Aristotle (b. 384 – d. 322 BCE), was a Greek philosopher, logician, and scientist.

Along with
Plato, Aristotle is generally regarded as one of the most influential ancient thinkers in a
number of philosophical fields, including political theory. Aristotle was born in Stagira in
northern Greece, and his father was a court physician to the king of Macedon. As a young
man he studied in Plato's Academy in Athens. After Plato's death he left Athens and was
invited by King Philip II of Macedon to tutor his son, Alexander the Great. Aristotle's life
influenced his political thought in various ways: his interest in biology seems to be expressed
in the naturalism of his politics; his interest in comparative politics and his sympathies for
democracy as well as monarchy may have been encouraged by his travels and experience of
diverse political systems; he criticizes harshly, while borrowing extensively, from Plato's
Republic, Statesman, and Laws; and his own Politics is intended to guide rulers and
statesmen, reflecting the high political circles in which he moved. Aristotle has continued to
influence thinkers up to the present throughout the political spectrum, including
conservatives, communitarians, liberals, libertarians and democratic theorists.

MAN AS ZOON POLITIKON

The starting point for understanding aristotle’s views on ethics and politics is his assertion
that man by nature is a social or a political animal (zoon politikon). This indicates that
humans are sociable because they are always found to be living together with others in
society or in a polis. However he considers it to be a characteristic of man that alone has any
sense of good or evil, just and unjust. Thus man by nature is an ethical animal. In his view,
for human beings a natural life is a life of justice. It is this above all that differentiates human
species from other species. It is a life of justice that represents the good for man and it is the
ultimate end towards which all human beings ought to strive. For aristotle the ultimate aim is
to enable the process of personal development to take place. It is political society that makes
it possible for individuals to live a good life. To fulfill one’s potential as a human in this
context is to achieve a condition that aristotle refers to as eudaimonia in Nicomachean ethics.
The term eudaimonia is often misleadingly translate as happiness, flourishing, but the real
meaning is fulfilment. According to aristotle, the achievement of eudaimonia requires that
there be rules which serve as a standard of right and wrong for individual moral agents. For
aristotle, these rules are the principles of political justice of the polis in which they live.
Since an ethical life is possible only in political society, aristotles views on ethics and
politics are closely related. It is due to this reason that aristotle argues that for human beings,
the study of politics is the highest master science as it incorporates the study of ethics and is
concerned with what is noble, what is just and lays down what we ought to do and ought not
to do.
VIRTUE

The difference between aristotelian virtue ethics and modern ethical doctrines is that virtue
ethics attaches little or no importance to moral rules as opposed to psychological motivation
or moral character as a determinant of what is just and unjust. For aristotle, it is not moral
rules but the moral virtues that have a central place. Aristotle insists that some people who do
just actions are nevertheless not yet just and hence not yet virtuous, if they do these actions
involuntarily or through ignorance or some other reason and not for the sake of actions
themselves. According to aristotle it is possible to separate the question of justice or injustice
of actions from that of the presence or absence of moral virtue in the persons who perform
them. For aristotle whether or not an action is just or unjust, right or wrong has nothing to do
with the motives that lies behind it. Aristotle is of the opinion that even a virtuous motive
could not transform an action that is unjust into one that is just and therefore morally
permissible. According to him, for an action to be just, it has to be not only motivated but
also objectively right. It must satisfy the requirements of an independent standard of right
and wrong that is external to the individual moral agent. In short it must conform to some
rule or law. Aristotle adopts what is usually referred to as deontological approach to
questions of right and wrong and of justice and injustice. In other words he thinks that certain
actions such as theft, murder, lying and adultery are intrinsically wrong or unjust.

