ARISTOTLE

INTRODUCTION

Aristotle was born in 384 B.C. in the town of Stagira near the Macedonian border. His
father was court physician to King Amyntas II of Macedonia, and Aristotle later became
tutor to a young Macedonian prince— Alexander the Great. We know little of Aristotle's
life before he came to Plato. At the Acad- emy, Aristotle distinguished himself as Plato's
most brilliant student. In his later years, however, Aristotle began to break from his
intellectual master. Some scholars speculate that this was the reason Aristotle
eventually left the Academy after Plato died in 347 B.C. He returned to Athens in 335
B.C. and established his own school, the Lyceum. There he remained until he was
forced to flee for political reasons, and in 322 B.C., shortly after fleeing, he died.
Aristotle is interested primarily in the best possible form of government. For this reason,
Aristotle's vision is more practical and more worldly than Plato's. According to Aristotle,
political philosophy should provide people with general guides and rules of action.
Political science is not, a precise theoretical science as Plato had assumed. It is a
practical science that deals with practical people who do not reduce their lives to pure
logic. Given this attitude towards life and politics, it is not surprising that we find
Aristotle's political analysis much more practical than Plato's. Aristotle was a worldly
philosopher who loved politics, the most worldly of occupa- tions, as much as Plato
despised it. Thus, rather than railing against the injus- tices of politics, Aristotle looked
continuously for ways to improve it without expecting perfection.

1. ARISTOTLE’S PHILOSPOPHY -

THEORY OF FORMS

Aristotle objected to Plato's separation of form (the intelligible world of being) from
matter (the sensory world of appearances or becoming). Form is immanent in matter,
not transcendentally separated from it. We need not, therefore, speak of a perfect form
of a tree or of any other object of sensation existing apart from "real trees" or "real
objects," says Aristotle.One of the clear advantages of Aristotle's theory of form is that it
avoids the difficulty Plato had in demonstrating how matter "participates" in form. It is
apparent that the key to Aristotle's theory of form is the idea of development. Things
develop to their own perfection and completeness and the function of theory is to
explain this process and the purpose that it serves. This is why he insists that a science
of any subject matter must be teleological.Teleology means the study of ends or
purposes (telos). As visible, teleology is central to Aristotle's theory of explanation.
Aristotle begins by talking of the four different kinds of causes in his theory of
explanation - the material cause, the efficient cause, the formal cause and the final
cause.

THEORY OF ETHICS

-ETHICS AND POLITICS

In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle intended the Politics and Ethics to be read together
because he believed the study of ethics and politics has the same purpose. Ethics is the
study of the meaning, purpose, or end—the telos—of human life.ethics is really just a
branch of political science for Aristotle. In ethics we study the Good from the perspec-
tive of the individual, in political science from the perspective of the whole community.
Aristotle's argument for the unity of ethics and politics is identical to Plato's. But
Aristotle's method for studying ethics, and subsequently for studying politics, radically
differs from that of his teacher, and the reason is his theory of immanent form. Where
Plato had looked for ethical values such as justice in the realm of pure transcendence,
Aristotle looks for them in the very facts of the human condition. Ethics, after all, refers
to real people and to their real behavior, Aristotle argues

-VIRTUE

The Ethics is a treatise on the whole variety of virtues that people praise as good and
neces- sary for a genuinely human and happy life., Aristotle develops his catalogue of
virtues from what people actually say about courage, or temperance, and so on. In other
words, virtue is not something that exists in the sky attainable only by the few. In the
case of moral life, the final goal or telos is happy life or eudaimonia. It may be possible
to attain the goal of happy life by means of honour, wealth and various other means to
meet the material wants of life. For Aristotle, virtue is precisely the proper end of the
human being, and it exists as an integral part of the development of each of us.
How we actually behave and what we say about that behavior are part of our end
or telos and, therefore, virtue must be understood as part of this human
context.Moreover, Aristotle's conclusion about virtue in gen- eral is also uniquely
his own, and quite different from that of Plato. Virtue, says Aristotle, is a mean.

3.THEORY OF POLITICS

Aristotle's theory of the state was completely based on his teleological philosophy and
moral principles. This is why it is commonly known as teleological theory of the state.
Hence, this theory reveals that Aristotle viewed the state not only as a human
organization but also as the highest human association.
According to Aristotle, at the most fundamental level the state comprises two
fundamental and natural human relations. These are, first, the relation between man
and woman and, second, the relation between master and slave. The first is necessary
for the purpose of reproduction and, thereby, to continue the human race. The second is
necessary to ensure the intellectual development of the human race.

