prince & should be convinced that only prince can give him security. He also comments on the
materialistic nature of man i.e. man is possessive by nature, his love for the property. In the words of
Machiavelli, “Man forgets his loss of father easily than the loss of his patrimony”

Hence his suggestion is that to not to touch property & women of their citizen. Men are emotional
about both. It is better for a prince to execute a man rather than confiscating his property.

CRITICAL EVALUATION

Machiavelli gives the partial account of human nature.

He is deductive in his approach. He has used history to support his arguments but he has not gone for
the scientific treatment of history.

He looked only those instances in history which supported this assumption on human nature.

It is for this reason that ‘Sabine’ calls Machiavelli as “Narrowly dated & Narrowly located“.
According to Sabine, his pessimistic account of human nature is because of his experience of Italy of his
time. Had he belonged to some other time & space, his views on human nature would have been
different.

Machiavelli is known as the child of his time. He belonged to the time when medieval – social –
economic order was coming to an end. And capitalism was about to emerge. He is the philosopher of
emerging Bourgeois class i.e. common man.

ON STATECRAFT

For Plato & Aristotle, Politics remained as a ‘soul’ craft. But for Machiavelli, statecraft is a ‘management
of power’.

Why management of power is needed? The role of the state is to establish Law and order. Thus, it
requires disciplining people. Either people discipline themselves or they should be made disciplined by
the use of force. Ultimately, use of violence. Violence is an extreme form of force & prince should not
hesitate from using instruments of force. But Prince must know the art of using force.

SUGGESTIONS regarding use of force

Force should not be the first option as the use of force will generate resistance, it should be used as the
last option.

If possible then Prince should not use force directly, he should apply force through its subordinate. In
case, Prince should use force he should use it completely and quickly.

Why Completely = because the opponent should be crushed and no one survives to take the revenge as
the feeling of revenge is very powerful emotion. If revenge dominates human mind, people will not even
think about their self-interest and will not even hesitate to harm themselves in the fire of his own
revenge.

Why Quickly = because one should not give the opportunity for the resistance.

If Prince prefers the policy of love then love should be shown gradually (turant pyar dikha k sir pe nahi
chadhana hai- dheere dheere pyar ko badhana hai). Let people realize.

“It is better for a prince to be feared rather than to be loved. People fear at the will of prince and love at
their own will. Wise prince act according to what is his will rather than will of others”

“The Prince” is known as the best book in the field of statecraft. “The Prince” contains instructions from
Machiavelli. These instructions are based on Machiavelli’s understanding of human psychology which he
observed during his tenure at different offices and because of his belief that history is a guide to politics.

Machiavelli’s suggestion on the understanding of human nature is based on both the principle of ‘moral
indifference & universal egoism. Since human beings are selfish by nature so Prince should ultimately
rely on a policy of force. Prince must know the art of management of power. He must be adroit enough
to use both; soft power (policy of love) & hard power (use of force). Because of ungrateful nature of
man, the policy of love alone will not work. Prince should depend upon the policy of force to control the
beast in man.
If love is used then it should be used gradually and if force is used then it should be used not as the first
action but as an ultimate action and in totality and quickly. Thus, prince can’t rely solely on the policy of
love because fear is preferable over the policy of love.

CRITICAL EVALUATION:

Machiavelli was quite correct when he suggests that the prince should know the use of hard & soft
power and no one can say that any state can overlook the importance of hard power. However, he gave
the partial account of human nature due to his ignorance of those part of the history where he could not
establish his theory.

OTHER pieces of ADVICE

ON THE CHARACTERISTICS OF PRINCE

Prince should be a cold-blooded man.

Prince should have control over his temper. His actions should be guided by cold-blooded logic.

He should act with reason.

Prince should be clever like a fox so to understand the traps and he should be brave like a lion to defend
himself from the wolves.

Since the time of Plato, ‘Reason’ & ‘Courage’ are recognized as the essential qualities of the ruling class.
Machiavelli is also emphasising on similar qualities. However, Machiavelli is more precise in explaining
what type of reason & courage is required in politics.

For Machiavelli, Prince need not be a philosopher but prince must pose cleverness to understand the
conspiracies around him. Similarly, in a very precise term, he suggests that prince requires the strength
of lion to defend himself from the wolves.

Thus, it is not enough for a prince to be brave it is also important that he has to be clever. We can see
the relevance of Machiavelli even in present times. Every state requires the institution of intelligence &
military to protect itself.

ON ETHICS AND ITS ROLE IN POLITICS

“In politics, ends justify the means.”

If ends(objectives) are good – means will automatically be considered as good. Like, if the ends are good
and met by the action or policy employed then it will be considered as the good act.

However, the priority of ends and means remains a matter of debate. For realists, like Machiavelli ends
justify the means & for idealists like Gandhi, there is a priority of means over ends.

Why Machiavelli suggests the priority of ends over means? It is important to take timely decisions.
Person’s ethics (moral principle or religious belief) may create dilemma resulting into an unnecessary
delay and maybe prince not able to adopt the best policy which can give optimum results. Machiavelli
makes a separation b/w religion & politics and ethics & politics. For Machiavelli, nothing is supreme than
the nation, not even religion. Machiavelli invents the concept of “Dual morality”.
What is Dual Morality? According to the Machiavelli, the morality of the prince is different from the
morality of common man. The common man can die for his principles but prince can’t put the life of his
persons in danger for the sake of his principles.

What’s the standard to evaluate the morality or rightness of the actions of the prince? Politics has its
own morality; the ultimate yardstick is the national interests. Politics is not ethics, political actions need
not be judged by the standard of ethics. The political morality is the protection of national interests & is
not that ends justify the means. If the prince is successful in achieving the ends whatever actions he
took will be considered right. But if he neglects the ends for the sake of means he will not be spared.
Politics is an autonomous field. It has its own ethics. We’ve to see not what is ethically correct but what
is politically correct.

ON RELIGION

Machiavelli considered the church as a cause of corruption and lack of unity in Italy. Machiavelli was a
critique of the interference of the church in the state & hence he talked about the strict separation and
emerges as the father of European secularism.