ARISTOTLE’S VIEW ON POLITICS

Aristotle's word for ‘politics’ is politikê, which is short for politikê epistêmê or ‘political
science’. It belongs to one of the three main branches of science, which Aristotle
distinguishes by their ends or objects. Contemplative science (including physics and
metaphysics) is concerned with truth or knowledge; practical science with good action; and
productive science with making useful or beautiful objects. Politics is a practical science,
since it is concerned with the noble action or happiness of the citizens (although it resembles
a productive science in that it seeks to create, preserve, and reform political systems).
Aristotle thus understands politics as a normative or prescriptive discipline rather than as a
purely empirical or descriptive inquiry. In the Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle describes his
subject matter as ‘political science’, which he characterizes as the most authoritative science.
It prescribes which sciences are to be studied in the city-state, — such as military science,
household management, and rhetoric. Since it governs the other practical sciences, their ends
serve as means to its end, which is nothing less than the human good. “Even if the end is the
same for an individual and for a city-state, that of the city-state seems at any rate greater and
more complete to attain and preserve. For although it is worthy to attain it for only an
individual, it is nobler and more divine to do so for a nation or city-state”. Aristotle's political
science thus encompasses both ethics and political philosophy.
Aristotle regards legislative science as more important than politics as exercised in everyday
political activity such as the passing of decrees. Aristotle frequently compares the politician
to a craftsman. In order to understand this analogy it is important to observe that Aristotle
explains the production of an artifact in terms of four causes: the material, formal, efficient,
and final causes. For example, clay (material cause) is molded into a vase shape (formal
cause) by a potter (efficient or moving cause) so that it can contain liquid (final cause).
It is possible to explain the existence of the city-state in terms of the four causes. City state is
a community, a collection of parts having some functions and interests in common. Hence, it
is made up of parts, which Aristotle describes in various ways in different contexts: as
households, or economic classes, or demes (local political units). But, ultimately, the city-
state is composed of individual citizens, who, along with natural resources, are the “material”
or “equipment” out of which the city-state is fashioned. The formal cause of the city-state is
its constitution (politeia). Aristotle defines the constitution as “a certain ordering of the
inhabitants of the city-state”. He regards the constitution of a community as “the form of the
compound” and argues that whether the community is the same over time depends on
whether it has the same constitution. The constitution is not a written document, but an
immanent organizing principle, analogous to the soul of an organism. Hence, the constitution
is also “the way of life” of the citizens. Here the citizens are that minority of the resident
population who possess full political rights.

The existence of the city-state also requires an efficient cause, namely, its ruler. According to
Aristotle, a community of any sort can possess order only if it has a ruling element or
authority. This ruling principle is defined by the constitution, which sets criteria for political
offices, particularly the sovereign office. Aristotle states that “the person who first
established [the city-state] is the cause of very great benefits”. This person was evidently the
lawgiver (nomothetês), someone like Solon of Athens or Lycurgus of Sparta, who founded
the constitution. The notion of final cause dominates Aristotle's Politics from the opening
lines:

Since we see that every city-state is a sort of community and that every community
is established for the sake of some good (for everyone does everything for the sake
of what they believe to be good), it is clear that every community aims at some
good, and the community which has the most authority of all and includes all the
others aims highest, that is, at the good with the most authority. This is what is
called the city-state or political community.

He states that the city-state comes into being for the sake of life but exists for the sake of
the good life. The theme that the good life or happiness is the proper end of the city-state
recurs throughout the Politics To sum up, the city-state is a hylomorphic (i.e., matter-
form) compound of a particular population (i.e., citizen-body) in a given territory
(material cause) and a constitution (formal cause). The constitution itself is fashioned by
the lawgiver and is governed by politicians, who are like craftsmen (efficient cause), and
the constitution defines the aim of the city-state (final cause).

Aristotle's hylomorphic analysis has important practical implications for him: just as a
craftsman should not try to impose a form on materials for which it is unsuited (e.g. to
build a house out of sand), the legislator should not lay down or change laws which are
contrary to the nature of the citizens. Aristotle rejects utopian schemes such as the
proposal in Plato's Republic that children and property should belong to all the citizens
in common as aristotle believes that "people give most attention to their own property,
less to what is communal, or only as much as falls to them to give attention". Aristotle is
also wary of casual political innovation, because it can lead to undermining the citizens'
habit of obeying the law.

CITIZENSHIP

Aristotle states that “the politician and lawgiver is wholly occupied with the city-state,
and the constitution is a certain way of organizing those who inhabit the city-state”. He
begins with a definition of the citizen (politês), since the city-state is by nature a
collective entity, a multitude of citizens. Citizens are distinguished from other
inhabitants, such as resident aliens and slaves; and even children and seniors are not
unqualified citizens (nor are most ordinary workers). Aristotle defines the citizen as a
person who has the right (exousia) to participate in deliberative or judicial office. In
Athens, for example, citizens had the right to attend the assembly, the council, and other
bodies, or to sit on juries. The Athenian system differed from a modern representative
democracy in that the citizens were more directly involved in governing. Although full
citizenship tended to be restricted in the Greek city-states (with women, slaves,
foreigners, and some others excluded), the citizens were more deeply enfranchised than
in modern representative democracies because they were more directly involved in
governing. This is reflected in Aristotle's definition of the citizen. He defines the city-
state as a multitude of such citizens which is adequate for a self-sufficient life.

