THE Individual and the

state
 Pantheistic Theory of the State
 He viewed the different parts of the universe
as informed or unified by a psychic principle,
of which the individual things we see are just
manifestations or extensions.
 Underlying Plato’s politics is his concepts of
justice, which is synonymous with harmony
and unity.
 The purpose of the state is unity and
harmony, which can be attained only if the
state possesses absolute sovereignty over it’s
subjects.
 Theory that views all things as different
expressions of the Idea (the absolute) is a
continuous process of evolution.
 To Hegel, the state has become an aspect of
the absolute which is the common substrate
of all things, the universal substance of which
individual things are so many accidents or
determinations “The State’, he says, “is the
social substance that has arrived at self-
consciousness. It is the rational of itself and
for itself… it is a terrestrial divinity”.
 Criticism
 The Platonic and the Hegelian systems give
no place for the individual. Logically, it would
destroy all individuality and all liberty. There
can be no individual rights and freedom in a
government where the possesses absolute
control over the citizens.
But man existed first before the state. Man is
man before he is a citizen. Man possesses
rights with which the state may not interfere
save to define and defend.
 Divine Right Theory
 The ruler according to this theory
impersonates the state, which he
himself holds his office directly by
divine right. He is then responsible
directly to God alone and need
give no account to his subjects for
his government.
 Criticism
 The argument advanced in support of this
theory amounts to this: All powers come
from God. Now I have (as a king) this
power. Therefore, my power comes from
God.
 All power in itself comes from God. But not
all powers come from God directly. The
concrete appointment of authority is a
matter of human arrangement. Just so, any
concrete distribution of property, though
founded on God-given right, can not claim
 Theory of Social Contract
Another theory is that the state owes it origin to a social
contract freely entered into its members.
• Hobbes- Development of the idea in favor of Absolute
Monarchy.
• Rousseau- Interpreted the idea in terms of absolute
democracy and individualism.
 Hobbes began with the premise that man is
fundamentally evil. To Hobbes the original state of nature
was one of continues warfare. To this war of every man
against man, this is also consequent that nothing can be
unjust, where there is no common power there is no law,
where there is no law there is no injustice.
 Criticism
It is not true that the only motive which draws men
to civil society is the fear of violence. Hobbes fails to
consider such facts and exigencies of human
nature as sympathy, friendship, cooperation, etc.
 As Joseph Ricaby says in Moral Philosophy, “it is not
true that all rights are the creation of the state. A
man is man first, and a citizen afterward. As a man
he has actual and potential; thus the state exists,
not to create for they are prior to it in the order of
existence but to determine them, where
indeterminate, to sanction and safeguard them.”
 The Theory of Rousseau
On the other hand, he viewed man as naturally
good, completely free and virtuous.
Unfortunately, however, this utopian state of
primitive man did not last. Man was born free
and good; now he is in chains and has become
bad. According to him, this is due to the evil
influences of society, civilization, learning and
progress. Man, therefore, lost his original
goodness, his primitive tranquility of spirit.
In order to restore peace, bring back to
him his freedom and return to his true self,
man saw the necessity and came to form
the state through the social contract
whereby everyone grants his individual
rights to the general will.
 Criticism

Rousseau’s view of man’s nature, like

that of Hobbes, is purely imaginary and
arbitrary. Rousseau teaches in effect that
man is by nature extra-social and
individualistic. He is guilty of a serious
oversight. How can he explain the fact
the family always existed even before
the state? Family life is in it’s essence
social in nature.
 The Christian Concept of the State
Hobbes (as Plato and Hegel) gives over-
emphasis to the importance of the state at the
expense of the individual; Rousseau, over-
emphasizes individual freedom; so that idea of
state sovereignty, which he nevertheless
maintains, becomes purely a figment of the
imagination or a contradiction.
The Christian view avoids both extremes. A true
concept of government according to this
Christian
 view must consider and give justice to both
elements:
• Subjects and rulers
• Governors and governed
 two things which can never be separated from
each other in the realm of true politics. Both rulers
and ruled should work in harmony for the common
good. As a basis for the solution to the problem of
seeming conflict between the two, this theory starts,
for its premises, with this psychological principles:
1) Man is a social being;
2) Man is not only an individual but also a
person.
1. Man is a social Being- He has a nature and
inclination for family life. He cannot live alone as
an individual. To fulfill his inborn urge for
happiness, he longs for group life. The origin of
the state, therefore, has its roots in man’s social
nature. The state actually came about through
the general will and consent of the people.
Therefore, the authority of the ruler comes from
the governed and the purpose of the state is
the common good of the people.
2. Man is a Personal Being- From the
metaphysical viewpoint, man as an individual is
dependent and subservient to the state, since
the general is always greater than the individual;
the whole, superior to the part.
But man is not only an individual. He is also
a person and as such has rights antecedent and
transcendent to the state. He likewise has a
destiny that lies beyond the state.
 From this fact that man is not merely an
individual but also a person with a noble
dignity and destiny, he has all the rights
proper to his personality and destiny. These
rights it is the duty of the state to preserve
and defend. The state cannot be an end in
itself. The individuals and families, therefore,
cannot lose their identity in the state.
REPORTERS:
JASMIN B. SALINO
KATE CARYL G. OCCENA