Machiavelli was against the role of the church in politics but he was not against the religion. He wanted
to limit the role of religion. Machiavelli even understood the importance of religion in politics. Religion
can be a disciplinary force. He recommends prince to appear religious even if he is not because people
like such persons. Ex: Md. Ali Jinnah in modern Pakistan. Thus, Machiavelli was not anti-religion but he
had a very utilitarian approach towards religion and suggested that even religion can be used in the
interest of the nation.

GENERAL Bits of ADVICE :

Machiavelli’s advise prince to prefer common man over nobility because →

The common man has no aspirations to challenge the prince. Their aspirations are limited. They’re
happy if prince provides them security and opportunities for material welfare.

On the other hand, nobility can be a threat as they’ve aspirations to come to power.

Machiavelli was the first person to suggest that prince should have an army of nationals & should not be
dependent on the mercenary soldiers as it was in the practice at medieval times.

He supports expansionist foreign policy.

ON FORTUNE

Machiavelli used the term ‘Fortune’ in the ‘Italian’ sense which means ‘bad luck’ or ‘bad times’, which
also denotes the things which are not under man’s control.

Even when the prince has all qualities to be a successful ruler and has followed all advice still prince may
fail. It may happen that prince suffers from bad luck. If bad luck comes, it never comes alone. Problems
come in platoons (gang or PALTAN).

He compares fortune with roaring rivers or torrential rains. However, a prince should not get
disappointed. “Fortune is a woman who always embraces the brave man.” So, a prince should not get
disappointed and face the bad time with courage and thus he can convert the bad times in his favour.
Bits of ADVICE from “DISCOURSES”

He advocated republicanism here.

“Wherever necessary = monarchy, wherever possible = republic but in no situation aristocracy.”

Since every thinker is a child of his time. This description suits most to the Machiavelli. All tendencies of
his time were reflected in the ideas of Machiavelli. Machiavelli belonged to the time when feudalism
was collapsing and capitalism was about to start. He belonged to the time when Political life in Europe
was anarchic with multiple centres of authority. Such political way of life was not conducive to the
emergence of capitalism. For the emergence of capitalism, the feudal system should be ended.
Machiavelli emerged as the scholar of emerging bourgeois class.

Like the church, Machiavelli held that nobility was also responsible for lack of unity in Italy. He
considered the feudal class as a threat to unity, obstacles in the path of the emergence of Italy as a
nation state & a parasite class. Hence, he never approved aristocracy. He proposed absolute monarch
for the societies where people are corrupt and republicanism where people are virtuous.

The merits of republicanism are the collective wisdom used in making laws and people take the
responsibility. However, weakness of republicanism is slow decision-making. Thus, for Aristotle, the
polity is the best practicable form of govt. & for the Machiavelli, such system is an ideal state. He frankly
asserted that duty towards one’s own country overrides all other duties and scruples.

ASSESSMENT OF MACHIAVELLI AS A THINKER.

“Machiavelli as a child of his time.”

Every thinker is a child of his times. This description suits Machiavelli the most. In the words of Harold
Laski, Machiavelli was truly the child of Renaissance. Machiavelli belonged to the time when medieval
age was coming to an end & modern age was to start. He belonged to Italy, which was the seat of
Renaissance. Renaissancsymbolizesze revivalism of the spirit of inquiry which was the characteristics
feature of the ancient Greek. The spirit of inquiry let renaissance intellectuals to question the existing
way of life-based on religion. The core philosophy of renaissance was humanism. If we look at the
political works before Machiavelli such works were not free from the influence of religion. It was for the
first time, in the works of Machiavelli we see the political theory based on human nature.

Renaissance led to the emergence of other social-political movements and reformation. The spirit of
Protestantism is evident in Machiavelli when he restricts the role of religion & makes separation b/w
church and state. This was the time when the secular state was emerging and Machiavelli was known as
the father of European secularism. At the same time, we see the beginning of scientific revolution & rise
of capitalism. Machiavelli’s description of self-seeking & materialist man reflects the tendencies of his
times. Machiavelli emerges as the advocate of emerging bourgeoisie class.

Machiavelli’s political theories were not developed in a systematic manner, they were mainly in the
form of remarks upon situations. He belonged to the time when nation-state, capitalization &
nationalization were emerging in Europe. Machiavelli also gives priority to the nation-state & national
interest. Machiavelli’s suggestion for imperialist foreign policy coincides with the beginning of
geographical explorations. Thus, it is appropriate to call Machiavelli as a child of his times.
“Machiavelli was narrowly dated & located” – Sabine

Sabine has questioned the universal-ism & transcendentalism of Machiavelli’s thought. According to
Sabine, Machiavelli’s thinking in general & w.r.t. religion & politics is too much shaped by the
circumstances prevailing in Italy during his times. Had he belonged to some other time & space then his
assessments would have been different. Machiavelli was also criticized by other political commentators
who believed that Machiavelli had the partial understanding of politics & human nature. Machiavelli was
deductive and has used history in a selective manner.

It is true that Machiavelli was too much influenced by Italy of his time & was deductive but still it is
wrong to reject the universal & transcendental values of Machiavelli’s thought. If Machiavelli is partially
correct, it means he is not entirely wrong. Kautilya who belonged to different era also had similar
opinions on human nature like Machiavelli.

Machiavelli has influenced many later scholars & leaders. He is a source of inspiration for leaders like
“Mao Zedong”(Chinese leader from the communist party) & theorist and scholars like Morgenthau, who
is known as the father of the school of realism in International relations & one of the major influences
on U.S foreign policy. We can even see the influence of Machiavelli on behavioural political scientists.
We can’t undermine the importance of Machiavelli as a thinker and with Machiavelli begins the age of
realism.

COMPARISON B/W KAUTILYA and MACHIAVELLI

The tradition to compare Kautilya & Machiavelli started by political scholars like Jaszi & Winternitz when
they were trying to find out the roots of realism, even Pt. Nehru, in his book, “Discovery of India” called
Kautilya as the Indian Machiavelli. Kautilya belonged to 3rd century B.C. Kautilya’s famous book
Arthashastra was written about in 320 BC. It was 1st discovered by R.Shama Shastry & translated into
English for the 1st time in 1915.