DIFFERENT FORMS OF RULE BY WHICH ONE INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP

CAN RULE OVER ANOTHER

Aristotle distinguishes several types of rule, based on the nature of the soul of the ruler
and of the subject. He first considers despotic rule, which is exemplified in the master-
slave relationship. Aristotle thinks that this form of rule is justified in the case of natural
slaves who lack a deliberative faculty and thus need a natural master to direct them.
Although a natural slave allegedly benefits from having a master, despotic rule is still
primarily for the sake of the master and only incidentally for the slave.

He next considers paternal and marital rule, which he also views as defensible: “the
male is by nature more capable of leadership than the female, unless he is constituted in
some way contrary to nature, and the elder and perfect [is by nature more capable of
leadership] than the younger and imperfect”. Aristotle is persuasive when he argues that
children need adult supervision because their rationality is “imperfect” or immature. But
he is unconvincing to modern readers when he alleges that, although women have a
deliberative faculty, it is “without authority”, so that females require male supervision.
However it is noteworthy, that paternal and marital rule are properly practiced for the
sake of the ruled (for the sake of the child and of the wife respectively), just as arts like
medicine or gymnastics are practiced for the sake of the patient. In this respect they
resemble political rule, which is the form of rule appropriate when the ruler and the
subject have equal and similar rational capacities. This is exemplified by naturally equal
citizens who take turns at ruling for one another's advantage. This sets the stage for the
fundamental claim of Aristotle's constitutional theory: “constitutions which aim at the
common advantage are correct and just without qualification, whereas those which aim
only at the advantage of the rulers are deviant and unjust, because they involve despotic
rule which is inappropriate for a community of free persons”

The distinction between correct and deviant constitutions is combined with the
observation that the government may consist of one person, a few, or a multitude.
Hence, there are six possible constitutional forms. The first three pure types are
constitutions in which the one,few or many rule in the interests of all (common interest)
and hence justly. Aristotle labels these types as kingship, aristocracy and polity
respectively. The other three types which he calls tyranny, oligarchy and democracy are
constitutions in which the one, the few or the many rule in their own private interests
and hence unjustly. Aristotle describes these as corrupt or perverted constitutions.

CORRECT DEVIANT

One ruler Kingship Tyranny

Few rulers Aristocracy Oligarchy

Many rulers Polity Democracy

Aristotles proposes that there are three possible standards of distribution- wealth,
citizenship and moral virtue of goodness. In all six types of constitution some people
have more political power and others less, but in each case the justification offered is
different. For example in an oligarchy, the standard of distribution is wealth. The
wealthy have more power than the less wealthy. This is considered just because the
unequal distribution of power is exactly proportional to the unequal distribution of
wealth. In a democracy the standard of distribution is citizenship. He assumes that
power is distributed between the adult male inhabitants of a polis and not just its citizens
and that those inhabitants who are citizens will receive more of this good than those who
are not. However all citizens possess the attribute of citizenship to the same degree,
justice demands that political power be distributed between them in accordance with the
principle of arithmetical equality. Aristotle notes that in a democracy this pattern of
distribution is considered to be just because it accords with the requirements of the
principle of equity. However he considers oligarchy and democracy as corrupt because
he does not consider the standard of wealth or citizenship to be relevant standard for the
purpose of distributive justice. Thus when evaluated by an absolute standard of justice,
they are faulty.

Aristotle and plato argue that the people who should rule are those who know about
politics. They are the minority who are educated, virtuous and wise. Aristotle proposes
that such people will come from the wealthy strata of polis and possess moderate wealth.
He calls these people the middle class of a polis and good life for anyone is possible
only if they are brought up in a polis that is ruled by such people. Aristotle's ideal
constitution is a form of aristocracy. If this should turn out to be impossible, a suitable
alternative is polity. In its pure form, polity is an ideal type of democracy in which all
citizens are assumed to be virtuous and good. Aristotle argues that polity may be thought
of as a mixed constitution. In his opinion polity is realistic and practically attainable
form of democracy in which rule by people who are assumed by aristotle as not virtuous
and good is balanced by the influence of minority who are wealthy and educated.