According to Aristotle, these two relations together constitute an institution which is

family. The goal of family is only to meet the daily wants of life and is the most basic unit
of co-operation. It is headed by the citizen and includes children, women, and slaves.

This family, the basic human institution, undergoes transformation when several families
are united together to result in the formation of a village. The purpose of the village,
compared to family, is much greater, for it caters to the needs of life higher than the
daily wants including economic needs. But Aristotle holds that all needs of individual are
not even satisfied at the level of village and eventually, when several villages are united
together, it gives birth to a much larger institution called the state. The process of
evolution through which various institutions grow reaches its final destination in the birth
of the state.

Aristotle derives three premises that together constitute his theory of the state.

1. The first premise is that the state is a natural institution

2. man is by nature a political animal, that is, he is ordained to be the member of a

state. he argues that politics is nothing but a collective form of “reasoned action” . This
is why man cannot help being a political animal.

3.Third, the family and the village created by men came much earlier than the state.
Therefore, he admits that, in point of time, the individual is prior to the state.

He tried to establish that the state, by no means, had come into existence by use of
force nor is it an artificial institution deliberately created by man. At the same time,
Aristotle believed that man was essentially good and it was the function of the state to
develop his faculties for good action for the common good.

Aristotle assumes that reasoned action can occur only within the state and The reason
is that in subordinate communities, particularly the household, free choice is severely
limited. The function of the household is to maintain biological existence and there are
no "free biological choices." The state, however, is above mere biology. The state is a
public arena in which people come together to make decisions affecting the whole
community for good or evil. This requires debate, hence free speech. This is why
speech is the preeminent political virtue for Aristotle.Thus, Aristotle insists that ruler-
ship of the state is distinctly different from management of the household. The state
must be ruled constitutionally,

-RULE OF LAW AND CONSTITUTION

Aristotle took a cue from Plato's suggestion in the Laws that laws were necessary for a
moral and civilized life.

Aristotle contended that the collective wisdom of the people as superior to that of the
wisest ruler or legislator.

A constitution for Aristotle was not only a basic law determining the structure of its
government and allocation of powers between the different branches within a
government, but it also reflected a way of life.

A constitution gave an identity to polis, which meant that a change in constitution could
bring about a change in the polis.

In fact, he says that the constitution is like the form in the context of the state. The state
will grow as its constitution is. Constitutions had two aspects: the ethical or the aims and
goal to be pursued by a community; and the institutional structure of political institutions
and offices, and the distribution of power.

Constitutional rule had three elements:

​ a) Common interest of people taken care of.

​ b) No arbitrary power of the rulers.
​ c) Consent and not force is the basis of obligation for constitutions.

Based on a comparative study of 158 constitutions he provides qualitative and

quantitative analysis of different constitutions.Aristotle makes a six fold classification of
governments. For instance, whenever the ruling power lies with one person and it is
committed to serving public interest, it is monarchy. On the other hand, when it is meant
to serve the narrow self-interest of the one- man ruler, it turns into tyranny which
represents the perverted form of monarchy. Furthermore, when a few rule to serve
public interest, it is aristocracy. Its corresponding perverted form is oligarchy where a
few rule with the purpose of looking after only their own interests. On the other hand,
many rule with a view to serving general interests, it is called polity. But when this mass
rule is directed to the goal of taking care of only the interests of the rulers, it turns into
democracy that represents a perverted form of polity.
 Number Pure form Perverted form
of rulers

One Monarchy Tyranny

Few Aristocrac Oligarchy

y

Many Polity Democracy

In Aristotle, there was hardly a discussion of the ideal type except sketchy details, but a
concern with the best practicable state. Among the ideal types, Aristotle concentrated
on monarchy rather than aristocracy. Monarchy would be the best form if a wise and a
virtuous King could be found.

-BEST FORM OF GOVT

For him, ideally monarchy based on constitutional law is the best form of government,
but the best practicable and stable form of government, according to him, was polity.

To prove it he relied on the theory of golden mean, essentially derived from Pythagoras
and presented in his Nicomachean Ethics. To elaborate, he pointed out that polity stood
just in the middle of the two opposites

Furthermore, the rulers in a polity were neither very rich nor very poor. They were
actually the representatives of the middle class. Aristotle further tried to prove that
middle class were the best as rulers. Naturally, they are answerable to reason. , the rich
only know to rule and dominate and are not used to obey. The poor, on the contrary,
know how to obey but hardly know how to rule. The middle class, on the other hand,
knows both to command and obey. The middle class is the best fitted to ensure stability,
peace and discipline. Aristotle argued for combining the components of democratic and
oligarchic systems.