Henry Kissinger in his recent book, “World order” has mentioned that “Arthashastra” is a combination of
ideas of Machiavelli and Clausewitz, reading Arthasastra challenged the false notion of the intellectual
divide b/w east and west.

Max Weber held that Kautilya is more Machiavellian than Machiavelli is. Machiavelli’s prince is harmless
in comparison to Kautilya’s king.

The similarities b/w Kautilya and Machiavelli can be enumerated as follows:

Both have similar concerns. – Kautilya was also concerned with the lack of utility & mal-governance
during his time which made the subcontinent vulnerable to foreign invasions.

Both are looking for a political entrepreneur who can establish order & security.

Both have the pessimistic view of human nature & suggest the policy of force. But it’s to be noted that
politics in India used to be known as “Dandaniti”.

Both support imperialist foreign policy & suggest prince create opportunities for the material well-being
of his subjects.

Both permit the use of religion for political purpose.

Thus, there are many similarities b/w the two, however, they differ from each other in one significant
way. That is, Kautilya representing Indian tradition never allows the king to go above the “Dharma”
whereas Machiavelli’s prince is above the religion. Machiavelli’s prince does not need directions from
the church fathers whereas Kautilya’s king is not free from the guidance of Brahmans. Prince in
Machiavelli sets the standard of morality in statecraft but the king in Kautilya should act as per
Dharmasastra.

Was Machiavelli anti-religion?

Certainly not, like Karl Marx, he rather tells the utility of the religion. He only wants that religion should
not be an obstacle in the path of national interests. He tells that religion can be used as a disciplinary
force.

Was Machiavelli “Immoral”?

He should not be treated as immoral though we can treat him as ‘amoral’. He does not want ordinary
citizens to be immoral nor prince to be immoral in his personal life. As far as the question of national
interests is concerned he believes that neither morality nor religion should be the obstacle. He gave the
idea of dual morality in politics. The yardstick of the politics is that “End justifies the means”.

Should Machiavelli be treated as the first modern thinker?

Well, Machiavelli’s status as a 1st modern thinker remains contested. For many scholars, Hobbes should
be treated as the 1st modern thinker. Machiavelli was the child of his time. He belonged to the age
when medievalism was coming to an end and modern age was to start. There is a definite brick from
medieval when Machiavelli separates church & state. However, he belonged to the time when all
features of modern age have not come into existence. He is critique of feudalism & supporter of nation
state. But he could not give the complete theory of working of modern nation state. Hence, Machiavelli
is called as non-medieval and a-modern.

Explain how the application of Machiavelli’s imperial methods to human affairs Marks an important
state in the evolution of political science.

Political science is one of the oldest disciplines. We can trace the origin of discipline to ancient Greece.
Political science started its career as political philosophy. Initially, it was a branch of Ethics or philosophy.
Plato is known as the father of political philosophy who gave the theory of Ideas and suggested that it is
important to know the idea of governance. He further gave the theory of ideal state. Plato proposed the
method of dialectics to understand the idea. On the other hand, Aristotle’s discipline started developing
more practicable approach. However, during medieval times, discipline came under the shadow of
religion. It was being studied as the part of religious scholastic.

In the hands of Machiavelli, Political science for the 1st time developed its autonomous character.
Machiavelli emancipated politics from the clutches of religion & ethics. He established politics & political
enquiry by specific profession and specific discipline. He suggested that politics should be with the
reality of politics & that is power. In order to give his theory, he preferred empirical observation,
understanding of human psychology and behaviour. Thus, Machiavelli played an important role in the
evolutions of political science. We can see the influence of Machiavelli on behavioural political scientists
who attempted to introduce scientific methodology in politics.
Machiavelli was the first who gave the idea of secularism

Machiavelli is known as a father of modern political theory.

QUESTION BANK

Comment : “The prince must be fox and the lion at the same time,”

Comment : Power is an end in itself and he (Machiavelli) inquiries into the means that are best suited to
acquire, retain and expand power, thus separates power from morality, ethics, religion and metaphysics.

Comment : “Machiavelli’s political philosophy was narrowly located and narrowly dated.”

Discuss the importance of Machiavelli in the history of political thought. Is it correct to say that
Machiavelli’s theory is ‘narrowly located and narrowly dated”?

Draw parallels between Arthashastra tradition and the ‘Realist’ tradition represented by Machiavelli.

Explain how Machiavelli’s application of empirical method to human affairs marks an important stage in
the evolution of political science.

THOMAS HOBBES (1588-1679)

INTRODUCTION

Thomas Hobbes is one of the most colourful, controversial and important figures in the history of
western political thought.

In his lifetime, he was almost unanimously denounced for his alleged atheism, blasphemy and impiety
and was known as the Monster of Malmesbury.

The philosophical radicalism of the English utilitarian and the scientific rationalism of the French
Encyclopaedists incorporated in a large measure Hobbes’ mechanical materialism, his nominalism,
radical individualism and psychological egoism.

Hobbes is now generally regarded as the father of modern political science. It is he who for the first time
systematically expounded the absolutist theory of sovereignty and originated the positivist theory of law
which was perfected by the analytical jurists of the 19th and 20th centuries

From the Marxist point of view (Macpherson: 1962) Hobbes’ theory is seen to reflect the political
ideology of the initial stage of capitalist market society characterised by the doctrine of “possessive
individualism” and the ethics of cut-throat competition and self-aggrandisement. Karl Marx himself is
said to have remarked that “Hobbes was the father of us all.”
John Rawls thinks that Hobbes’ state of nature is the classic example of the “prisoner’s dilemma” of
game-theoretic analysis

Writers like Hampton, Kavka and Gauthier have examined Hobbes’ theory in the light of above remarks.

According to Michael Oakeshott, the basis of Hobbes’ politics was not scientific materialism but
philosophic rationalism, not a specific view of the nature of the world, but a particular notion of
philosophical knowledge.