This six-fold classification (which is adapted from Plato's Statesman) sets the stage for
Aristotle's inquiry into the best constitution, although it is modified in various ways
throughout the Politics. For example, he observes that the dominant class in oligarchy
(literally rule of the oligoi, i.e,few) is typically the wealthy, whereas in democracy
(literally rule of the dêmos, i.e., people) it is the poor, so that these economic classes
should be included in the definition of these forms. Also, polity is later characterized as
a kind of “mixed” constitution typified by rule of the “middle” group of citizens, a
moderately wealthy class between the rich and poor. Though he is critical of democracy,
in one passage he allows that the case for rule by the many based on the superior
wisdom of the multitude “perhaps also involves some truth”. In his view the reason for
different constitutions is that although in every society there has been an
acknowledgement of justice and proportionate equality, nevertheless mankind has failed
to create a truly just polis because it has employed wrong standards when distributing
political power. Aristotle is of the opinion that the best constitution is one in which
political power is distributed not only in accordance with the principle of equity but also
the correct standard of virtue or goodness.

THEORY OF JUSTICE

Aristotle outlines his theory of justice in book 5 of nicomachean ethics. He points out
that justice is not a state of mind or a moral virtue but deals with the rightness and
wrongness of our actions. Aristotle argues that we think about justice in two ways- we
associate justice with righteousness, that is with lawfulness and obedience to law. From
this point of view, to act unjustly means to do something which is contrary to law or that
which conflicts with the requirements of what aristotle refers to as the principles of
political justice of one’s own polis. Therefore the principles of political justice of a polis
constitute the standard of justice or of right and wrong for its citizens. As aristotle
claims that the aim of a true politician is to produce good citizens who are obedient to
laws- no matter what the character of the law is. For whatever is lawful is in some way
just.

He argues that we associate the concept of justice with that of fairness, a concept that is
connected to equality. Justice in the particular sense has to do with actions that affect
other people, which are regulated by law. They represent a subclass of actions that are
regulated by law and therefore just or unjust. Most of book 5 of Ethics concentrates on
developing a theory of justice with a consideration of its application to various areas of
social and political life. Aristotle points out that the concept of equality has to do with
that of equality and equality itself requires classification. He propose two types of
equality- proportional and arithmetic. Proportional equality requires that those who are
equal ought to be treated equally if their circumstances are similar in some respect. It
also requires that those who are not equal ought not to be treated equally. Unequals
ought to be treated differently provided the difference in treatment is proportional to the
inequality that exists between them. If this condition is satisfied, it can be claimed that
they have been treated justly even though they have been treated differently. The
principle of arithmetic equality applies where persons involved are as a matter of fact
equals and their circumstances are similar. In such situations justice requires not
proportional but equal treatment.

For aristotle the principle of equity constitutes the supreme principle of justice. In Ethics
he states that there are two areas of human activity where this principle of justice has a
practical application. These are the spheres of rectificatory and distributive justice. The
sphere of rectificatory justice has to do with regulating the social or ethical relationships
between the citizens of a particular polis. In this, all the persons should be treated in
accordance with the principle of arithmetic equality. Citizens should treat one another as
equals and they should all be treated as equals by the laws of the polis. When this does
not happen, it is the function of law to correct any imbalance that arises as a result.
Aristotle states that principles of justice forbid actions like murder, theft and adultery
which are wrong fall within the sphere of rectificatory justice. Despite this, aristotle does
not extend this principle to all human beings. Aristotle does not think all humans by
nature are equal or have the natural right to be treated as such. Aristotle clearly defends
the institution of slavery in politics. He critizises that slavery is necesarily unjust
because it involves traeting equals as if they were unequals and he refuses to accept that
slavery is contrary to nature. According to aristotle problems of distributive justice
always possess three elements. There is a good to be distributed, there is a body of
persons among whom this good is to be distributed and a standard of distribution. For
aristotle the problems of distributive justice have to do with the relationship that exists
between individual citizens and polis.
Aristotle's constitutional theory is based on his theory of justice, which is expounded in
Nicomachean Ethics book V. Aristotle distinguishes two different but related senses of
“justice” — universal and particular — both of which play an important role in his
constitutional theory. Firstly, in the universal sense “justice” means “lawfulness” and is
concerned with the common advantage and happiness of the political community. The
conception of universal justice undergirds the distinction between correct (just) and
deviant (unjust) constitutions. But what exactly the “common advantage” entails is a
matter of scholarly controversy. Some passages imply that justice involves the
advantage of all the citizens; for example, every citizen of the best constitution has a just
claim to private property and to an education. But Aristotle also allows that it might be
“in a way” just to ostracize powerful citizens even when they have not been convicted of
any crimes.

