Role Of The Citizen And The Organization Of The Infrastructure

Near the end of the second book in The Politics, Aristotle begins to examine a number of regimes that deviate from what he considers to be the best. Of the five political systems, two are idealized and respond to what their creators believe to be the major problems in society. These issues restrain the people, in their current predicaments, from truly experiencing their greatest possible life. Though Phaleas of Chalcedon and Hippodamus of Miletus each mold their cities into what they think will fix the ills present in their current world, they overlook major stepping stones in the way that human nature and political life function in the real world. According to Aristotle, not only do both of these ideal cities go against what he believes is the best regime, the flaws present in

Aristotle’s society in The Politics, is that of a realistic society, a city of man. Aristotle defines a citizen as a political animal, which means that for man to optimize the society in which he lives in, he must be politically active (Aristotle 1253a). By nature, they want to cooperate together in society. Aristotle defines a citizen as a person who has full political rights to participate in judicial or deliberative office. (Aristotle 1275b) Each citizen has the ability to possess moral virtues. This is in contrast to Plato’s ideal state, where only the ruling class is able to be politically involved. Each citizen is able to posses private property, for one should call the city-state happy not by looking at a part of it but at all the citizens (Aristotle 1329a). This means that all classes of the state as a whole should be happy, not just one sole tier.

Aristotle argues that in order for a polis to emerge, a union between man and women must convene. Later a household must be introduced which unites with other households to form a village, villages come together to form city-states. This theory is Aristotle’s natural view that an individual can not be self sufficient Plato argues that, in order to achieve absolute justice, a city-state is needed.

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

Two of Aristotle’s most famous works, Nicomachean Ethics and Politics, offer an outline of his perfect society and how Athens could ascend to his ideals. According to Aristotle, the strive for the most good society starts with individuals and then collectively builds up to the Chief Aim through active participation in politics. He explains that an Athenian earns his freedom and citizenship by subduing his animal instincts and passions. Instead of succumbing to these urges,

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

| What form of political state is best?Can a government restrict the liberty of its citizens?

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

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 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.

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

Some are democratic and others are not. This is also the same for individuals, as the same logic applies to individuals as it was applied for cities. Adeimantus would have joined Socrates and Polemarchus by this point in their colloquy. Per Adeimantus and Socrates’ conversation, a city is formed because men are not self-sufficient enough and we need help. It is also easier to find justice in a city than it is on one individual, as the city is larger in size than the one individual. During the conversation between the two, a city was defined as a man’s quest for help from another man and the other man’s similar hunt for aid. They established the most important need is food for survival, housing second and clothing third. They referred to the three as the utmost necessities that can be accomplished “by four or five men.” Adeimantus told Socrates that one man can only be good at one job i.e. farming or painting and not both. When a project is been completed, it is crucial that everything is done correctly as otherwise everything will be ruined. A man shall not take his job as a part-time gig. Socrates alerted Adeimantus that since the project they are discussing and based on Adeimantus’ assertion one man needs to do one job, four men are not enough to accomplish the task. Adeimantus agreed. Adeimantus answered affirmatively to Socrates’ question in terms of the need of men of cooperating with each other as partners. They established that it is easier to find a city in a jurisdiction where there is the need to import. This also necessitates the need to produce products other cities want to sell to them in exchange for what is desirable in one’s city. They discussed how the city needed people around a sea and merchants as an example. They figured this will create a market and a currency. Adeimantus and Socrates discussed how it would have been hard if one needs to sit and wait for

Plato and Aristotle believed that democracy is a corrupt form of government because it violates justice of proportionality. The idea of proportional justice attains when we ask who is the most deserving. For example, who should have the best flute, Aristotle answered that the best flute must be not given to the richest man or to the most handsome man, but given to the best flute player. Being in the position of governing is an honor. So who should have the honor? Plato and Aristotle argued that the honor must be given to those who have the knowledge of the Good (agathon). In political

During the 4th Century B.C, Aristotle rose as a critic of direct democracy based on two grounds: are all individuals qualified to govern? Should we select a few individuals who are fit for leadership? Bernard Crick writes, “ while democracy was for him a necessary condition for good government, it was far from a sufficient condition”(Crick 1). Aristotle had a negative outlook on human nature. This led to his belief on how a government system should rule and the dismissal of a direct democracy. Similarly to Ancients, Aristotle believed that a ‘direct democracy’ would only crumble. For this reason, he introduced ‘Checks and balances’. Checks and balances gave limited power to each branch of power and to the people. He identified his a polity by representative government, balanced government, and a mixed government. Representative government is one ruled by a ‘leader’. And yet, he questioned the idea of placing trust in the hands of the uneducated, incompetent. More importantly, he believed that in order to be a leader, one must meet the five characteristics to be considered a ‘leader’. The characteristics required: intelligence, knowledge, experience, wisdom, and virtue. It was especially important for one to attain wisdom because that is the end result of knowledge

Aristotle proposes that the city naturally results from the physical necessity, as the natural completion of small partnership of household and village. Aristotle points out in his ethics that "man is naturally social" so therefore he is "naturally political." Humans have speech, which can be used to communicate their ideas about what is right or wrong as well as just and unjust. If the nature of man is not revealed then the man itself is an animal without any potential. Speech serves man as a weapon to protect himself from what is just or unjust. A man naturally belongs to the city because that is where he can exercise his sociability and can debate with others upon his virtue. Virtues are habits of the soul by which one acts well. Virtuous actions express correct, high reasoning, which are acquired through practice and habituation. The city is prior to the individual because the individual apart from the city is not self-sufficient and therefore he has to be something else rather than a human being. A man has potential to do good, but if he is not capable to use his virtue and is without any boundaries, he can be worse than any animal. In Aristotle's point of view the city is self-sufficient because it contains all the necessities for humans to lead a good life. The city provides humans with partnership with others, which plays a big role in the sake of basic survival, but it exists for the well being of human kind.