From a broad philosophical perspective, the importance of Hobbes is perhaps his bold and almost
systematic attempt to assimilate the science of man and civil society to a thoroughly modern,
mathematical physical science corresponding to a completely mechanistic conception of nature. His
physiological egoism, his ethical relativism and his political absolutism are all supposed to follow
logically from the assumptions or principles underlying the physical world which primarily consists of
matter and motion, or rather matter in motion. Whether a straight way progress from geometry to
physics and then from physics to politics, psychology and ethics, is possible is another matter. It is,
however mainly a deductive system derived from materialistic premises that Hobbes understood his
philosophical enterprise and this is how generations of Hobbes scholars have interpreted him ever since.

The two observations of relevance comes here –

It should not be understood that Hobbes is the precursor of the modern empirical science of politics and
sociology which regards the methods of physical science as the proper model for political in the Mill’s
sense – Oakeshott.

Hobbes was strongly opposed to Bacon’s empirical and experimental method. His own method was
deductive and geometrical throughout. It was the resolutive-compositive method as developed in the
school of Padua and followed by Galileo and other natural scientists.

Despite Hobbes’ claim about the unity of his thought and its foundation in scientific materialism,
modern scholars have neither endorsed the supposed unity of his philosophy nor accepted the scientific
basis of his ethical and political theory.

Leo Strauss argued that his political theory was pre-scientific and was based on ‘humanist’ premises.

According to Michael Oakeshott, the basis of Hobbes’ politics was not scientific materialism but
philosophic rationalism, not a specific view of the nature of the world, but a particular notion of
philosophical knowledge. This line of thought culminated in the famous Taylor-Warrender thesis which
completely separated Hobbes’ mechanistic psychology from his ‘deontological’ ethics.

While Taylor found in Hobbes a proto-Kantian philosopher of duty for duty’s sake (1938).

Warrender places Hobbes squarely in the Natural Law tradition based on theistic metaphysics, deriving
the obligatory force of law from Divine Command (1958),

F.C. Hood likewise argued for the Divine Politics of Hobbes (1964).

It is true that Hobbes’ extremely pessimistic and unedifying view of human nature is not only highly
distorted and exaggerated but incompatible with the very idea of a civil society. But it is also a fact that,
as one perceptive writer puts it, such a lurid and extreme possible picture of the human condition
appears to be “a magnificent incarnation of an eternally recurrent form. . of error . . . that in some time
and places looks disconcertingly like the truth” – Anthony Quinton

A Magnum Opus Book – “Leviathan” published in 1651 is the according to Michael Oakeshott: “That is
the greatest, perhaps the sole, masterpiece of political philosophy in the English language”

Who is Leviathan? What Leviathan means? The State is Leviathan. Leviathan = Sea Monster.

The concern of the Hobbes: end the anarchy & to establish Order in the society.

Why end the Anarchy? Wherever there is Anarchy, there is no security of life & property. The life of man
is nasty, poor, brutish and short.

Being prematurely born and belonged to the troubled phase of British History & Witnessed the Civil
War in Britain (England) which is known as “Puritan Revolution” of 1641. He stated that “I and fear were
born together”.

Conflicts b/w the capitalists and the reformists.

Conflicts b/w those who favour king and who favoured republicanism

This period was full of Chaos, Anarchy and bloodshed.

He is also the thinker of emerging Bourgeoisie class. It is to be noted that capitalism can’t flourish in the
state of Anarchy. Hence capitalist supported prince who can end anarchy and establish order.

Initially, capitalist favoured state-absolutism.

He also gives justification of the absolute authority of the state.

An Overview of Puritan Revolution :

PERSPECTIVE OF HOBBES AS A THINKER

He is also a scholar of emerging Bourgeoisie class that’s why we will see the justification of materialism,
utilitarianism and individualism in Hobbes. Therefore, Macpherson called Hobbes’ as “scholar of
possessive individualism.”

Possessive individualism means propertied class. The philosophy which suggests that the possessions of
man are entirely because of his own efforts. Society has played no role and hence he doesn’t need to
pay back to the society.

Hobbes is Materialist & Supporter of individualism. He believes that man is individualistic by nature &
social only out of necessity.

He was a utilitarian thinker.

The philosophy that talks about pain & pleasure. It is a dominant philosophy of Britain. Utilitarianism is
considered as the philosophy of common man.

He belonged to the social contract tradition → State is created by man.

Social Contract tradition: it is the origin of the state. In medieval times, the theory of defining origin &
rights of the state was prevalent. According to which, the state was created by God. Social contract
theory suggests that state is created by man, hence man is prior to the state. Hence for them, the state
is a machine and their theory is known as the mechanistic theory of the state.

Note -Organic theory of state = It treats state as natural and organism like Plato & Aristotle.

METHODOLOGIES

He belonged to the age of Science & hence his political theory would gain acceptability only when it’s an
outcome of the scientific method. Hence, he tried to adopt the scientific method. He used physics,
geometry & psychology.

His methods include mechanical materialism, nominalism, radical individualism and psychological
egoism.

Nominal-ism = Where language shapes the reality. Truth is a function of language. Just like scientists,
political science can also develop such language.

He was influenced by “Descartes”, who suggested ‘how the scientific method can be applied in social
science.

After meeting Descartes, Gassendi and Galileo he became convinced that everything including man and
society, morals and politics could be explained on the basis of laws of motion.

Kepler’s laws of planetary motion and Galileo’s laws of falling bodies made a deep impact in his mind.

He returned to England and completed in 1640 his first important philosophical work called the Element
of Law.

He defines human beings as a matter comprising of mass and energy

How to approach Political Science scientifically?

He proposed the following steps :

Observe the complex phenomena

Break the phenomena into elemental parts

Then establish the relation

Give the theory.

Hobbes used Geometry because it is logically consistent. Hobbes’s method is known as “Resolutive –
compositive”.
According to Hobbes, since man is a part of universe and universe is made up of matter. Man is also
made of matter. He describes the man as a mass in the state of motion.

