Aristotle Essay, Research Paper
Atirtotle ’ s Politics Aristotle ’ s Politics is a dateless scrutiny of authorities construction and human nature that explains his thoughts on how a Utopian province can be achieved. In this work, Aristotle examines omnipresent issues such as authorities construction, instruction, offense, belongings ownership, the honestness of businesss, and population control. He states in Book IV, Chapter Eleven “ … the best signifier of political association is one where power is vested in the in-between category, and secondly, that good authorities is come-at-able in those metropoliss where there is a big in-between category … ” The polis is a partnership of citizens in a system of authorities that serves to accomplish the common good. It is non merely a topographic point where people live together for defence against enemies and for the exchange of goods. It is instead a partnership between families, kins, and small towns for the interest of a to the full developed and self-sufficing life. The polis gives those who possess wisdom and moral mind a opportunity to travel up to high places Justice is the political good in the polis, and it must advance the common involvement of the people. What is perceived to be good has to be distributive and regulatory. The jurisprudence is the modulating mechanism that emerges from free and equal people in civic associations. It serves as the concluding supreme authority of jobs, and bases above persons and binds their actions. Laws alteration wonts and preparation, but are mutable through certain fortunes and processs if it is believed to be unfair. The wellbeing of a society is contingent upon to what extent its citizens obey the jurisprudence. A member of the polis can be defined as person who can take part in judgment ( function as a juryman in the tribunal system ) , and in regulating ( function in public office ) . A good citizen must possess moderateness, prudence, and justness, and must be able and willing to govern and be ruled. Aristotle defines a fundamental law as “ an agreement in respect to the offices of the metropolis. By this agreement the citizen organic structure distributes office, either on the footing of the power of those who participate in it, or on the footing of some kind of general equality ( i.e. the equality of the hapless, or of the rich, or an equality bing among both rich and hapless. ) There must hence be as many fundamental laws as there are manners of set uping the distribution of office harmonizing to the high qualities and the differences of the parts of the metropolis ” ( Page 138 ) . He believes that the organisation of a province ’ s fundamental law is straight related to the sorts of citizens that reside in the polis. The fundamental law has a direct root to the most powerful or most populated category. The in-between category is where most of the power comes from because they are the bulk, and hence best reflect the common involvement. The upper category is non fit to organize the fundamental law because they, like the lower category, would establish it on t heir ain values and beliefs instead than the demands of the province. There are jobs w
ith the lower and upper classes creating laws. The lower class constantly feels that the government is cheating them out of something because they do not have the wealth, stature, and possibly education that the upper-class possesses, thereby making it difficult for them to work towards the common good. Aristotle thinks that the upper class has too much ambition, and would only create laws that would further their economic and social well-being with little or no regard to the rest of the population. These classes consist of self-interested individuals that want to further their own needs and concerns. They create factions in order to go against the system. “Factional conflict is the result of inequality, and the passion for equality is the root of faction” (Class Notes). The middle class acts as the mean between the concerns of the rich and poor. “Goodness itself consists in a mean; and in any city the middle class is a mean between the rich and the poor” (Page 156). Th e middle class is free from the ambition of the rich and the pettiness of the poor, which helps to ensure political cohesion. We can conclude that a constitution based on this class (i.e. a ‘constitutional government’ or polity) is most likely to be generally beneficial. It will be free from faction, and most likely be stable. People who know how to deliberate and give instruction should be eligible for positions in the government. The best form of constitution would have the power vested in the middle class. The golden mean is correlated with moderation which can only occur when there is a large middle class population. Freedom is the defining principle of democracy. The main aspects of freedom are being ruled and ruling in turn, since every one is equal according to number, not merit, and to be able to live as one pleases. The majority should have authority rather than those who are “best fit to rule”, and groups few in number. Although everyone in the polis may not be a political scientist, they can work better together with peers. With each individual having qualities of excellence and intelligence, they join to form a single entity. The real difference between democracy and oligarchy is between poverty and wealth. Oligarchy occurs when rulers owe their power to wealth whether or not they are the majority. Tyranny can be described as the worst of two potential evils. It is extreme oligarchy in its “distrust of the masses” and extreme democracy in its “hostility to the noteables” (Page 211). Aristotle says the best form is one based on merit. A combination between oligarchy and democracy is constitutional government. Although people can agree on what justice is, they often fail to reach it because they can not stop from pursuing their own goals and desires. A good government can moderate between what people think is just and what is best for the common good. Aristotle’s theories are fundamentals of our current political system and earned him the title “The Father of Political Science.”