Secondly, in the particular sense “justice” means “equality” or “fairness”, and this includes
distributive justice, according to which different individuals have just claims to shares of
some common asset such as property. Aristotle analyzes arguments for and against the
different constitutions as different applications of the principle of distributive justice. he
says, that justice involves treating equal persons equally, and treating unequal persons
unequally, but they do not agree on the standard by which individuals are deemed to be
equally (or unequally) meritorious or deserving. He assumes his own analysis of distributive
justice set forth in Nicomachean Ethics V.3: Justice requires that benefits be distributed to
individuals in proportion to their merit or desert. The oligarchs mistakenly think that those
who are superior in wealth should also have superior political rights, whereas the democrats
hold that those who are equal in free birth should also have equal political rights. Both of
these conceptions of political justice are mistaken in Aristotle's view, because they assume a
false conception of the ultimate end of the city-state. The city-state is neither a business
enterprise to maximize wealth (as the oligarchs suppose) nor an association to promote
liberty and equality (as the democrats maintain). Instead, Aristotle argues, “the good life is
the end of the city-state,” that is, a life consisting of noble actions. Hence, the correct
conception of justice is aristocratic, assigning political rights to those who make a full
contribution to the political community, that is, to those with virtue as well as property and
freedom. This is what Aristotle understands by an “aristocratic” constitution: literally, the
rule of the aristoi, i.e., best persons. Aristotle explores the implications of this argument in
the remainder of Politics III, considering the rival claims of the rule of law and the rule of a
supremely virtuous individual. Here absolute kingship is a limiting case of aristocracy.
Again, in books VII-VIII, Aristotle describes the ideal constitution in which the citizens are
fully virtuous.

Aristotelian political science is not confined to the ideal system, but also investigates the
second-best constitution or even inferior political systems, because this may be the
closest approximation to full political justice which the lawgiver can attain under the
circumstances.

Regarding the constitution that is ideal or “according to prayer,” Aristotle criticizes the views
of his predecessors in Politics and then offers a rather sketchy blueprint of his own. Although
his own political views were influenced by Plato, Aristotle is highly critical of the ideal
constitution set forth in Plato's Republic on the grounds that it over values political unity, it
embraces a system of communism that is impractical and inimical to human nature, and it
neglects the happiness of the individual citizens. In contrast, in Aristotle's “best constitution,”
each and every citizen will possess moral virtue and the equipment to carry it out in practice,
and thereby attain a life of excellence and complete happiness. All of the citizens will hold
political office and possess private property because “one should call the city-state happy not
by looking at a part of it but at all the citizens.”. Moreover, there will be a common system of
education for all the citizens, because they share the same end.
If the population lacks the capacities and resources for complete happiness, however, the
lawgiver must be content with fashioning a suitable constitution. The second-best system
typically takes the form of a polity (in which citizens possess an inferior, more common
grade of virtue) or mixed constitution (combining features of democracy, oligarchy, and,
where possible, aristocracy, so that no group of citizens is in a position to abuse its rights).
Aristotle argues that for city-states that fall short of the ideal, the best constitution is one
controlled by a numerous middle class which stands between the rich and the poor. For those
who possess the goods of fortune in moderation find it “easiest to obey the rule of reason”.
They are accordingly less apt than the rich or poor to act unjustly toward their fellow
citizens. A constitution based on the middle class is the mean between the extremes of
oligarchy (rule by the rich) and democracy (rule by the poor). “That the middle [constitution]
is best is evident, for it is the freest from faction: where the middle class is numerous, there
least occur factions and divisions among citizens”. The middle constitution is therefore both
more stable and more just than oligarchy and democracy.
Although Aristotle classifies democracy as a deviant constitution, he argues that a case might
be made for popular rule. The central claim is that the many may turn out to be better than
the virtuous few when they come together, even though the many may be inferior when
considered individually. For if each individual has a portion of virtue and practical wisdom,
they may pool these assets and turn out to be better rulers than even a very wise individual.
This argument seems to anticipate treatments of “the wisdom of the multitude” such as
Condorcet's “jury theorem.”
In addition, the political scientist must attend to existing constitutions even when they are
bad. Aristotle notes that “to reform a constitution is no less a task [of politics] than it is to
establish one from the beginning,” and in this way “the politician should also help existing
constitutions”. The political scientist should also be cognizant of forces of political change
which can undermine an existing regime. Aristotle criticizes his predecessors for excessive
utopianism and neglect of the practical duties of a political theorist. However, he is no
Machiavellian. The best constitution still serves as a regulative ideal by which to evaluate
existing systems.
Books IV–VI of Politics are concerned with the existing constitutions: that is, the three
deviant constitutions, as well as polity or the “mixed” constitution, which are the best
attainable under most circumstances. The mixed constitution has been of special interest to
scholars because it looks like a forerunner of modern republican regimes. The whole of book
V investigates the causes and prevention of revolution or political change. Books VII–VIII
are devoted to the ideal constitution.
POLIS

