“For the refined may well become disaffected, on the grounds
that they do not merit [mere] equality, and for this reason they are frequently
seen to attack [the people] and engage in factional conflict. Further, the wickedness of human beings is
insatiable […]” (Book 2, Chapter 7, Page 69)
These, Aristotle claims, are
reasons that equality of property would not prevent factional conflicts. I find this claim and the underlying
assumptions behind it to be very troubling and, I believe, untrue. In the first statement, Aristotle clearly
asserts (and he does this again a few sentences later when he mentions “those
who are respectable by nature”) that some people are by nature more “refined”—more deserving of capital—and that some
people are by nature less “refined”—less
deserving of capital. The second
statement assumes that human beings are just wicked by their very nature.
First, it is difficult for me to
see how Aristotle could have believed that some people are inferior based on
his assessment of the human soul as being on the same rung on the hierarchy of
potencies/material of the souls. Furthermore,
the practical effects of such a judgment are huge. While Aristotle might believe that people
judge others incorrectly and that the people with more property sometimes
should be the ones with less property and vice versa, the basic concept that
anyone should be of a certain status
based on nature severely limits the possibilities for people in “naturally”
lower statures. As far as people being
wicked, I cannot see how this view is compatible with the ultimate goal of
every action being goodness (which he equates with happiness). Perhaps this is because I firmly believe that
individual’s happiness is intricately tied up with other’s happiness. It’s difficult for me to tell, but maybe that
is where Aristotle and I disagree on that one.
Later, he reveals the legitimate
factor in judging people as equal or unequal: “political virtue” (Book 3,
Chapter 9, Page 10). But what makes some
people more politically virtuous than others?
Nature? And if our virtue is in our nature, does that oppose the idea of
free will?
I’m not sure Aristotelian goodness is exactly what we conceive of when we think of “good.” Our conceptions of good are rooted in concepts of justice and equality. I think for Aristotle that good equals telos – or the wholeness for the sake of which it acts. In Chapters I and II he discusses how the city is the whole of human existence by nature. According to the Aristotle, the city is by nature prior to the household and to individuals because “the whole must of necessity be prior to the part” (37). Following, we see that this is what he means by goodness. This is not to say that Aristotle doesn’t have rules for human living that would be what he considers “good.” I think, however, in the general sense that he is referring to the most flourishing part of partnership, which is the self-sufficient city.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with your understanding of Aristotle's view, although I could be misunderstanding what you intend to say. Aristotle says that "For the property of the citizens to be equal, then, is indeed an advantage with a view to avoiding factual conflict between them, but it is by no means a great one" ( Bk2, Chap 7, p69). You state that you find this claim troubling, however Aristotle, several lines later, clarifies that he is disagreeing with the equalization of land alone being enough to prevent conflict. Also, the numerous acts of violence and conflict on the individual and nation-state levels that have been fought over religious views, race, etc show that property is not the only cause of conflict. Aristotle acknowledges this and suggests that while equalization of property is good in that it will help prevent conflict it cannot do this alone.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, if we consider that Aristotle viewed those who were virtuous as those who had temperance, moderation, and also intellectual virtue it follows that these people would not be those who value property as essential or as very important.
I agree in some aspects with your assessment of Aristotle's view. I find it incredibly naive of him to state that "people are wicked by nature" and that some, again by nature, have more political virtue than others. He completely ignores the possibility of improvement or advancement in human intelligence or morality. Even if it is true that some humans are born more intelligent or moral than others, they can always be taught morality and strive for further knowledge. Furthermore, all humans have the ability to think individual thought and reason out things for themselves, something which I believe makes all of us fundamentally equal. While it is true that some turn out to be more virtuous or able than others, perhaps because of greater schooling or innate ability, you are right that all have the same fundamental soul, and so should all be treated equally politically.
ReplyDeleteI am glad that you chose to analyze this issue that Aristotle discusses on the issue of equality of individuals in society. I too initially was confused that Aristotle believes that some individuals are naturally more intelligent and virtuous than others, even though all human beings have the same soul. However, just because all human beings have a more complex soul than other living beings, I still believe that Aristotle would argue that individuals can have better or worse qualities than other human beings. When Aristotle talks about "political virtue" in this reading, I do not think that he means for the reader to focus not on individuals but on the community as a whole. The question Aristotle wants the reader to ask themselves is whether or not the individuals work together as a state or city and feel loyalty towards that city.
ReplyDelete