Aristotle and John Locke on Nature and Purpose of a Political Community

What would the American government be like today if it was not for the mind and political theory of John Locke? Some historians and philosophers believe that without John Locke our government would only be a shadow of what it is today. Arguably, one of his most important political and philosophical works was his Two Treatises of Government. There he argues that the function of the state is to protect the natural rights of its citizens, primarily to protect the right to property. John Locke, in many eyes, can be viewed as one of the father’s of Democracy. He embraced many of ideas in his theories on the state of nature and the rise of political society today. In Locke’s political society,

What is of greater underlying significance for Aristotle, however, is not so much the size of the citizen-body as the stark contrast between the respective ideas that “those constitutions which aim at the common good are right, as being in accord with absolute justice” and “those which aim only at the common good of the rulers are wrong” (The Politics, 3:6, 1279a16, p. 189). In practice, Aristotle’s juxtaposition is implicitly suggestive that if one is ruling in their own self-interest, regardless of the size of the group, and be that for themselves or the minority to which they belong, then they are in essence missing the point of what it is that they are supposed to be doing. Thus, the key point Aristotle is trying to make is this: the ruler of a polis or state; be that one person, a few people, or many people; should govern in accordance with the interests of the polis or state as a whole at heart rather than with the interests of a select few.

Over the length of this course, we have discussed several aspects of politics. We have studied citizenship and obligations to society as a citizen, justice and what it means to us as individuals, and how to go about enacting change within a community and around the world. Some of the most important topics from this class included the characteristics, duties, and obligations of rulers of government. In addition to the concept of rulers, we also studied the notion of authority and the moral and metaphysical implications of authority to individuals ' autonomy. Within each concept of study, we read works from many authors with conflicting ontologies, constructed from their differing views on human nature.

Before we get into what are the needs of a political community, lets define politics. What comes to your mind when you think of politics? For the purpose of this class, politics is the identification, maintenance, and transfer of the communities’ core values that are passed down from one generation to another. The needs of a political community have several factors that come together. These factors include governmental needs, power and institution separation, the organization of factions, the distribution of

Aristotle provides very unique and compelling arguments for what he believes to be the ideal form of government for a city-state, but because of the time period he was alive, he did not have the necessary knowledge to realize how limited his view of human nature was. Due to its limited power and sole purpose being to protect individuals’ right to own property, which in turn allows individuals to live happy lives, Locke’s form of government is more

The United States is known for its many liberties to all, liberties that lead to all sorts of bad according to Socrates and Aristotle. Plato-Socrates in The Republic and Aristotle in Politics criticize democracy, a form of government that tries to equalize all. Centuries have passed and many of the democratic elements described in their works apply to current democratic regimes in particular the United States.

In Aristotle's Politics, he focuses much on the regimes of an oligarchy and of a democracy. Democracies exists when the free and poor, being a majority, have authority to rule, and have an equal share in the city. Oligarchies exists when the few wealthy and better born have authority and grant benefits in proportion to a person's wealth (1280a:10-30;1290a:5-10).

Plato and Aristotle are philosophers that both have an idea of an ideal state but they have their differences. While there are benefits to each of their views on politics and society, there are also many negative things about their views. Some of their negative views were realistic at one point in time but few are the same in today 's society. Although I don 't fully agree with either philosopher, I would have to side with Aristotle overall.

In the state perfected is the only place a person can find his ultimate satisfaction as Aristotle implies the state is the natural result of people coming together and in that coming together is the sole locality of the opportunities for each person’s full expression of personhood and therefore the best good life for one and all within its citizenry. Aristotle sees the person, the family, and the state as highly interconnected: person within a family, the family members within satisfying well-suited work, and those workers within and for the state’s mutual goodness. He also sees this tri-layered dynamic as representational: a husband rules over his wife as a constitutional rule - it’s a rule that is agree upon with the wife under such rule,