According to aristotle the role of state is to enable the individual to realise his/her potential to
achieve his/her individual good. He asserts that no one would wish to live in isolation
without friends. Apart from the benefits derived from others, such as help in time of trouble
we find the sharing of a life with like minded friends an intrinsic good, in that such a life is
more enjoyable and more worthwhile than a life without friends. Aristotle thinks that
considerations of the relations between the political and other forms of community provide
grounds to accept the thesis that a good human life must be a political life. He claims that a
good human life must be a life of participation in the city state(polis). He was aware of other
types of state such as persian kingdom, but is unwilling to count them as poleis, on the
ground they are too big. Aristotle account of the polis is firmly grounded in the philosophy of
nature. It is expressed in two theses.
1. Polis exists by nature
2. Human being is a being of a kind naturally adapted to live in a polis
He argues that the continuation of human species requires two primitive forms of
interpersonal relation that between male and female for the purpose of reproduction and that
between master and slave for survival. Hence the most primitive social unit is constituted by
individuals bearing those relations to one another, the household, while the village is a
further natural development, a permanent association of households existing for the
fulfilment of needs. Households and villages are thus natural forms of association in that they
develop in response to certain natural human needs. The master slave relation even if natural
is conventional to the extent that a slave is by definition the property of the master so that the
existence of the relation presupposes the conventions constitutive of the institution of private
property. He argues that since the polis is the perfect type of community it must be a natural
form of community. The development from household via village to polis is presented as
analogous to acorn via a sapling to mature oak. He argues that the process of development
from household is a purposive one in which people who as individuals lack self sufficiency
combine to form communities of increasing complexity until then the aim of producing a self
sufficient community is achieved by the development of the polis. Aristotle remarks that the
polis comes into being for the sake of life but exists for the sake of good life suggest that
simple survival and subsistence was the goal which explains the original development of the
polis and the conception of it as existing to promote the good life is a subsequent
development which presupposes the general adoption of a system of values itself made
possible by the conditions of life in the polis.

Aristotles first argument for his theses that the polis exists by nature is as follows: the polis is
the goal of primitive communities, nature is a goal, therefore polis exists by nature. He
asserts that the grounds for the thesis that the polis exists by nature are also grounds for the
thesis that man is by nature a political animal. He asserts that humans are adapted by nature
for life in the polis, in that context is necessary and sufficient for the attainment of individual
human good. He supports this claim by stating that nature does anything in vain. The human
capacity for practical judgements marks the species out for life in the polis. This claim
implies that modern political institutions systematically deprive their participants of the full
exercise of one of their most fundamentally human capacities. He claims that polis is prior to
the individual since the whole must be prior to the part and the individual is a part of the
polis. He makes analogous claims about the relation between individual and polis, an
individual incapable of membership of a polis is not a human but rather an animal while one
who is self sufficient apart from the polis is superhuman or as aristotle puts it a god. The
relation of slave to master appears to give the nearest analogy to the relation of the individual
to the state as individuals we are living parts of the state as the slave is a living part of the
master and like the slave we find our good not in the realization of any aims of our own but
in the fulfilment of the aims of that of which are a part. He distinguishes political rule from
the rule of master over slave on the ground that the latter is exercised over those who are free
and equal and must consequently have as its aim the promotion of the good of those who are
freely to accept it. The good of the individual is not independent of the good of the polis. The
good of the individual is to live a life of moral and intellectual virtue which requires that the
individual directs his life by his autonomous practical reasoning.

The thesis that the polis stands to the individual as whole to part is therefore an aberration on
aristotles part, it commits him to denying two central theses of his ethico political system that
the aim of the polis is the promotion of the good life for its citizens and that the central
activity of the good life is the exercise of autonomous practical rationality. Aristotle ought to
separate the claim that humans are creatures adapted for life in the polis from the claim that
they are parts of the polis for the sake of consistency with his central doctrines.

