Aristotle, in the first chapter of his Politics, argues that man is a social animal that loses its nature if it is not part of a purposeful group. Unless man becomes an animal or a god, his task is to control his desires, such as the desire for activity or pleasure, by integrating himself into society. Man advances and becomes civilized when he is compelled to follow higher moral standards.
The ancient Greeks used to categorize things according to their purpose and utility. Aristotle viewed the state through a teleological prism and believed that it exists for a purpose. What distinguishes humans from animals, besides language, is the sense of morality, the ability to distinguish between just and unjust, good and evil, which makes the purpose of the state primarily moral.
Why do we need a state?
The state exists not only to help us achieve economic or social prosperity, but also to help us live justly. According to Aristotle, the state is a natural entity that existed long before individuals did. Although it may appear that the city-states are designed to protect citizens, their true purpose is to help them achieve higher intellectual and philosophical levels, as well as material prosperity.
For Aristotle, the ideal state is not just a protector to prevent violence, but a tool for the development and prosperity of the people. Aristotle's ideas have significant influence on state creators, as they provide them with a rationale for limiting individual freedoms in order to develop laws and policies that actively pursue these positive goals.
Aristotle's views on democracy
Aristotle and his mentor Plato largely agreed on the purpose of the state, but had different views on the methods for achieving it. Plato held that the quality of the state depends solely on the quality of its citizens, and therefore deemed social engineering necessary. In his concept, he proposed censorship, public ownership, and the administration of an educated elite as the main means of achieving public goals, as described in his work The State.
Aristotle, on the other hand, had more faith in the individual and believed that the basis of a lasting society was the family, including households with slaves, as well as private property. Both philosophers were skeptical of whether democracy, with its chaotic nature, was capable of achieving social goals. Aristotle's superior knowledge of human nature, however, made his political philosophy more realistic, and as a result, it has had a greater impact on public structures and governments over the centuries.
In Nicomachean Ethics, Grow argues that the main goal in life is happiness and that this happiness can only be achieved by living according to virtue and accordingly in politics.
The problem of common property
Aristotle begins his deliberations with the question of how the state should best be organized: Should everything be communal, including relationships and children, as the Spartans practiced? Regarding property, despite the appeal of the idea of equal distribution, Aristotle argues that it runs counter to human nature.
People have an inherent tendency to own things and enrich themselves through their own efforts. Society will be more stable and less conflictual if everyone is allowed to pursue their own interests without resorting to forced distribution of property. It is more important to encourage people to be benevolent, and they will have more compassion for their neighbors if they own private property.
Plato, on the other hand, believed that only through complete unity and strict control over all aspects of social and cultural life would the state gain strength. Aristotle, on the other hand, held the opposite view: the state becomes stronger with a diversity of voices and ideas. While Plato condemned capitalism and the accumulation of property, Aristotle believed that these phenomena were compatible with human nature. In his view, the role of government is to create laws that enable people to accumulate wealth and property, thereby ensuring the well-being of all.
As for the social institutions of the ideal state, Aristotle was more inclined towards democracy than Plato, who preferred the idea of the rule of philosopher kings. By contrast, Aristotle believed that every citizen should participate in the governance of the state. He also advocated a public education system, as he believed that education was too important to be left to the family.
Conclusion
In summary, the reflections of Aristotle and Plato on the nature of the state and its objectives reveal fundamental differences in their concepts for the organization of society. Plato, who presented the state as a single organism, sought strict control over the lives of citizens and complete unity, with the elite of philosophers ruling. In his view, the state's primary function was to maintain order and stability by centralizing power and social life.
In contrast, Aristotle recognized the importance of private property, diversity of opinion, and natural human aspirations. He saw the state as a mechanism that not only provided security and economic prosperity but also helped citizens achieve higher moral and spiritual goals. His approach was more realistic and focused on harmony between human nature and the laws, as well as on supporting personal initiative within the state.
These philosophical debates had a major influence on the development of political thought over the centuries. Aristotle, with his more democratic views and emphasis on private property and the participation of citizens in political life, was a pioneer for many ideas that are still important in modern democratic systems today. While Plato's model of absolute control remained utopian, Aristotle's ideas were put into practice in various forms of government, confirming their viability and influence on politics throughout history.
Michael Barnes
Michael Barnes is a political scientist with 10 years' experience. His journey into politics began at military school where he realised he wanted tostudy and influence the course of world politics.