Applying the method of Descartes, he suggests that to understand the complex political phenomena we
need to reach to its elemental part i.e. the Human mind or brain. Like all other things in the universe,
the brain is also made up of particles. Particles are in the state of motion and remain in it. Once motion
stops it means life ends or death.

Hobbes did not believe in the teleological understanding of the universe as suggested by Greek scholars,
nor he believed in theological explanation of the universe. Like Physicians of that time where different
processes were happening in nature and there was no purpose behind. Similarly, the movement is
happening in mind, in response to external stimulus, the motion of particles either move towards it, we
call it an inclination, or aversion, i.e. far from it.

Political Phenomena→ Behaviour of individual i.e. controlled by the mind. The brain is made up of mass
& energy and responses to the external stimuli. There are particles which are always moving around in
it. It shows the inclination or love and aversion or dislikes to the things we love or enjoy and the things
we hate respectively.

Thus, there is two basic emotion in human mind, Love & Aversion. Love is produced by the things which
give us pleasure. Thus, all human actions are guided by pleasures & pain. Pleasure & pain are purely
personal experiences. Man can’t comprehend the pleasure & pain of another person. Hence man is self-
centred or individualistic.

THEORY OF SOCIAL CONTRACT

This theory comes as the solution prescribed by the Hobbes from the original, pre-political human
condition.

It is Description of Human nature.

Hobbes represented the psychology of the emerging Bourgeoisie class. According to Hobbes, man is
utilitarian by nature and hence materialistic and possessive by nature and individualist in nature as well.
Man is also insecure and fearful by nature.

“I and fear were born together”

Hobbes is not only one of the greatest political philosophers but one of the best authors produced by
the English race. His book “Leviathan” is considered as the masterpiece in the English Literature. He has
explained his political theory and the logic of origin of the state by metaphorically relating with the
incident of his life. His mother gave him premature birth out of the fear of Spanish naval invasion on
England. Hence, he said that I and fear were born together.

He implies that man is insecure by nature. He lays the foundation of authority in the fearful nature of
man. We see continuity b/w him and Machiavelli. Machiavelli could not give the philosophical basis for
the materialism, individualism and fearful nature of man. Hobbes using “resolutive-compositive”
method has shown that man is utilitarian by nature. All human actions are shaped by pleasure and pain.

Life is the biggest source of pleasure and death is the biggest source of pain moreover because it ends
the possibility of pleasure. Since man is individualistic by nature man can’t live social life on its own.
Hence man created the state for the sake of preservation of life. The most important duty of the state is
to protect the right to life. Right to self-preservation i.e. the right to life is a most sacred right which
even state can’t take except according to the procedure established by law.

CRITICISM

He represented the psychology of emerging Bourgeoisie class and his description of human nature is
deductive. He also gives a partial view of human nature.

State of nature under social contract:

Hypothetical concept to show that how our life will be if the state is absent and man is left alone to live
his life naturally i.e. entirely as per his human nature.

“In the state of nature, the life of man is nasty, poor, brutish & short, In the state of nature there is no
scope for art, letter, culture, industry.”

“Life of man in the state of nature is a state of war of all against all.”

“The life of man is ceaseless & perpetual desire for power after power which ends only with his death”

“The objective of man’s desire is not to enjoy once & only for one instant of time but to enjoy forever
and to fulfil his future desire.”

Hobbes’s state of nature is influenced by his observations during the civil war in England. He gives the
pessimistic view of the state of nature. If a man is by nature, individualistic, then such a man is left alone
and will not be able to lead a good life on his own. The state of nature will be the state of Anarchy.
Wherever there is Anarchy, there is no security of life or property. When life is not secure there is hardly
any scope for better life. No scope for industry, civilization, art and culture. Hence, the life of man in the
state of nature becomes nasty, poor, brutish and short. The reason for such a state of life is the
utilitarian nature of man. Man wants to seek the things that give him pleasure. Different people get
pleasure in different things.

Power implies economic/physical or political. Since everyone desires power, it creates the dilemma of
unlimited desires and limited resources. Hence, a man enters the conflict with the other person, a
situation of war arises.

To secure pleasure, man has to depend on the power, in the absence of the state. One person will feel
secure only when he has more power than the others. This creates a vicious cycle of insecurity. Thus, “A
man goes for the continuous search for power after power which ends only with his life”. In simple
words, “End of desire is the end of life.”

Why man enters into the social contract? The state of nature is painful. Man is utilitarian by nature
hence man will try to avoid the painful situation of anarchy by creating the state.

The process of the social contract: It is a contract of all with all.

What’s the contract? “I’ll give up all my rights which I had in the state of nature to the state on the
condition that you also give up all of your rights to the state“.

In the state of nature, every person is Sovereign. There are no limitations on his powers. They have
transferred all their rights i.e., their sovereignty to the 3rd party which is State. Now the “State” is
Sovereign.

Powers of the State: State emerges as Sovereign i.e. supreme power and man is powerless in front of
the state. The state enjoys the Absolute powers.

T&C of the social contract :

Parties to the contract

It is a contract among the people.

The state is not the party to the contract. It’s a 3rd party, the beneficiary of the contract.

There are no obligations on the state except one

All obligations are for individuals entering into the contract.

What’re the obligations on the state? To ensure the right to life.

But why? It’s for the self-preservation or for the security of life that man has created state and has
transferred all his rights to the state.

What State is now supposed to do? To establish Such conditions so that people can enjoy their right to
life. To punish those who attempt to take the life of the others. It can’t deprive any person of his right to
life except according to the procedure established by law.

Right to life is the most sacred right. But why? Because it is a gift of God to man. So, every person has
right to preserve his life. Every person has a right to self-defence. The contract is of “All with all”, no one
is left alone and out of it.

“I’ll give up all my rights which I had in the state of nature to the state on the condition that you also
give up all of your rights to the state”.

“I agree to give up my rights on the condition that you agree to give up all of your rights to this assembly
of man”

The state of nature and the natural rights before Social Contracts

Hobbes’ concept of the state of nature and natural rights is the starting point of all social contract
theories.