So why Polity is the most suited to be best practicable state?

Polity is reflective of collective rational wisdom. He uses the Analogy of feast and
argues that as more people cook, we have many dishes and the feast becomes better.
Accordingly, he claims that more decision makers shall mean better and rational
judgment.

-Ideal state

For him ideal state was one based on constitutional monarchy. So, Aristotle concludes
that an ideal state requires not only statesman but also thinking philosophers.

Hence, at the very start, he focuses his attention on the size of the population ideal for
an ideal state. According to him, the desirable population should neither be too large nor
too small. It should be of a medium size.

On the mental traits of the citizens of an ideal state, Aristotle's point is that like the
Greek citizens, they have to be both courageous and intelligent but he cautions that
being courageous does not mean that they should be harsh in their dealings with the
people unknown. To him, courage is a power of soul that is invariably reflected in
friendship and compassion.

On the territory of the ideal state, Aristotle's suggestion is that it should be such as
helps the state attain self-sufficiency, that is, land should be so fertile that it may
produce all kinds of crops in abundance and, as result, people do not suffer from any
want of food products.

As regards the social composition of the ideal state, Aristotle begins with the argument
that a state in order to be self-sufficient essentially requires (a) food to feed the people,
(b) handicrafts, (c) the arms required, (d) flow of finance, (e) worship of gods and
performance of religious rites and (f) definitive methods and means.

Accordingly, people with the highest moral virtue are capable of fulfilling the purpose of
the state. This is why he eliminates artisans and businessmen as citizens of the ideal
state for in his judgment, they are bereft of moral virtues and, hence, on moral
consideration their life is lowly and focused on profit.
4. ELEMENTS OF IDEAL STATE

HOUSEHOLD

PROPERTY

Aristotle justifies the inclusion of property and the art of money making in his discussion
on family on the ground that it is a means for the maintenance of family, that is,
according to him property is an integral component of the family life.

He considered material wealth as important for good life, but argued that economic
activity has to be subordinate to political activity. He distinguished between natural and
unnatural acquisition of wealth. Whenever the amount of property acquired is greater
than what is required for the maintenance of family or when it is earned just with the
greed to amass property, it no longer remains a natural system and ceases to be led by
a moral purpose.

Aristotle considers retail trade and usury as unfair and immoral, involving misuse of the
principle of property. Therefore, he prefers barter system as a mean, where one gets
according to their needs and has the option of giving away of the excess in the form of
mutual exchange. Aristotle regards it as neither unnatural nor immoral. After all,
according to him since man is by no means self-sufficient, would naturally like to have
the things he needs by taking to exchange of things with others. Thus, simple barter
system is innocuous.

Aristotle was thus a proponent of private property system. He was naturally opposed to
communism or property proposed by Plato.

In his opinion Plato’s system of communism of property is disadvantages and, in fact,

impossible for several reasons-

Aristotle believed that, by virtue of his communism, Plato wanted to establish unity of an
extreme extent but too much unity is bad for the state because the state really
presupposes plurality. However, extreme unity destroyed plurality, and as a result, the
state no longer remained a state or at best qualitatively, it became a state of very poor
standard.

Second, in case of property under collective ownership, there may crop up a constant
conflict or dispute.

Third, if property was under private ownership, everyone developed a special interest in
it, that is, when someone knows that he owns a particular property, he naturally derived
a kind of pleasure from his sense of private ownership.

Fifth, private property was no doubt very much required for comfortable living. For this
reason, Aristotle regarded platonic communism was unacceptable.

SLAVERY

Aristotle approached the institution of slavery from teleological and instrumental lens.
Slavery was practiced in Greece and he tried to defend the system as an important
relationship and an important constituent of the household. He characterizes
instruments in household as animate and inanimate and puts slaves in the category of
animate objects. In the view of Aristotle, slavery is desirable and not to be detested.

First, he argued that a slave had immense contribution in the intellectual and moral
development of his master. Second, the system of slavery was wholesome to the slave
also. For, as his moral and intellectual qualities are much inferior by any standard, he
naturally benefitted much from his subjection to his master, Third, according to Aristotle
the system of slavery was verily natural as it was in conformity with natural law. This
was so because the law of nature that applied everywhere in the world was that some
would control and others would remain under their control,Aristotle, however, admitted
that sometimes there may be an exception to this natural rule.He, of course, made a
distinction between a natural slave and an artificial slave. This artificial slave was what
was created by man and hence not ordained by nature. Thus, when the prisoners of
war, as per the practice of that time, are forced to slaves, they are artificial slaves.