Q. why does the exercise of practical rationality require the polis?

The good life is the life directed by phronesis and the most perfect exercise of phronesis is
the application of that virtue to the common good of a community. Good life requires
participation in the government of a self governing community i,e polis. Someone who has
no share in the government of his/her community has willingly to surrender crucial aspects
of his/her life to the direction of another. Aristotle has not envisaged modern representative
democracy because it removes the individual far from day to day decision making.
According to him, good human must be phronimos, and the ideal phronimos is the politikos.
It follows that the citizens of a polis must participate in its government. But aristotle counts
democracy as merely one form of constitution of polis, not in fact the best. He includes other
forms such as tyranny and monarchy which allows little or no participation in government to
their citizens and asserts that kingship is the best form of constitution.

ARISTOTLE’S CLASSIFICATION OF TYPES OF POLITICAL CONSTITUTION

A polis is a species of community, other species being the household, village and nation. The
various kinds are defined by the different forms of rule or subordination which govern the
activities of their members. The rule of master over slave, of the patriarch over the wife and
children and of monarch over subjects are different forms of political rule which are
exercised over free and equal subjects with a view to promoting common interest. So a polis
by definition is a community of individuals who participate in the government of the
community. A polis is a community of citizens and a citizen is defined as one who is able to
participate in the deliberative and judicial areas of government. He counts monarchy as a
species of constitution containing two sub species kingship and tyranny. He distinguishes
various correct forms of constitution which satisfy that requirement from their corresponding
deviant or perverted forms which aim at the promotion of various sectional interests. A polis
can simply be taken to be a more or less autonomous community normally but not
necessarily greek, inhabiting a continuous and fairly small tract of land containing a single
urban center and a number of smaller settlements. Poleis may be governed in a variety of
ways: by monarchs of various kinds, unconstitutional despots, various kinds of oligarchies,
various democracies or by systems combining elements of those diverse types.
Classification of types of constitution- government by a single individual (kingship), by the
few (aristocracy), by the many (polititeia) but each of those correct forms may be perverted
into a form in which the ruling elements seek its own sectional interest instead of the
common good- tyranny, oligarchy and democracy.

The type of kingship that aristotle devotes most attention is what he calls total kingship in
which the king has control of all matters, a feature which is at odds with aristotles definition
of citizenship. This autocratic form of rule is that which the patriarch exerts over his
household, describing it as household management of a polis of one or more nations.
Household management involves the rule of the developed practical wisdom of the patriarch
over slaves, females and children all types of human being who in aristotles view, lack that
developed wisdom, “the slave does not have the faculty of deliberation, the female has it but
in a form lacking in authority and the child has it but in an incomplete form. Since that
deficiency makes them unable to provide adequately for their own lives, they must make
good the deficiency by dependence on the wisdom of the patriarch.

Monarchy does not provide a model for the ideal polis. The only form of monarchy suitable
for imperfect individuals is a monarchy limited by law, it is the law which has supreme
authority and the monarch is in fact a form of magistracy. Given the participatory account of
citizenship it is contradictory to define an oligarchy as a community in which participation in
government is confined to a certain proportion of the citizen body since those excluded from
those functions are excluded by definition from the citizen body itself. Oligarchy can be
identifies by differentiating various aspects of citizenship, such as the liability for military
service or taxation apply to all, whereas such as eligibility for various kinds of magistricies
are the prerogative of a minority. Aristotle does not define a minimum condition for
citizenship purely in terms of obligation because such a criterion would not reliably
distinguish from citizens such categories of resident non citizens as resident aliens who were
subject to some obligations. He defines citizenship in terms of right to participate in
government in one way or another and then faces the difficulty that in oligarchy those rights
are restricted to some citizens only. He makes distinction between definite offices and
indefinite, but recognizes that in some oligarchies not even the latter are available to all. He
accepts that his account of citizenship applies best to democratic states and in practise the
status of citizens is accorded on whatever grounds are found convenient in different states.
He thinks that the concept of citizenship cannot be defined in terms of residence or
subjection to authority but implies participation in the essential activity of a community and
also to see that participation is a matter of degree. A somewhat more liberal conception of
participation including such elements as the right to participate in ritual or to identify oneself
as a descendant of some mythical ancestor might have helped him deal with the problem of
non-participatory citizenship.

