|
|
||
 |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
|
POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
by Aristotle
Let us now turn to ... the conceptions of justice held by advocates of oligarchy and of democracy. Oligarchs and democrats all cling to some idea of justice or other, but their thinking does not go far enough to grasp the true concept of justice in its entirety. The democrats believe that justice implies equality -- and so it does, but only for those who are equal, not for everybody. The oligarchs, on the other hand, believe that justice implies inequality -- and so it does, but only for those who are unequal, not for everybody. Both sides judge erroneously because they do not specify the class of persons to which their principles apply. that is because such judgments affect their own interests, and most men are rather bad judges where their own interests are involved. For justice involves persons -- a just distribution being one in which [the value of] the things distributed corresponds to [the worth of] the persons receiving them, as has already been said in the Ethics; and although the two parties agree on what constitutes equality in things, they are at odds on what constitutes equality in persons. The main reason for such disagreement is the one here stated, namely that both parties judge badly of what most nearly concerns them; but there is also another reason, that because each party is espousing some limited conception of justice, each thinks of itself as espousing some limited conception of justice, each thinks of itself as espousing judtice absolutely. The oligarchs think that because they are superior in one respect -- say wealth -- they are superior in all; while the democrats think tht because they are equal with others in one respect -- say in being [born] free -- they are equal in all. Both sides ignore, however, the really cardinal qustion [of the end for which the state exists]. Now if men came together and formed a [political] association for the sake of wealth alone, then their shares in the state would be proportionate to the amounts they possessed, and the oligarchical argument would be valid -- viz. that it is not right for a person who contributes the hundredth of an investment to receive the same returns, either in principal or in profits, as he who has contributed the other ninety-nine one-hundredths. The state exists, however, not merely that men may live but that they may live well; were it not so, then slaves and the lower animals might form a state -- in impossibility, since they share neither in 'true felicity' (eudaimonia) nor in life guided by 'moral purpose' (proairesis). Nor again does a state exist merely as a defensive alliance to secure its members against all injury, nor yet for the sake of exchange and economic intercourse; otherwise the Tyrrhenians and Carthaginians and all other nations having such relations with one another could be regarded as citizens of one inclusive state. It is true that they have customs agreements, compacts against mutual injury, and written articles of defensive alliance. But there are no common law-enforcing bodies to uphold such agreements; the power of enforcement being limited to the internal affairs of each state. Moreover, neither of the contracting states cares about the moral character of the citizens of the other -- about ridding them of all unjust and evil tendencies -- but cares only about preventing violations of the compact. Those who really think in terms of good government, on the other hand, have a concern for [the more fundamental issue of] virtue and vice in individuals. Whence it is plain that a state which is truly and not superficailly so called must be concerned with virtue; for where this concern is lacking, a political community degenerates into a mere alliance, differing only in spatial extent from those alliances whose members [are states an] live apart; while law degenerates into a mere compact -- "a guarantor of mutual rights," in Lycophron the Sophist's phrase -- without any power to produce goodness and justice in its citizens.
Excerpted from The Politics, by Aristotle (Philip Wheelwright translation) |
|
||||
|
Enrich Your Life With a Philosophy Book... Enrich Your Life With a Philosophy Magazine...
|
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
||
|
|
||
[Homepage] [Newsletter] [Search] [Support the Academy] [Link to Us] [Contact the Academy] [Citing Articles from Our Website] [Privacy Policy & Disclaimer]
Copyright 1998-99, 2000-01, 2002-03, & 2004-05 by The Radical Academy. All Rights Reserved.