In fact Aristotle seems to have thought that slaves were 'living tools' rather like domestic
animals, fit only for physical labour.Slaves were not totally incapable of thought, but they
only needed minimal amount of rational ability; just enough to understand and carry out
their duties. Similarly, slaves were not devoid of 'virtue', but needed just enough to carry
out their duties.

Natural: Slavery is a natural phenomenon. The superior would rule over the inferior just
as the soul rules over the body and reason over appetite. In other words, people with
superior reasoning powers would rule over those inferior in reasoning. The masters are
stated to be physically and mentally strong than the slaves. So, this set-up naturally
makes the former the master, and the latter the slave.

Necessary: Slaves are considered necessary because they provide leisure that was
most essential for the welfare of the state. Aristotle stated that slavery benefited the
slaves as well. Because by being a slave, he would be able to share the virtues of the
master and elevate himself.

Expediency: Aristotle was of the opinion that slaves have sustained the Greek social
and economic system, and they helped Greece against social disorder and chaos. He
stated that slavery is a social necessity. It was complementary to the slaves as well as
the masters and that it aids in perfection.

Criticism of Aristotle’s Theory of Slavery:

1. Classification of individuals on the basis of capacities is wrong and Aristotle never

provided any logical method to be adopted to classify individuals.

2. He rejected historical origin of slavery and justified it on philosophical rationalization.

3. His views on slavery reflect his conservatism and primitive outlook towards life.

4. His theory is highly prejudicial and contradictory to the human dignity and niceties of
life.
 CITIZENSHIP

According to Aristotle, direct participation in the functions of the state is the basis of
citizenship. Thus, in his opinion residence in a particular territory under the jurisdiction
of state does not make one a citizen. Similarly, a person cannot be treated as a citizen
on the ground that in his paternal or maternal side someone was a citizen. No support
for natural citizenship. Only a person who is associated with the functions of the
judiciary or with the deliberative functions of the public assembly is, according to
Aristotle, a citizen. He tried his best with various arguments to establish that the virtues
of a good man and a good citizen are not one and the same-

.His first argument is that a citizen works under a particular constitutional system.
Hence, the virtues of a good citizen are no doubt determined by the purpose and the
goal of constitutional system concerned. On the hand, the virtues of a good man are
always the same, no matter whatever was the pattern of the constitutional system.

Second, according to Aristotle even if it is assumed that a good citizen is a good man, it
can hardly be denied that different citizens have to do different works of the state which
require different worth and capability, that is, good citizens need to have different types
of qualities but the qualities of good men for obvious reasons never vary.

Third, a state is constituted by different type of citizens. Naturally, in terms of political

capacities, some are superior and others are inferior. Thus, although they are good
citizens, their virtues vary.

Aristotle denied citizenship to foreigners, slaves and women and other manual and
menial workers. This is because he opined that the above-mentioned sections of the
people do not have moral and intellectual excellence to be able to serve as a member of
popular assembly.He further opined that nature did not favor them for enjoying the
political wisdom of politics. Moreover, these classes could not afford leisure and
sufficient economic or mental development, which were considered the prerequisites of
citizenship.

5.THEORY OF JUSTICE

​ Aristotle’s theory of justice is mostly found in his Nicomachean Ethics and sporadically
in his Politics. For Aristotle, justice is no less significant, for he regards justice as the
very virtue of the state.
​ It is justice that makes a state, gives it a vision and coupled with ethics, it takes the
state to the heights of all ethical values. Justice saves the state from destruction and it
makes the state and political life pure and healthy.
​ For Aristotle, justice is either general or it is particular. According to Aristotle, “General
justice is complete goodness.Particular justice is of two types- distributive and
corrective.
​
​ For Aristotle, distributive justice hands out honours and rewards according to the merits
of the recipients – equals to be treated equally and unequal, unequally.
​ The corrective justice takes no account of the position of the parties concerned, but
simply secures equality between the two by taking away from the advantage of the one
and adding it to the disadvantage of the other, giving justice to one who has been
denied, and inflicting punishment to one who has denied others their justice. It is also
called Rectificatory or remedial justice and is to be meted out by a judge in matters like
contracts or criminal law, where the merit of a person was not the consideration.
​
​ In his opinion, to distribute according to proportion, amounts to true justice. According to
this rule of proportion, those who are really equal in consideration of worth and ability
would have equal shares. As Aristotle says ‘Equals ought to receive an equal share’.
Distributive justice meant that offices and wealth, rewards and dues were distributed
among different social classes according to their contributions based on merit, defined
in accordance with the spirit of the constitution

REVOLUTION

Aristotle’s Politics includes a detailed discussion on revolution. Revolution means,

according to Aristotle, a change in the constitution, a change in the rulers, a change-big
or small. For him, the change from monarchy to aristocracy is a revolution; when
democracy becomes less democratic, it is also a revolution, though it is a small change.

