Plato and Aristotle: Key Political Philosophies
What are Forms? Plato’s Explanation
Forms, according to Plato, are perfect, eternal, and unchanging ideals or archetypes that exist in a non-physical realm. They represent the true essence of things in the material world. For instance, while there may be countless physical chairs, the Form of a Chair is the perfect and immutable idea that defines all chairs. Physical objects in the material world are mere imperfect copies or reflections of these Forms.
Plato’s Theory of Forms
Plato’s Theory of Forms is central to his philosophy and is based on the idea that the physical world is not the ultimate reality. Instead, it is a shadow or imitation of a higher, non-material reality—the world of Forms.
- The Realm of Forms:
- This realm is eternal, unchangeable, and perfect. Forms exist here independently of human perception or physical objects.
- Examples include concepts like beauty, justice, goodness, and mathematical truths.
- The Physical World:
- It is transient, imperfect, and constantly changing.
- Objects in this world are imperfect copies of their corresponding Forms.
- The Relationship Between Forms and Physical Objects:
- Physical objects “participate in” or “imitate” their Forms.
- For example, a beautiful painting is beautiful because it partakes in the Form of Beauty.
Illustrative Example: The Form of a Circle
Imagine drawing a circle on paper. No matter how precise you are, the drawn circle will always have imperfections. However, the Form of a Circle represents the perfect circle that can only exist in the non-physical realm of Forms. This ideal circle serves as the standard by which all drawn circles are judged.
Plato’s Allegory of the Cave
To explain the theory, Plato uses the allegory of the cave. In this allegory:
- Prisoners in a cave see only shadows of objects cast on the wall.
- The shadows represent the physical world, while the objects casting them are akin to the Forms.
The journey of a prisoner escaping the cave and seeing the real objects symbolizes the philosopher’s ascent to understanding the Forms.
Criticism of the Theory
- Aristotle’s Critique: Aristotle questioned how Forms could exist independently and how they could interact with physical objects.
- Practical Limitations: Some argue that the theory is overly abstract and disconnected from the tangible world.
Conclusion
Plato’s Theory of Forms emphasizes the distinction between appearance and reality. It provides a framework for understanding the eternal truths behind the ever-changing physical world. While it has faced criticism, it remains one of the most influential philosophical theories, shaping metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics.
Plato’s Views on Communism of Wives and Property
Plato’s concept of communism of wives and property is presented in his work The Republic. It is an essential part of his vision of the ideal state, aiming to eliminate personal interests and promote unity and harmony within the ruling class.
1. Communism of Wives:
- Plato proposed that in the guardian class (rulers and warriors), family structures should be abolished.
- Women and children should be held in common. Children would not know their biological parents, and parents would not know their offspring.
- The purpose was to eliminate nepotism, selfishness, and emotional attachments that could compromise the welfare of the state.
- Marriages and procreation would be regulated by the state to ensure the best offspring, much like a selective breeding program.
2. Communism of Property:
- Plato advocated that the guardian class should not own private property or wealth.
- All possessions would be communal, and guardians would live a simple, communal life supported by the state.
- This was to prevent greed, corruption, and division, ensuring that rulers focus solely on the interests of the state rather than personal gain.
Why Does Plato Consider This Important for the State?
- Elimination of Conflicts of Interest:
- Personal wealth and family ties can lead to corruption and favoritism. By abolishing private property and family, Plato believed rulers could make impartial decisions for the common good.
- Unity and Cohesion:
- Without private interests, the guardian class would function as a united entity, prioritizing the welfare of the state above all else.
- Focus on Duty:
- Guardians, freed from domestic and economic concerns, could devote themselves entirely to their responsibilities as rulers or warriors.
- Equality Among Guardians:
- The communal lifestyle ensures that no guardian is superior or inferior to another, fostering equality and mutual respect
Criticism of Plato’s Ideas
- Unnatural and Impractical:
- Critics argue that the abolition of family and private property is unrealistic and disregards natural human emotions and instincts.
- Suppression of Individual Freedom:
- Plato’s system is often criticized for being authoritarian, as it prioritizes the state over individual liberty.
- Economic Limitations:
- Without personal incentives, critics suggest that productivity and innovation may decline.
- Moral Concerns:
- Regulating marriages and procreation raises ethical questions about human autonomy and dignity
Conclusion
Plato’s ideas on communism of wives and property were intended to create a harmonious, just, and unified state. While visionary, these ideas are highly controversial and have sparked debates about their feasibility and ethical implications. Nonetheless, they reflect Plato’s commitment to an ideal society where the collective good outweighs individual interests.