Thomas Hobbes and Aristotle address the role that governments have in the promotion of good virtue amongst their citizens in The Leviathan and Nicomachean Ethics. The authors offer ideas along similar lines. This is in regards to the belief that Hobbes and Aristotle hold, which is that governments do have a role in promoting good morals and leading a virtuous life; Hobbes by sovereignty and Aristotle through means of reaching telos. Thomas Hobbes’ position is made in The Leviathan, in which he argues that citizens are less troubled when they agree to a commonwealth, or a “unity of them all” because they are “unified in that they constitute one single person” (Hobbes 79). When men agree to be governed by a sovereign, he is then responsible for encouraging them to lead virtuous lives by practicing good morals. They could not be led astray because the sovereign is such a supreme example, this is why they are given the freedom of choice. He would also argue against neutrality on behalf of the government, because he does not believe that human nature always serves as the best guide for humans. Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics is similar to Hobbes’ work, in that he also agrees that government should promote good morals. However, it differs as Aristotle thinks that the main responsibility of a government is to see to it that their citizens are capable of reaching their telos. Telos is something that can only be accomplished by a virtuous and free being, it is essentially a state of

Politics may have been the tool by which man creates good, but politics does not mean the same thing as living a political life. Aristotle claimed that those who engaged in a political life do so out of vanity in order to gain personal honor. Because this only serves to inflate a single person's ego, this is considered to be an empty and vain course of action. Two other ways of life that Aristotle believed were

In the society illustrated by John Locke, the human nature is characterized as free and independent; however, the problem with society is that it has too many small inconveniences, which could be as trivial as a tree blocking the sidewalk. To solve these problems, a legitimate government, characterized by explicit consent, checks on institutions and the right to revolt by the people, is needed. The utmost legitimate government, in comparison to Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, is based on John Locke’s social contract in Second Treatise of Government because each aspect of a legitimate government protects the citizen’s life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Through each aspect, the people can actively participate in government to prevent the sovereign from taking advantage of their powers to further their own goals.

The tragedy of the commons and the problem of collective action are two key concepts in the world of political science. They act under the assumption that man is a rational being who will act in his own self interest. Humanity id broadly diverse meaning that each individual has their own ideas as to how society should run and how people should live.(heywood) This inevitably results in disagreement and this is where politics steps in. Aristotle described politics as the ‘master science’, ‘the activity through which human beings attempt to improve their lives and create the Good Society.’ Through the tragedy of the commons and the problem of collective action we can see how politics is essentially the ‘search for conflict resolution’

For Aristotle the human is "by nature" destined to live in a political association. Yet not all who live in the political association are citizens, and not all citizens are given equal share in the power of association. The idea of Polity is that all citizens should take short turns at ruling (VII, 1332 b17-27). It is an inclusive form of government: everyone has a share of political power. Aristotle argues that citizen are those who are able to participate in the deliberative and judicial areas of government (III, 1279a32-34). However, not all who live in a political association are citizens. Women, children, slaves, and alien residents are not citizens. Some groups; the rich, the poor, those who

The founders have very different views on their place in the world and their identity as a man. Aristotle sticks to the truth to man is nature and that as an individual we have a purpose. Locke’s opinion’s stray away from Aristotle and thinks of men as understanding themselves through their mind not in nature. Where as the Puritans agree with both ideas but centralize God and keep their mindset and nature away. Aristotle first disscusses the way in which a person should stay away from the community of politics: “For this reason, it is not appropriate for a young person to be a person of politics, since the young are inexperienced in the actions of life, while these are things about which politics speaks and from which it reason.”(12) Here Aristotle expresses his viewpoint of how the young are inexperienced and their mind has not been shown to the world. Which in a way is opposite of his original claim that living in a community with politics is “ good for man” in a way this is true and shows the real world and the importance of understanding your surroundings, but Aristotle says this is only a good thing if the person has understood nature in itself before trying to understand the outside political sphere: “Every art and every inquiry, and likewise every action, seems to aim at some good, and hence it has been beautifully said that the good is that at which all things aim”.(11)” Aristotle tries to explain the importance of understanding nature as a action that aims at some good. Where as Locke disagreed with the point of understanding nature, he focuses on the freedom and relationship aspect of the world: “A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another.”(43) Locke explains that the power of equality should not under any circumstance come before another quality. Locke states that the power in the states should all have equal representation and opportunities: “ this teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possession.”(43) Locke shows that the important asset to life is to treat everything as being one and equal but independent. He