So to sum up Aristotle's meaning of revolution, one may say revolution implies: (i) a
change in the set of rulers; (ii) a change, political in nature: (iii) a palace revolution; (iv)
political instability or political transformation; (v) a change followed by violence,
destruction and bloodshed.

Aristotle was an advocate of status quo and did not want political changes, for they
brought with them catastrophic and violent changes.

According to him, revolution may be of different nature depending on its objective. First,
the objective of revolution may be to bring in a total change. Secondly, the objective
may be only to replace the ruling group. Third, without forcing a total change of political
system the purpose of revolution may be to make the tune of the existing political
system. Fourth, revolution may be organized just to create some new wins in the
political system or some new offices under it.

While accounting for the roots of revolution, Aristotle gave emphasis on three factors.
First, the psychological state that instigates revolution. Second, the purpose of
fulfillment of goals for which revolution is organized and, third, the objective conditions
contributing to revolution.

In the view of Aristotle, the mental state that provoked revolution is a longing for
equality or inequality. Aristotle's point is that revolution is organized with the objective of
having gain and honour. Sometimes the purpose is to save themselves or their friends
from loss and dishonour. In democracy, most important cause of revolution is the
unprincipled character of the popular leaders.

Aristotle turns to measures to prevent it. In this matter, he has following suggestions:

His first advice is that in all political systems care must be taken to ensure complete
allegiance to the laws of the state so much so that even the small matter in the respect
should be given due care.

Second, measures taken to deceive the people should always be avoided.

Third, cordial relations with those denied the right of political participation must be
maintained.

Fourth, to stall the misuse of power, the term of public official should be brief.

The ruler should go on creating an atmosphere of fear and bring the distant danger
nearer.

Sixth, internal dispute and conflict within the upper class should be restrained.

Finally, the citizens must be educated in the spirit of political system under which they
live.

6. ARISTOTLE’S ATTACK ON PLATO

Aristotle's argument against his teacher's theory of the state may be summed up in one
fundamental criticism: There is too much unity in Plato's ideal republic. The real nature
of the good state,is plurality. Plato wants to make the state equivalent to the family, but
the state is not at all similar to the family, says Aristotle, or at least it ought not to be.
The family is totally unified and hierarchically organized. But the state exists so that
people may engage in public speech and action. It is in part for this reason that
Aristotle rejects Plato's communism, which aims at destroying any basis for
individualism or any kind of political equality.

Aristotle's criticism is that Plato failed to see the necessary distinction between private
and public activities. Plato's ideal state is like a gigantic household in which all
distinctions between individuals are de- stroyed for the "common good." his ideal
republic comes close to being a tyranny of reason. The excessive unity that Aristotle
criticizes is the ultimate consequence of this tyranny.

Aristotle's originality lay in his recognition that the complexity of life required plurality in
politics, and that plurality does not contradict the theory of form. Aristotle was able to
bring together the reality of politics with a genuine ethical standard. This is something
Plato could never quite do.

Aristotle's "realism" is irreconcilable with Plato's "idealism." His originality lay in uniting
Plato's "ideal" with an appreciation for the "real."

Without Plato, Aristotle's work would not have been possible. Aristotle made his
teacher's philosophy of form and his theory of justice more compatible with the everyday
world. He did not reject Plato's philosophy so much as modify it.

7.CRTITICSM OF ARISTOTLE

In the case of Aristotle, our criticism of his political philosophy is connected precisely to
his conservative point of view. In accept- ing the concrete and the real, the conservative
thinker frequently accepts without questioning things that perhaps ought to be changed.
The ideal may not always be right or proper for human beings, but the same can be said
about the real. Sometimes the ideal would be better and more workable than the real.

This criticism of conservatism applies directly to Aristotle because in accepting the good
around him, he also accepted the bad. Recall that, unlike Plato, he defended male
supremacy and slavery as natural, and he did so pre- cisely because he did accept "the
experience of the ages."

He fell into the conservative fallacy of assuming that because a particular social practice
or institution has existed over time it therefore ought to exist. Radicals escape this
fallacy because the logic of the rational ideal is superior to the irrationalities of the real.