Discuss Plato’s Theory of Justice
Plato’s theory of justice, as presented in The Republic, revolves around his vision of an ideal state. Justice, according to Plato, is not merely a legal concept but a principle of harmony that ensures the well-being of both the individual and society.
Key Elements of Plato’s Theory of Justice:
Justice in the State: Plato describes an ideal state divided into three classes:
- Rulers (Philosopher-Kings): They possess wisdom and are responsible for governing the state.
- Auxiliaries (Warriors): They protect the state and enforce the rulers’ decisions with courage.
- Producers (Farmers, Artisans, Merchants): They fulfill the economic needs of society, driven by moderation.
Justice, in this context, is achieved when each class performs its designated role without interfering with others. For instance, producers should not try to govern, and rulers should not engage in commerce.
Justice in the Individual: Plato draws a parallel between the structure of the state and the human soul, which he divides into three parts:
- Reason: Corresponding to rulers, it seeks truth and governs the soul.
- Spirit: Representing auxiliaries, it drives ambition and courage.
- Appetite: Linked to producers, it desires physical satisfaction and material needs.
Justice in an individual is achieved when reason governs, spirit supports reason, and appetite is controlled.
The Allegory of the Cave: Plato uses this allegory to explain the role of knowledge in achieving justice. In the cave, people see only shadows and mistake them for reality. Philosophers, however, escape the cave, understand the “Forms” (true reality), and return to guide others. Justice, therefore, depends on enlightened rulers.
Practical Implications: Plato emphasizes meritocracy, where individuals are assigned roles based on their abilities. This ensures a well-functioning society where everyone contributes according to their strengths.
Criticism:
- Plato’s theory has been criticized for being elitist, as it places power in the hands of a select few (philosopher-kings).
- Critics also argue that his rigid class structure undermines individual freedom and mobility.
Conclusion: Plato’s theory of justice is a profound attempt to understand the moral and political order. By linking justice to the harmony of the state and the individual, Plato provides a framework that continues to influence modern political thought.
Examine Plato’s Views on the Communism of Family and Property
In The Republic, Plato advocates for a radical form of communism for the ruling class, where family and property are abolished. This is meant to eliminate personal interests that could compromise the common good.
Key Aspects of Plato’s Communism:
Abolition of Private Property:
- Plato proposes that the ruling class (rulers and auxiliaries) should not own private property. Instead, they should share all resources.
- This ensures that rulers remain impartial and focus solely on the welfare of the state.
Abolition of Family:
- Plato suggests that the ruling class should not have private families. Children are to be raised collectively to eliminate familial biases and ensure equal treatment for all.
- Women and men in the ruling class are treated equally and can participate in governance and warfare.
Rationale:
- Plato believes that private property and family ties lead to selfishness and corruption.
- By abolishing them, rulers will prioritize the common good over personal gain.
Eugenics and Reproduction:
- Plato controversially advocates for controlled reproduction to produce the best offspring. Mating is to be arranged through a “lottery,” ensuring strong and capable rulers.
Importance for the State:
- Plato argues that communal living among the ruling class creates unity and eliminates conflict of interest.
- This system, he believes, ensures that rulers are guided by wisdom and justice rather than personal desires
Criticism:
- Aristotle criticized Plato’s communism, arguing that it undermines human emotions and the natural bonds of family.
- Modern critics view it as impractical and authoritarian, as it disregards individual freedoms.
Conclusion: While Plato’s communism is a visionary attempt to eliminate corruption, it is criticized for being overly idealistic and impractical. However, it reflects his commitment to ensuring justice and equality in governance.
The State Exists for the Sake of a Good Life
Aristotle, in his work Politics, emphasizes that the state is a natural institution created to help individuals achieve their highest potential and lead a good life.
Key Aspects of Aristotle’s Philosophy:
Purpose of the State:
- According to Aristotle, the state exists to promote the “good life” (eudaimonia), which is a life of virtue and moral excellence
- The state ensures that citizens have the resources, education, and opportunities to cultivate virtues.
The State as a Natural Institution:
- Aristotle argues that humans are “political animals” who naturally form communities.
- The state evolves from basic associations like families and villages, ultimately forming a polis (city-state).
Role of Virtue:
- Aristotle believes that living a virtuous life is the highest good.
- The state provides laws and education to guide citizens toward virtue.