He assumes that the best state is that in which every citizen is given the opportunity to
achieve complete excellence. He praises that life of theoretical activity as the life of perfect
well being and downgrades the life of practical excellence to a status of secondary value. He
regards wealth as the primary determinant of political organisation. Every community
contains some who are rich who tend to be in minority and the poor who tend to be majority.
Each class tends to favour a political organisation which entrenches itself in power where the
rich minority are in power there is oligarchy and where the poor majority is in power there is
democracy. The distinction between oligarchy and democracy is not sharp, but is a matter of
degree. A regime is more or less democratic or oligarchic in virtue of being characterised by
more or fewer of a cluster of features. Democratic features are payment for public service,
including attendance at the legislative assembly and jury service, selection of magistrate by
lot, absence of a property qualification for office. Oligarchic features are a property of
qualification for office, election of magistrates and financial penalties for non attendance at
deliberative or judicial bodies. Aristotle is unsympathetic to extremes of either types which
he sees as tending to promote sectional interest of either rich or poor at the expense of
common interest. He argues that common interest is best promoted in a mixed regime but
assumes that mixed regime will also have an economic determinant i.e, political
predominance of those of intermediate wealth. Hence he describes the best practically
attainable constitution as an intermediate constitution which is characterised by a mix of
democratic and oligarchic features and one in which the middle class predominates. .

SLAVERY

Slavery is prominent in the introductory pages of aristotles discussion of the polis, since the
master slave relation is an element in the most primitive form of community. Master and
slave are described as types of human being who cannot do without each other. Just as male
and female need one another for the perpetuation of species, master and slave need one
another for preservation. Preservation must mean not defence, but subsistence since the role
of the slave is elucidated by comparison not with a weapon but with a tool and with a
draught animal. The master needs the slave as the peasant needs the hoe or an ox, he uses the
slave to perform a task which he could not do or could less easily by himself. Living beings
which lack the capacity for rational self direction are better off subject to rational control of
another than left to their own non rational promisings. Some humans are like that, they are
natural slaves who lack the capacity for deliberation. Hence they find their natural role and
make their special contribution to the polis as human draught animals and do what is best for
themselves in doing so. He argues that enslavement of natural slaves benefits them by giving
them a better life than they would have had had they been left at liberty. This is implied by
the description of natural slaves as lacking the capacity for deliberation, thought of as mental
defectives, who left to themselves would bunder about helplessly until their extinction. The
claim that the same thing is good for both master and slave does not mean that the interests
of master and slave coincide but that the interests of the latter is determined by the interests
of the former.

Aristotles difficulties over natural slavery are revelaed by his vacillation on the question of
whether there can be friendship between master and slave. He appeals to the principles that
what is god for the whole is good for the part and that the slave is a part of the master to
support the claims that there is identity of interest and friendship towards one another
between those who stand in the natural master slave relation. According to aristotle,
friendship requires mutual concern and the desire for each other for the good of the other.
The master is concerned for the good of his slave to the extent that the slave has to be in a
good condition in order to carry out his tasks. Hence he says that while in a way master and
slave share same interest the relationship is concerned with the slaves good only incidentally,
in that the subordination cannot be preserved if the slave perishes. Aristotle says with
complete consistency that where there is nothing in common between ruler and ruled there
can be no friendship between them giving as examples the impossibility of a friendship
between a craftsman and his tools, a farmer and his animals or a master and his slave for the
slave is a living tool, a tool is a lifeless slave. He adds that while one cannot be a friend to a
slave qua slave, one can be a friend to him/her qua human. For in certain way every human
can have a relation of justice with someone who can be a party of laws and agreements and
there can be a friendship too in so far as human. But the feature of humanity which make it
possible to enter into relationship such as those of justice and friendship are incompatible
with the status of a natural slave since it is insofar as one is a rational agent that one can be
involved in these relationships whereas the natural slave is a natural slave because he/she
lacks rationality. The only slave with whom it is possible to be a friend is the sort who should
not be a slave at all, the rational agent who has been unjustly subjected to slavery through the
chance of war or similar circumstance.

Aristotle fails to provide a justification of slavery as actually practised in the greek world or
in any other society. The only form of slavery that his principles justify is that in which the
slave is a natural slave, but he gives no reason to belive that there are any natural slaves. On
his accounts a natural slave would have to be mental defective, lacking the capacity for
practical reason, but such a being to have survived to adulthood must have been taken care of
by a rational adult. The idea of a community of natural slaves is incoherent, yet the practise
of slavery as envisaged by aristotle envisages that barbarian people are just such
communities adapted by nature to serve as a continual source of slaves for the greeks.