Aristotle 's Views On The Morality Of Government

There are many ways a government can be run, and within a government how the society is and what concept the people believe in and follow also have many different views. All four theorists, Pericles, Socrates, Protagoras, and Machiavelli have very good points on authority and obligation, democracy, and freedom. Though the same concept, each has their own view on how society and government should approach it.

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.

After carefully studying both writers works, it is very difficult to argue that one type of government is ideal or more preferable than the other, due to the fact that both Aristotle and Locke provide very compelling arguments as to why their style of government is better. Although both styles of government work for the betterment of the citizens of the city-state, the means by which they do so are how Locke and Aristotle differ in their opinions. Aristotle believes that as long as the citizens of the city-state are able to carry out a life of virtue, then the process by which the government achieves its goals is irrelevant. This concept that Aristotle suggests is very compelling to agree with because living a life of virtue is something that the majority of humans want, they want to live their lives happily, and Aristotle’s ideal government would allow humans to do that. The problem with Aristotle’s government is that it has no checks and balances. Aristotle is flawed in that he believes that all humans desire a life where they are able to debate and discuss issues like the meaning of justice, when in reality humans have other ambitions in life. His government system would have free reign to run the city-state however it deemed best, regardless of how the citizens felt, as long as it provided them the security to live

Even with established laws, men would pursue their self-interest at all costs. Aristotle explains this, “man by nature is a political animal… though man is born with weapons which he can use in the service of practical wisdom and virtue, it is all too easy for him to use them for the opposite purposes”(Aristotle, 60). To clarify, Aristotle believes that men will pursue their own prerogatives in the political arena of government. And while some may use their power for good, many will use it for their own-self interests, which Aristotle defines as a deviation from the idea of common

Throughout the time of recorded history, humans have had the natural desire for protection and order. That desire is where government comes in. There have been many forms of government throughout history, according to Aristotle, there have only been two types, oligarchies and democracies. Aristotle goes on to say that there are variations of these governments; for example, an aristocracy is considered to be an oligarchy where the wealthy land owners make the decisions in government. Later in that same paragraph, he states that a republic is a form of democracy; these are not the only variations of democracies and oligarchies as there are many variations of these two types of government along the spectrum (Aristotle 3). Societies all through history have one thing in common, they all had some form of government; This raises the question though, what is the difference between a good and bad government?

Aristotle says that justice is thought of as equality among all, there is a disregard to merit (p.172). In a society, there is usually more poor people and because there is this demand of equality then the majority rule (p.174). Mob rule is then authoritative. All governments have their forms, which are good and are bad. Democracy to Aristotle is not the best regime because it is ruled by the poor or the ones that need from the government. Government is not chosen by those who pursue virtue, but instead pursue wealth. The democratic principle is that of freedom, wealth, and birth. Not virtue. He believes the best regime would not be exactly a democracy but a polity that would be a combination of freedom, wealth, birth and virtue. The best regime has ideal conditions in which it becomes a predictable regime and consists of values, choices, the inanimate, elements of the class of workers, and the education of rulers. Democracy has a big defect in that it does not have intelligence or wisdom. It is the rule of many. It is based on the idea of happiness by following pleasures (p.48). Democracy comes into play when the majority revolt against the oligarchy because of the ideas of freedom. The problem with it is that people are pursuing their pleasures, not thinking of the state as a whole. There is unity based on pleasure. Before long, everyone is pursuing their own pleasures and there is an undermining of authority

Machiavelli and Socrates reveal strong beliefs and principles regarding the manner in which a government should operate, reflecting their ideals to their current states. Socrates emphasizes the importance of truthfulness and justice in governmental systems and Machiavelli focuses on having a determined ruler than can lead the state into success. Both men lived during a time of uncertainty and instability, desiring to change their society for the better. Socrates would view Machiavelli’s Prince as a unacceptable ruler due to Machiavelli’s emphasis on deceit and power, while Socrates bases his government ideals of justice, honesty, and morality.

These views were evident, and perhaps promoted, due to the continual control of government by aristocrats. These rulers sought to improve their own interests over those of the poleis, and promoted their own values and ideas. Aristotle believed that the best form of governing should be decided by those governed and, although he believed democracy to be the best of the examples of government, believed that voting would both satisfy the citizens’ desire for equality and avoid revolutions such as those that result from the tyrannies that had come before.

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).

In The Suppliants, Euripides wrote, “The people cannot form proper judgements and therefore cannot rightly direct a state”. Euripides is living in the midst of democracy in Athens; therefore his quote is a critique of what is happening around him. In his quote, he is taking an anti-democratic stance towards the question of who is fit to rule. Euripides believes only one or few people should rule a state, as not all are qualified or have the ‘proper judgement’ to do so. However, people do rule the state, without having to meet any arbitrary requirements to be fit to rule. The term ‘proper judgement’ is highly subjective and the notion that only a few have the ability to rule is simply paternalistic. The relative success of ancient Athenian and contemporary Swiss direct democracy show that people do have the ability to form proper judgments. It was Aristotle who once said “man is a political animal”, so it is in human nature to be politically involved. In opposition, Plato describes the grave consequences of placing the power into the one or the few in his ideal yet authoritarian state.

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 Politics, Aristotle explicitly says that the best regime is “kingship.” He reasons, “[that] the term constitution signifies the same thing as civic body [and] that the civic body in every city is the sovereign; and the sovereign must necessarily be either One, or Few, or Many. On this basis we may say that when the One, or Few, or Many rule with a view to the common interest, the constitution under which they do so much necessarily be the right constitution” (1279^a 25, 188). He goes on to say that according to ‘customary usage’ the government type that focuses on the common interest is kingship.

One of the longest standing arguments in history is focused along the lines of the role of power in government. Who should be granted this power, and how should one elect a leader to be given such an immense responsibility. Often times, another conflict emerges attempting to distinguish the exact role a government must serve, however this argument is placed between the crossfire of human’s need for individual freedoms and liberties yet their desire for structure and some form of order. Two powerful voices in this debate are those of Niccolo Machiavelli and Plato, separated by hundreds of years in history the two men had differing views on the role of the government’s influence on its people. Machiavelli expresses his idea of the correct form of government in both “The Prince” and “The Discourses” in which he preaches that a government must stand strong in order for the people below it to flourish. Meanwhile Plato’s notorious “The Republic” takes a different stance and pushes the idea that the government can give an illusion of freedom by maintaining a specific structure. Obviously one cannot manage a republic without some form of class structure and both men are given the opportunity to portray their thoughts on the role of what one might call the lower class. Although Machiavelli and Plato disagree on complex roles surrounding the exact duties of the lower classes, one thing is certain, through textual evidence they both seem to believe that it is crucial that the most

In Book II of the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle discusses the idea of moral virtue. Aristotle emphasized the importance of developing moral virtue as the way to achieve what is finally more important, human flourishing (eudaimonia). Aristotle makes the argument in Book II that moral virtue arises from habit—equating ethical character to a skill that is acquired through practice, such as learning a musical instrument. However in Book III, Aristotle argues that a person 's moral virtue is voluntary, as it results from many individual actions which are under his own control. Thus, Aristotle confronts us with an inherently problematic account of moral virtue.

What Aristotle called ‘Polity’ was based on political power and the best practical government. This notion differed from Ancient Greek democracy.