Governance
- Aristotle favors a mixed constitution that balances the rule of the one (monarchy), the few (aristocracy), and the many (polity).
- This ensures stability and prevents tyranny.
Criticism of Plato:
- Aristotle rejects Plato’s idea of abolishing private property and family, arguing that they are essential for human happiness.
- He also criticizes Plato’s ideal state as too abstract and impractical.
The State and the Good Life:
- The state provides the framework for achieving eudaimonia through the cultivation of moral and intellectual virtues.
- Participation in political life is essential, as it helps individuals develop their potential
Criticism of Aristotle:
- Critics argue that Aristotle’s vision excludes certain groups (e.g., women, slaves, and non-citizens) from political participation.
- His emphasis on the polis may seem outdated in the context of modern
Conclusion: Aristotle’s idea that the state exists for the sake of a good life highlights the importance of moral and civic development. His vision remains influential in discussions on the role of the state in promoting individual and collective well-being.
How Does Machiavelli Understand Statecraft?
Machiavelli’s understanding of statecraft is rooted in a pragmatic and realistic approach to governance. Unlike the idealistic tradition of political philosophy before him, particularly Plato and Aristotle, who emphasized virtue and moral ideals, Machiavelli prioritized the practical necessities of maintaining power and stability. In The Prince, Machiavelli argues that a ruler must act decisively and, when necessary, unethically to secure their position. He famously states that “the ends justify the means,” meaning that moral considerations can be set aside if they conflict with the preservation of power or the state.
This was a stark departure from the traditional Western political philosophy that viewed rulers as moral agents who should align their actions with higher ethical principles. Machiavelli introduced realpolitik, emphasizing that political success often requires cunning, manipulation, and the ability to adapt to circumstances. He also championed the concept of virtù (a ruler’s skill, strength, and pragmatism) and fortuna (luck or chance), arguing that a successful ruler must skillfully navigate unpredictable events to achieve power.
His ideas marked a clear break from previous traditions because he rejected the notion that politics must conform to moral virtue. Instead, he viewed political power as an end in itself. This perspective laid the groundwork for modern political science, as Machiavelli was among the first to separate ethics from politics, focusing on what is rather than what ought to be.
Hobbes is Both an Individualist and an Absolutist
Thomas Hobbes, in his seminal work Leviathan, presents a political philosophy that combines individualism and absolutism in a unique manner. On the one hand, Hobbes is an individualist because he begins his political theory by analyzing human nature in the state of nature—a hypothetical condition where there is no government, laws, or authority. He describes individuals in this state as rational, self-interested, and driven by a desire for survival and personal gain. This focus on the individual as the fundamental unit of analysis aligns Hobbes with individualist thought.
However, Hobbes also argues that such unrestrained individualism in the state of nature leads to chaos, conflict, and a “war of all against all” because individuals, in pursuing their self-interests, are constantly in competition. To escape this state, individuals agree to a social contract, surrendering their natural freedoms to an all-powerful sovereign (the Leviathan) in exchange for security and order. This sovereign must have absolute power to enforce laws and ensure peace, as any division of authority would lead back to chaos.
Hobbes’ absolutism arises from his belief that only an undivided, omnipotent authority can prevent the destructive consequences of individualism. The sovereign, once established through the social contract, is not bound by moral or legal constraints, as their power derives from the consent of individuals who relinquish their rights.
In this way, Hobbes reconciles individualism and absolutism: the individual, through rational calculation, chooses to submit to absolute authority for self-preservation. While his political philosophy begins with individualist assumptions, it culminates in the advocacy of an absolute ruler as a necessary condition for peace and stability.
Explain the Origin of Inequality as Understood by Rousseau
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men, distinguishes between two types of inequality: natural inequality and moral/political inequality. Natural inequality arises from differences in physical attributes like age, health, and strength. Moral or political inequality, on the other hand, is a product of human society and institutions. Rousseau argues that in the state of nature, humans were free, equal, and self-sufficient. They led simple lives, motivated primarily by their basic needs and natural pity for others. Inequality began to emerge with the formation of society, particularly when people started to claim ownership of property. Rousseau famously states, “The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying ‘This is mine,’ and found people simple enough to believe him, was the true founder of civil society.”