The concept of the state of nature i.e., human condition prior to the formation of civil society, is derived
from the nature of man, his basic psycho-physical character, his sensations, emotions, appetites and
behaviour. Like all other things in nature, man is primarily a body governed by the law of motion which
permeates the entire physical world. According to Hobbes’ there are two kinds of motion in animals

vital motion: automatic movement of the physiological mechanism which goes on within our organism
from birth to death without our being conscious of it such as digestion, excretion, breathing etc.

voluntary motion: fancied in our minds and is caused by the impact of external stimuli on our sense
organs which produces phantasms in the brain and also initiates internal motion that is carried through
the nerves to the seat of vital motion that is the heart.

From these basic motions or endeavour, other emotions like hope, diffidence, glory, courage, anger,
benevolence etc. are derived. Pleasure and pain are related to desire and aversion as their necessary
complements. Imagination and memory are both sensations, imagination being the decaying sensation,
memory the recollection of past sensation. Deliberation is the succession of desires and aversion in the
mind and will is the last stage of deliberation that ensues in action. There is no free will and no conflict
between freedom and necessity. Good is what we desire, and evil is that which we shun.
The predominant passions of desire and aversion are the root cause of conflict in the state of nature
according to Hobbes.

Competition for goods of life becomes a struggle for power because without power one cannot retain
what one has acquired. Hence Hobbes says that “in the state of nature, we find three principal causes of
quarrel.

First, competition;

second, diffidence;

third, glory.

The first, make the men invade for gain; the second for safety; and the third, for reputation”

As Oakeshott states, “It appears that what is central to Hobbes’s’ psychology is not hedonism but
searches for power and glory, riches and honour. Power is, of course, the central feature of Hobbes’s’
system of ideas.”

“Man is a complex of power; desire is the desire for power, pride is illusion about power, honour
opinion about power, life the unremitting exercise of power and death the absolute loss of power”

The state of nature is a war of every man against every man in which the life of man is “Solitary, poor,
nasty, brutish and short”.

In this state, there can be no morality, justice, industry, and civilisation. In this state, however, there is a
right of nature, the natural right of every man to everything, even to one another’s life.

Here we are far away from the Aristotelian conception of the state as natural to man, the state as
logically prior to man and, teleologically, his natural destination

The concept of natural right is the: most important contribution of Hobbes to modern political theory.

The essential point in Strauss’ exposition of Hobbes is that Hobbes makes a clear-cut distinction
between right and might without at the same time identifying right with the traditional doctrine of
morality. Strauss does insist that Hobbes’s theory is moralistic as against naturalistic or utilitarian, but he
is a morality of a special kind.

But it must be said that on this point Hobbes is neither clear nor consistent. He sometimes equates
natural right with power, sometimes with an absence of obligations, and still, on other occasions, he
regards it as liberty to do that which right reason prescribes. The word is also used in a sense in which
one’s right implies other men’s duty.

The paradox of natural right, as Hobbes conceives it, is that in the state of nature it remains highly
precarious because the very conditions in which it is claimed and, in civil society, it touches the vanishing
point, that is, it survives simply as the right to life which even the sovereign cannot touch except in
extraordinary conditions
Status of man before contract:

Before contract everyone was sovereign. All persons were having absolute freedom to do what one
wishes. Since everyone was sovereign it resulted into a state of Anarchy.

Whether man has any right in the state of nature? The absolute right of freedom is to do what he
wanted to do.

What was the real state of enjoyment of rights in the state of nature? Practically, no one had any rights
because in the state of nature, “Might is right“. Only those who were powerful could enjoy rights in the
given contexts.

Hobbes is not the supporter of natural rights. For him, natural rights will result in chaos i.e. disorder &
lawlessness. He would prefer order over rights. He believed in the theory of legal rights. According to
him, the state is the real source of rights rather than nature. Natural rights are nothing but power.

In the social contract, man has transferred all his rights except the right to self-preservation. Thus, the
state represents collective sovereignty. State emerges as sovereign. The source of all rights.

Can there be two sovereigns in a territory? No, there can be only one i.e. state.

FUNCTIONS OF STATE

To formulate the laws for the protection of life i.e. legislative

Enforcement of law by executives i.e. executive

Punishment of those who break the laws i.e. judiciary

Thus, Hobbes create a “Police State”.

CONCEPT OF LAW

Sovereignty, according to Hobbes, is absolute, indivisible, inalienable and perpetual. It is not limited
either by the rights of the subjects or by customary and statutory law. Sovereign is of course obliged to
act according to Natural Law, but he alone is the interpreter of this law and none of his actions can be
challenged because it is violative of reason and justice. Justice consists in acting in accordance with
promises made, and the sovereign has made no promise. Hence his actions cannot be called unjust or
injurious. In relation to this subject, the sovereign is always in the state of nature and enjoys all his
natural rights. No one can complain that sovereign is acting wrongly because everybody has authorised
him to act on his behalf his actions are the actions of his subjects and nobody can rightly complain
against his own action. Sovereign has absolute right to declare war and make peace, to levy taxes and
impose penalties. He is the ultimate source of all administrative, legislative and judicial authority. Law,
properly speaking, “Law is a command of Sovereign” i.e. Law has the power to punish who do not obey.
Why Hobbes said that “Law is a command of the sovereign”? There was confusion in medieval times
because of multiple centres of authority. People were under multiple sources of law. For capitalism,
clarity of law was needed. Hobbes provided the clarity that the law in the proper sense is one which is
given by sovereign. He does not put natural law, customary law or religious law in a definition of law.

Another feature of the law is fear of punishment.

Why lawbreaker must be punished? Since man is selfish by nature, he will observe the law till he finds it
useful to him. In case, his interest is solved by the definition of law he will be tempted to do so. If one
person breaks the law & goes unpunished other persons will do the same thing. Hence, we will go back
to the state of Anarchy. Not following the law of state means, asserting as if sovereign. He can have his
own law but there can’t be more than one sovereign.

