Aristotles 3 Chapter 9 of the Politics - Book Report/Review Example

# Philosophy # 6th March, Aristotle’s Book 3 Chapter 9 of the Politics The theme of justice is the central motif in Aristotle’s political theory. In book three of his famous Politics, Aristotle sets out to investigate between the two common political regimes/systems, i.e. Oligarchy, and Democracy, he sought to know which system guarantees justice to its citizens. The main aim of this investigation was to find out, ultimately, the best political system that ensures that there is justice in the state and that the citizens of the state live happily. This paper looks at the Aristotle’s discussion and criticism of democratic and oligarchic understanding of distributive justice, i.e. the principle on which the political power would be shared among the members of a state. After the analysis of the Aristotle’s discussion and criticism of democratic and oligarchic conception of distributive justice, a critical analysis of the Aristotle’s position is given. Before we look at the Aristotle’s discussion and criticisms of democratic and oligarchic conceptions of distributive justice, it is important to first look at Aristotle’s understanding of distributive justice. According to Aristotle, distributive justice refers to equal treatment of people who are equal, and unequally treatment of people who are unequal. This therefore means that for there to be distributive justice in a state, people who are unequal should not be treated unequally, for instance, the wealthy people in the state should not be treated equally with the poor people in the state in the distribution state resources and power. This means that the rich people in the state should be alocated more resources and power because they make more contribution, materially, to the state than the poor people. However, as we shall see in Aristotle’s criticism of Oligarchy system of governance, Aristotle did not actually believe that the rich people in the society should be given more power than the poor people in the state. In book three Chapter 9, Aristotle offers a new criterion of distributing state power so as to ensure that the main goal of the state is achieved- happiness among the members of the state. This fact therefore shows that for better understanding of Aristotle’s discussions and criticisms of democratic and oligarchic conceptions of distributive justice, it is important to look at Aristotle’s understanding of the end of a state. Aristotle’s understanding of the end or the goal of a state is perfectly in line with his understanding of the end of all human endeavours. In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle argued, quite convincingly, that the main aim of all human endeavours is happiness, and that human beings achieve happiness through living virtuous lives. On the state, Aristotle had similar view; he argued that the aim of state is happiness for its members, and the happiness in the state is achieved when the members o the state have what he called the virtue of the citizen or political virtue. The virtue of the citizen refers to the contribution that one makes for the flourishing of the state. As we shall see in Aristotle’s criticism of the democratic and oligarchic conceptions of distributive justice, Aristotle was of the view that the members of the state who posses political virtues should be given more political offices than the people who lack citizen virtue. Aristotle’s Discussion and Criticism of Democratic and Oligarchic Conception of Distributive Justice In Aristotle’s view, the main impediment to correct understanding of justice among the members of the democratic and oligarchic systems of government is subjectivity. This is because as Aristotle says, people normally, “are bad judges in their own affairs” (Jowett, book 3 chapter 9). This in essence means that for the oligarchs, since they are rich and therefore unequal to the poor materially, they assume that they are unequal to the poor people in all respects. The democrats on the other hand assume that since they are equal with the rich in terms of freedom, they are equal to the rich people in every respect. Aristotle critics this subjective view of justice and equality, he argued that being equal or unequal in one respect does not mean being equal or unequal in every respect. On this ground, Aristotle argued that democratic and oligarchic conception of distributive justice is flawed and incorrect. What Aristotle meant in this criticism is that the distribution of political power and offices in a state should not be based on the equality or inequality of wealth, or freedom among the members of a state. This is because while the oligarchs are unequal to the poor in terms of material wealth, they are however not unequal to the poor members of the state in terms of freedom- both the rich and the poor have equal freedoms in a state. On the other hand, although the democrats are equal to the oligarchs in terms of freedom, they are however unequal to the oligarchs in terms of material wealth. This fact shows that distributive justice cannot be based on either the equality or inequality of material wealth or freedom within the state. For this reason, Aristotle argued that there should be another criterion of distributing political power in a state. Aristotle argued that the democrats and the oligarchs are not able to see this fact because their subjectivity hinders them from seeing this rather obvious objective truth. The criterion that Aristotle proposed for the distribution political power in a state is based on his understanding of the main aim of a state. Aristotle contended that the main aim of a state is not to transact business; he went on to argue that if people in a state associated out of regard to wealth only, then the state should distribute its resources and powers proportionately whereby those contributed more resources to the state should be awarded more, proportionately. Aristotle also argued that the state does not exist only either for the sake of security of its members, or for the sake of mutual exchange. Aristotle concluded that the state exists for the sake of its members living well, he defines a state thus “a community of families and aggregations of families in well-being, for the sake of a perfect and self-sufficing life.” (Jowett, book 3 chapter 9). With this understanding of the aim of state, Aristotle argued that the most important element in the success of a state is the politica virtue. The people with the politica virtue are the most important people in the state and the powers of the state therefore should be distributed according to the contributions that one makes in the well-being of the state and its members. Aristotle’s conclusion therefore was that the state exists not merely for the sake of members of the society living together, but for the sake of the members of the society living well. The people therefore who make greater contributions in the society should be awarded accordingly. In this view, one’s contribution to the good of the society is far better than wealth or freedom of the members of the citizens in a state; citizen virtue is the criterion of distribution of the power and privileges of a state. Aristotle reasoned that distributing political powers on the basis of one’s contribution in the society would ensure that all members of the society are treated fairly and justly, i.e. without discrimination based on one’s social status. Distributing political power on the basis of one’s contribution in the society would also reward the heroes and the heroines of the society, hence encouraging more people to strive for the good of all the members of the state. But although Aristotle criticized the oligarchic and the democratic systems of government, he however, did not explicitly state his preferred system of government. Critical Analysis of Aristotle’s Criticisms of Democratic and Oligarchic Conceptions of distributive Justice A critical analysis of Aristotle’s criticisms of democratic and oligarchic conceptions of distributive justice shows that his criticisms of the two systems of government are indeed justified. Aristotle was indeed right in his claim that distribution of political power on the basis of the social status of the state’s members, or on the basis of equal freedom of all the members of the society, would not guarantee justice in the society. This is because Justice requires that all the members of the society are treated fairly. For there to be justice, those make the greatest contributions in the society should be rewarded more than those who make little or no contributions in the society’s well-being. For this reason, Aristotle’s criterion of distributing political power on the basis of one’s positive contribution in the state makes a lot of sense. But on the other hand, a critical look at the Aristotle’s criterion of distributing political power shows that the new criterion will still favour the wealthy people in the state. This is because with the wealthy people in the society having a lot of resources, they will have an upper hand in making contributions to the state than the poor people. This is because the rich people will be the ones who will be able to access the best education, and to exploit their talents maximumly for the well-being of the state. The poor people on the other hand would find it very hard, unless those who are exceptionally gifted, to make any significant contribution in the society for lack of the needed resources to do so. For this reason, the oligarchs would be at an advantage in Aristotle’s criterion of distributing political power. This fact shows that, although the Aristotle’s criterion of distributing political power is good-intentioned and fair, it nevertheless favours the wealthy members of the state. Works Cite Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics.trans, W.D.Ross. 350 B.C. Web. Jowett, B., trans. Aristotle’s Ethics. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1905. Web. Read More