The formation of civilization amplifies inequality because it introduces artificial hierarchies and dependencies. As humans began to compare themselves with others, feelings of pride, envy, and competition arose, leading to social distinctions and the accumulation of wealth by a few. The establishment of property rights, laws, and government further entrenched these inequalities by protecting the interests of the wealthy and powerful. Civilization, therefore, institutionalized inequality rather than reducing it, as laws were often tools for preserving privilege rather than promoting justice. Rousseau laments this progression, arguing that society has corrupted natural equality and freedom, replacing it with artificial disparities rooted in wealth, power, and status. While civilization brought advancements, it also widened the gap between individuals, leading to moral and political inequality
Rousseau’s General Will is Headless Leviathan of Hobbes
Rousseau’s concept of the General Will, introduced in The Social Contract, contrasts sharply with Hobbes’ Leviathan but also bears some similarities. Hobbes’ Leviathan refers to an absolute sovereign, who wields undivided power to enforce laws and maintain peace. The Leviathan is “headless” in Rousseau’s philosophy because Rousseau rejects the notion of a centralized, absolute authority and instead places sovereignty in the collective will of the people.
The General Will represents the collective interest or common good of society as a whole. Unlike Hobbes, Rousseau does not advocate for an external, singular ruler. Instead, sovereignty remains with the people, who act collectively to determine laws and governance. This makes the General Will more decentralized and participatory, lacking the singular “head” of Hobbes’ Leviathan. However, Rousseau’s General Will can be seen as “headless”.
Discuss Plato’s Theory of the Ideal State
Plato’s theory of the ideal state is presented primarily in his work The Republic, where he envisions a state that achieves justice, harmony, and the common good. Plato believed that the ideal state reflects the tripartite nature of the human soul and that justice arises when each part performs its proper role.
Characteristics of Plato’s Ideal State
- The Tripartite Structure:
Plato divides society into three classes, paralleling the three parts of the soul:
- Rulers/Philosopher-Kings (Reason): The rulers are wise, knowledgeable, and have undergone rigorous education. They are guided by reason and are best suited to govern because they seek the common good.
- Warriors/Auxiliaries (Spirit): The auxiliaries protect the state and maintain order. They possess courage and loyalty and support the rulers in implementing policies.
- Producers (Appetite): The working class includes farmers, artisans, and traders. They are responsible for providing the material needs of society but do not partake in governance.
- Justice:
Justice, according to Plato, means “everyone doing their own work.” Each class must perform its designated role without interfering in the roles of others. When rulers rule, auxiliaries defend, and producers provide, the state achieves justice and harmony.
- Education System:
- Plato emphasizes a rigorous and lifelong system of education to ensure that rulers and auxiliaries are properly trained. Education focuses on moral, intellectual, and physical development, and only the most capable individuals are chosen as rulers.
- Stages include music and gymnastics, followed by mathematics and philosophy.
- Education is essential to identify philosopher-kings who are fit to rule.
- Philosopher-Kings: Plato argues that only philosophers—those who have attained the highest knowledge of Forms (especially the Form of the Good)—are fit to rule. Philosophers understand the eternal truths and can govern with wisdom and justice.
The Communal Life:
- In the ideal state, the rulers and warriors live communally, sharing property, food, and even families. Plato advocates for the abolition of private property and family ties among these classes to prevent corruption, selfishness, and conflicts of interest.
The Role of Women:
- Plato’s ideal state was revolutionary for its time because he advocated for gender equality. He believed that women, like men, should receive the same education and could perform the roles of rulers, auxiliaries, or producers.
Censorship and Art:
- Plato proposes strict control over art, literature, and music to ensure that they promote virtues like courage, wisdom, and self-control. He criticizes works that may corrupt the morals of citizens.
Conclusion
Plato’s ideal state is a utopian vision where justice, wisdom, and order prevail. It aims to create a harmonious society by ensuring that each class performs its function effectively. However, critics argue that Plato’s vision is overly rigid, elitist, and authoritarian, as it sacrifices individual freedom for the sake of collective harmony.
Critically Examine Aristotle’s Classification of Constitutions
Aristotle’s classification of constitutions is a significant contribution to political theory, found in his work Politics. Aristotle sought to identify the various forms of government and evaluate them based on their ability to promote the common good. He classifies constitutions into two main categories: just (good) and unjust (bad) constitution
Aristotle’s Classification
- Just Constitutions (Rule for the Common Good):
- Monarchy (Rule by One): A monarchy is the rule of a single virtuous leader who governs in the interest of the people.
- Aristocracy (Rule by Few): Aristocracy refers to the rule of a group of virtuous individuals who prioritize the common good.