To him it is the reason, not will, that makes law obligatory. In civil society, Natural Law does not
disappear; it is assimilated to civil law

ON THE LAWS OF NATURE

Hobbes says that the “Laws of nature oblige in foro interno : that is to say, they bind to a desire they
shall take place; but in foro externo; that is to say, putting them in an act, not always.” Even if one
intends to abide by the law of nature, fear and distrust of others impel him to take preemptive action as
the dominant strategy to ward off possible danger. This situation is exemplified in what is nowadays
called Prisoner’s Dilemma.

Adam smith’s estimate of Hobbes’ theory has been widely accepted for about two centuries – that
repulsive doctrine “Offensive to all sound moralists, as it supposed that there was no natural distinction
b/w right and wrong, that those were mutable and changeable and depended on the mere arbitrary will
of the civil magistrate“.

The exact opposite view, known as the Taylor thesis, was propounded in the mid-20th century,
according to which Hobbes’ ethical theory is a “Strict deontology” of the Kantian type.

Hobbes says, “The laws of nature are immutable and eternal; for injustice ingratitude, arrogance, pride,
inequity, acceptation of persons, and the rest can never be made lawful. For it can never be that war
shall preserve life, and peace destroys it.”

Another problem regarding the hypothetical nature of laws of nature is the “Prisoner’s Dilemma matrix
of the game theory”. Which states that Under conditions of uncertainty and in the absence of a
sovereign power to control the behaviour of men, the dominant motive and strategy of a rational agent
who wants to maximise his payoff would be to take a pre-emptive action and attack whatever the other
party might do. For if the other party attacks, one who attacks first would be decidedly in a superior
position, and if it does not attack, the first invader would easily be able to steal a march over his rival.
But if this analysis is correct there is no possibility of men coming to an agreement to relinquish their
natural rights unless there is a common superior to keep them in awe. But the paradox is that this
common superior cannot be created except by a covenant.

According to Hobbes, “Commonwealth is one person, of whose acts a great multitude, by mutual
covenants one with another, have made themselves every one the author, to the end he may use the
strength and means of them all, as he shall think expedient, for their peace and common defence.” This
commonwealth is the sovereign, the unity of all in one person.

“Covenants without swords are nothing but words”

Covenants = contracts or agreements.

Above statement comes from Hobbes’s theory of Law. According to Hobbes, the law is the command of
the sovereign. Sovereign has the power to punish those who do not obey the law. Not obeying law
means, ‘acting smart or if we are sovereign’, there can’t be more than one sovereign. Just because of
few persons everyone can’t be pushed back to the state of anarchy. Hobbes has emphasised on the
power of punishment of sanctity (holiness) of contract.

To prove that law without the power of punishment should not be treated as law in a proper sense he
compares the law made by the state with the law of nature. In the state of nature, there was the law of
nature, which is understood by reason. The man has the reason but only to the extent that he can fulfil
his interest & not more than that. Just on the basis of reason, a man could not have led the social life in
the state of nature. It was not enough to check the state of war. Law of nature has no power of
enforcement. It is better if we call natural law as articles of peace or “Counsels of Prudence”.

If followed there will be a peace. But man, neither has enough reason nor there is a disciplinary force in
the state of nature. Hence the law in the proper sense is the law made by the state.

CRITICAL EVALUATION

Hobbes is quite correct as we can see that Law carries no meaning without the power of enforcement.

The best example of this is International Law which is a weak law because it does not have the power of
enforcement.
Note – State is Leviathan, representing the power of all. The only state has a monopoly to make law and
to employ the police power. Thus, the state has a monopoly on coercion. Citizens are not allowed to
keep private police or army.

LIBERTY

“Liberty is where Law is silent”

Types of Liberty: meaning

Negative liberty absence of state’s interference. A person is free when the state is absent.

Positive Liberty Where man is free in the presence of state

Hobbes is a scholar of order. He fears excessive liberty which results into Anarchy. Since man is
utilitarian by nature, man will prefer order over liberty. Hobbes create an absolute state. Once people
have transferred all their rights to the state, state emerges as an absolute. In the state of nature, man
has absolute liberty. However, when the state comes into existence, man has the liberty to do what he
wants only to the extent permitted by the sovereign. Wherever state has not made law, an individual
has liberty. The individual has no liberty where the state has made laws. An individual can’t take the
liberty of not following the law. The state has the power to punish those. There can be only one
Sovereign. Life of all people can’t be pushed back into the state of anarchy just because of few persons.

RIGHT TO RESISTANCE

People have right to resist the state only in 1 condition that is if the state fails to protect the life or takes
the life of a person in an arbitrary manner.

However, to resist is to commit what may be called a performative contradiction.

As Sabine puts it: “The aspiration for more justice and right seemed to him (Hobbes) merely an
intellectual confusion. Hatred of tyranny seemed their dislike of a particular exercise of power, and
enthusiasm for liberty seemed either sentimental vapouring or outright hypocrisy

ON RELIGION

He does believe in the freedom of religious belief and knows full well that in matters of conscience man
cannot be coerced. But he says that the overt expression and practice of religion in the form of worship
and propagation of faith are matters of public concern and come under the jurisdiction of the political
sovereign. The belief in the church as the Kingdom of God he regarded as a cardinal error, as irrational
and pernicious as the metaphysical notion of non-material substances which was responsible for much
of the obscurantism and superstition in public life.
His Nominalist theory of knowledge made a clean sweep of all abstract notions, of ‘essences” and
“ghosts” which were mere figments of imagination and which misled men into the “Kingdom of
Darkness” and divided them into warring factions and groups.

A church is nothing more than a corporation governed by commonwealth like any other association that
comes under it. No profession of faith is lawful unless it is sanctioned by the sovereign. Hobbes was
highly critical of Papacy with its claim to exercise control over the subjects of a sovereign state in
ecclesiastical matters and he ridiculed it as “the ghost of the deceased Roman Empire, stirring crowned
upon the grave thereof.”

Assessment of Hobbes as a thinker

Two aspects of Hobbes’ thought require special attention – his absolutism and his individualism. It is
often asserted that the two are logically correlated. It is based on his radical individualism that Hobbes
builds his theory of political absolutism. And following this line of thought, it is also claimed that
Hobbes’s political theory is quintessentially a theory of liberalism. Hobbes’s emphasis on natural right, it
is said, distinguishes him from the classical natural Law theorists.