- Polity (Rule by Many): Polity is a mixed form of government that combines elements of democracy and oligarchy. It is considered the best practical form of government because it balances the interests of the rich and poor.
- Tyranny (Rule by One): Tyranny is the corrupt version of monarchy, where the ruler governs for their personal benefit rather than for the people.
- Oligarchy (Rule by Few): Oligarchy is the corrupt form of aristocracy, where the wealthy few exploit the state for their own interests.
- Democracy (Rule by Many): Democracy, in its corrupt form, involves mob rule, where the majority rules without regard for justice or the minority’s rights.
Key Features of Aristotle’s Classification
- The Role of Virtue: Aristotle emphasizes that a constitution’s success depends on the virtue and moral character of its rulers. Just constitutions prioritize the common good, while unjust constitutions serve the rulers’ self-interest.
- The Mixed Constitution: Aristotle praises the polity as the most stable and practical form of government. By combining elements of democracy and oligarchy, it ensures a balance of power and prevents corruption.
- Stability and Middle Class: Aristotle argues that a large and stable middle class is essential for political stability. In his view, the middle class is less likely to be corrupt and more capable of governing in a balanced manner.
Critical Examination
- Strengths:
- Aristotle’s classification is realistic and comprehensive, acknowledging the complexity of political systems.
- His emphasis on the middle class as a stabilizing force remains relevant in modern democracies.
- The idea of a mixed constitution inspired later thinkers, including Montesquieu and the framers of modern constitutions.
- Weaknesses:
- Aristotle’s preference for monarchy and aristocracy reflects an elitist bias, as he assumes that virtue is confined to the few.
- His criticism of democracy overlooks its potential for promoting equality and participation.
Evaluate the Main Features of Statecraft Detailed in Machiavelli’s Prince
In The Prince, Niccolò Machiavelli presents a pragmatic and often controversial guide to statecraft. His ideas reflect a sharp departure from the moralistic political philosophy of his predecessors, focusing instead on power, survival, and the realities of political life.
Main Features of Statecraft in The Prince
- The Ends Justify the Means: Machiavelli argues that rulers must prioritize the survival of the state above all else. While moral virtues are desirable, they can be abandoned if they conflict with political success. For Machiavelli, the end goal—maintaining power—justifies any means, including deceit, cruelty, or violence.
- Virtù and Fortuna:
- Virtù: A ruler’s strength, skill, and adaptability. Virtù is the ability to take decisive action and adapt to changing circumstances.
- Fortuna: Luck or fate. Machiavelli acknowledges that fortune plays a role in political success but insists that a skilled ruler can control and shape fortune through virtù.
- The Lion and the Fox: Machiavelli advises rulers to combine the strength of the lion with the cunning of the fox. A successful leader must be both forceful and shrewd, using power and deception as necessary.
- The Role of Fear: Machiavelli famously states, “It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.” He argues that while love is fickle, fear ensures obedience and stability. However, a ruler must avoid being hated, as this could lead to rebellion.
- The Maintenance of Power: emphasizes that rulers must eliminate threats to their power, including rivals and dissenters. He advises rulers to act swiftly and decisively to consolidate authority.
- Realpolitik: Machiavelli separates politics from morality, arguing that a ruler must focus on what is rather than what ought to be. Practical considerations take precedence over ethical ideals.
- War and Military Strength: Machiavelli views a strong military as essential for maintaining power and defending the state. He criticizes reliance on mercenaries and praises the use of citizen armies loyal to the ruler.
Conclusion
Machiavelli’s The Prince provides a practical and unsentimental guide to statecraft, emphasizing realism, adaptability, and the pursuit of power. While his ideas were criticized for promoting immorality, they laid the foundation for modern political science and the concept of realpolitik. Machiavelli’s insights remain relevant for understanding the complexities of leadership and governance.
Aristotle’s conception of justice can be put in one word called Phronesis.
Phronesis translates as practical wisdom that citizens of the polis must have.
Justice extends beyond mere personal virtue to encompass the rightness and
wrongness of actions within a societal context. For Aristotle, to act justly is
to act in accordance with the law. This gives the impression that Aristotle’s
understanding of justice is relativist and particularist in accordance with Hans
Kelsen’s understanding (will be discussed later). But his purely universalist
element of justice can be found in the principle of equity.
The principle of equity is a crucial aspect of Aristotle’s concept of justice.
Equity, according to Aristotle, demands that those who are equal in relevant
respects should be treated equally, while those who are unequal should be treated differently in proportion to their inequalities. This principle is the supreme guiding principle of justice (as far as it is connected to moral rules of law). It is a purely
formal and universal principle from which particularist elements are derived as
the principle falls short of telling us who are to be considered equals, how they
are to be treated and when exactly their circumstances are equal. In modern
terms it could simply be understood as rule of law. This principle acquires the
particularistic elements when it asks these questions of who is equal and how
they are to be treated to a particular polis.
Aristotle further gives us two types of justice – distributive justice and rectificatory justice. Distributive justice pertains to the fair allocation of goods, honors, and resources within a community based on merit, virtue, or need. It
aims to foster social harmony and equity by ensuring that benefits and burdens are shared proportionally among individuals according to their deserving qualities.
What is Citizenship?
Aristotle’s idea of citizenship is rooted in his belief that humans are inherently
political animals (zōon politikon) who thrive in social and political relationships.
Citizenship is crucial for both individual and community well-being. It is not
just a legal status but a moral and political identity involving active engagement
in the affairs of the polis for the common good. Citizens, in Aristotle’s view,
have both rights and responsibilities essential to the functioning of a just and
harmonious society.
Central to Aristotle’s concept of citizenship is the idea that humans are
naturally social and political beings. He argues that individuals form communities
to meet their basic needs and achieve a higher level of existence. Thus, citizenship
is a natural expression of human sociability and the foundation of political life
Limitations to Citizenship
Aristotle’s concept of citizenship in ancient Greece was marked by specific
exclusions and limitations that highlighted the patriarchal and elitist aspects of his
political thought. Citizenship, in Aristotle’s view, was reserved for a select group
within the polis (city-state), excluding many based on criteria such as gender,
social status, and legal standing. These exclusions had significant implications
for the rights and participation of various groups within the political community.
Citizenship was restricted to free, native-born male adults, thereby
excluding women from full political rights and participation. Women were
deemed inferior to men in the social and political hierarchy, with their roles
largely confined to the domestic sphere. Consequently, women were denied the
opportunity to engage in public affairs, hold political office, or participate in
decision-making processes within the polis. .
Introduction
John Locke’s political philosophy is grounded in the concept of natural law and
the rights inherent to all individuals. He posits that in a state of nature, individuals
are governed by the law of nature, which dictates that no one should harm
another in their life, health, liberty, or possessions. Locke’s theory of natural
rights emphasises life, liberty, and property as fundamental and inalienable.
These rights are preserved through the social contract, an agreement where
individuals consent to form a government to protect their rights. For Locke,
property is justified through the labour one invests in it, marking the foundation
of economic rights and private ownership.
Locke and His Context
The chief work of Locke that we are going to deal with is called the Two Treatises
of Government (henceforth Two Treatises). It was written during the Exclusion
Crisis of England, Scotland and Ireland which began in 1679 and was resolved
with the glorious Revolution in 1688. During the rule of Queen Elizabeth I in
the 16th century, the dominance of protestant sect of Christianity was established.
In the 17th century, contemporary to Locke, a fear started to emerge that the then
ruler of the British Crown Charles II would accede the throne to his brother James
who was a Catholic. There was a fear, especially among the Whigs of England
that this would lead to the establishment of Royal absolutism. This fear was
further increased by the Crown’
s abolishment of Parliament when its members
tried to bring a law to stop the accession of the throne from Charles II to James.
GOD AND LAWS OF NATURE
Conception of God acquires a foundational basis to the formulation of the rest
of the Lockean thesis. As part of his aim was to tackle Filmer’s ideas, he begins
his own work by discussing the relationship between God and Adam. He argues
that there is no way that God left Adam in a position of authority over other men.
Even if he was given any such authority, it does not mean that the authority can
simply pass on to his sons. It simply could not have happened because we do not
find any record of laws of succession of any such thing happening. NATURAL RIGHTS TO LIFE, LIBERTY AND
PROPERTY
The state of nature represents a scenario where every individual exists in a
condition of equality and freedom. In this state, people possess certain innate
rights that are crucial for their well-being and ability to protect themselves. These
rights are grounded in what Locke termed the laws of nature.
The first and foremost of these rights is the Right to Life. This emerges
from the Natural Law that we are God’s creation and none of us have the right to
harm each other. We are therefore obliged to protect each other and also preserve
mankind. This simple law of nature provides us with the right to do so.
Right to Liberty is derived from the twin facts of equality of all God’s
creation and our obligation to protect ourselves because of this reason. This
implies that we are all free and none has any authority over another human being