Natural rights is the basis of Hobbes’ theory, he starts with natural rights of the individuals but severely
restricts them to find a viable civil society. He explicitly says, “The right of nature, that is, the natural
liberty of man, may by the civil law be abridged, and restrained; may, the end of making laws, is no
other, but such restraint; without which there cannot possibly be any peace. And the law was brought
into the world for nothing else, but to limit the natural liberty of men, in such manner, as they might not
hurt, but assist one another, and join against a common enemy”.

Natural rights lead to war and natural law brings peace and security.

For Hobbes, a just man has an innate disposition to perform just action, and the Laws of Nature always
oblige in foro interno, though not always in foro externo.

Right is nothing but the liberty of each man to use his “natural faculties according to right reason”.
Hobbes’s “Reply to the Fool” that it is not rational to renege on one’s promise is a sufficient refutation of
the amoralist individualism of Dworkin and Mackie. Hobbes’s theory of political obligation, despite its
strong non-traditional, utilitarian bias, has a more solid philosophical and ethical foundation than the so-
called rights-based morality of modem liberalism.
“Leviathan is useless as a book of politics and fruitless as a book of history” – Vaughan

Hobbes is also one of the most criticized scholars. His book was even banned by the Church. His book
was burned during his life. In a report submitted to the British parliament, mentioned that Leviathan is
full of poison. His contemporaries have criticized his political theory as useless. However, it’s wrong to
say so. Leviathan is not only the masterpiece of English literature but also masterpiece in political
theory.

Without Hobbes’s Leviathan, it is not possible to understand the principle’s governing the modern state.
Only in Hobbes, we get to know the complete theory of state’s sovereignty which is the core concept of
the modern state.

It is also not correct to call Leviathan as fruitless as a book of history because the purpose of Hobbes was
not to give an anthropological account of the origin of the state by using the social contract tradition of
the origin of the state. He wanted to show the purpose of the state, in a logical manner. Karl Marx, who
is considered as the most influential political thinker has acknowledged that Hobbes was “father of all of
us”.

Absolute state in Hobbes: State has all powers & individual has no power, it’s immaterial as to what
form of state can be there. It can be Monarchy, democratic or etc. However, his personal preference
was monarchy as he felt that only strong Monarch can curb Anarchy, however, he does not recommend
Monarchy.

“Hobbes is greatest of all individualist”

Individualist those who believe that man is individualistic by nature i.e. state is the creation of man and
not the natural one.

There are two types of Individualists:

Methodological: those who built the political theory on the individualistic nature of man.

Normative : Those who consider that being individualist is not wrong.

Hobbes is an individualist in both senses, i.e. methodological and normative sense. He is the 1st person
to logically establish that man is individualistic by nature.
It is for the protection of individual that state comes into existence. He gives absolute rights to the state
for the sake of protection of the right to life. He gives right to resist the state in case state fails to protect
the life of the individual.

Superficially, it may appear contradictory that he is individualist as well as absolutist. However, deeper
analysis shows that he is most logically consistent thinker, there is no contradiction in his individualism
and absolutism. Since man is extremely individualist there is no other way to control excessive self-
interests in man without the absolute authority of the state.

“Hobbes as 1st modern thinker”

OR

“Hobbes relieved sovereignty completely from the disabilities which Bodin had inconsistently left
standing”- Sabine.

It is said that While Jean Bodin was standing on the gate of modernity it was Hobbes who jumped inside
the gate.

The position of Hobbes as a 1st modern thinker is contested by Machiavelli & Jean Bodin. Machiavelli is
not treated as the 1st modern thinker because he could not give a complete theory of the working of a
nation-state. Though he is acknowledged as the non-medieval thinker. If Hobbes is Galileo of political
science then Machiavelli is the Coper Nickus. Unfortunately, Jean Bodin is the 2nd person in this race. He
was the 1st person to give the theory of sovereignty of the state. Bodin defines sovereignty as the
supreme power of the state over citizens and subjects.

However, Bodin could not give a complete theory. He could establish Supremacy of the state only in
secular sphere and not in the religious sphere. As far as the religious sphere is concerned, he believed
that Church is supreme. He puts the limitation of religious laws and customary laws on the laws made by
the state. It was Hobbes who for the 1st time established that there can’t be more than 2 sovereigns
and brought Church even under the state. Hence, Hobbes is the first modern thinker and obviously the
first one to incorporate scientific approach.

“Hobbes as an individualist”
“End of obedience”

“Liberty or freedom signifies properly the absence of opposition in external impediments of motion” –
Hobbes

Central Theme should be = Concept of liberty & relation b/w liberty and law.

Hobbes defines liberty as the negative liberty which is the Absence of external interference of law. Man
is free only where the law is silent. The man has no freedom if the state has made no laws. The man has
to act according to the law otherwise man will be punished because not observing the sovereign law
implies that person is trying to assert sovereignty by recognition. There can’t be more than one
sovereign. Since man is selfish and will be tempted to break the law in his self-interest but for the self-
interest of few, life of everyone can’t be risked or pushed back to anarchy. Further, in above statement,
Hobbes make a distinction b/w freedom or liberty in proper sense & in an improper sense. For Hobbes,
liberty in the proper sense is just absence of external interference. Liberty should not be confused with
the power of capacity. Power and capacity are internal to man. He gives the example of water in a
vessel. Water is not free to flow because of the walls are impediments here. Similarly, we can say that a
sick person in a bed is unable to move not because he has been denied freedom of movement but
because he lacks the capacity to move. Thus, being powerless and being not free is not the same. Power
is internal characteristics of man and state is external. The debate b/w these two concepts of liberty
remain inconclusive.

QUESTION BANK :

“Hobbes starts as an individualist but ends as an absolutist”

Comment : “Hobbes relieved sovereignty completely from the disabilities which Bodin had
inconsistently left standing” – Sabine

Consider : “Liberty or freedom, signifies properly the absence of opposition in external impediments of
motion” – Hobbes

“Hobbes as an individualist”. Comment