• The ancient Greeks are credited with inventing political theorizing, but the nature of this invention is often misunderstood.
• Systematic reflection on politics did not originate with Plato, and political theorizing was not the first subject the ancients systematically thought about.
• Before politics, the ancients engaged in systematic reflection on topics such as gods, household management, moral instruction in the Homeric poems, the natural world, and the duties of hospitality.
• The historical survival of manuscripts shapes our understanding of what the ancients thought, and there’s diversity among ancient Greeks in terms of time, location, and perspectives.
• The Greeks were pragmatic, prioritizing “How?” questions over “Why?” questions. They did not initially distinguish between different kinds of “how?” questions.
• The close connection between thought and action in ancient Greek thinking meant that considering how to do something well also implied considering how it ought to be done.
• The Homeric poems, especially the Iliad and the Odyssey, served as a comprehensive guide for the Greeks, offering insights into proper conduct, the gods’ actions, and the workings of the natural world.
• The Homeric worldview became less satisfactory to philosophers in classical times, but it persisted as a source of a code of conduct. Some classical philosophy aimed to rationalize and revive the certainties of the Homeric world.
• The Homeric order was hierarchical, with a mythic ancestry. The gods ruled over the world, and their relationships mirrored political dynamics among humans.
• The hierarchy of gods and men in the Homeric poems was characterized by order and symmetry. This mirrored the political world, providing a model for understanding the alternation of order and disorder in politics.
• The gods’ tale involves cannibalism, incest, and parricide, but these are regarded as incidents and crimes. The gods, despite being immortal, are subject to some kind of law beyond human comprehension.
• The hierarchy of the gods is reflected in the hierarchy of men. Each man has a tutelary deity, and the Olympian gods oversee important men, mirroring the earthly hierarchy.
• Local gods, though less influential, are essential to individuals, and men can call upon the Olympians for broader matters. The heroes at Troy, despite being away from their homes, could seek the aid of the Olympian gods.
• The Iliad reveals a complex social structure among the warriors at Troy, with a pecking order based on rank and prowess. Esteem is linked to both, causing tensions as seen in the quarrel between Agamemnon and Achilles over a captive girl.
• The resolution of the quarrel involves the intervention of the gods, and Achilles rejoins the battle after the death of Patroclus. The intricate social dynamics are accepted, and there is little discontent among the Achaean ranks.
• The predetermined roles of heroes and kings in the Homeric world limit individual agency, creating a sense of legitimacy and dramatic distance between heroes and ordinary warriors.
• The roles are accepted without question, and each character plays their part as expected. Heroes are seen as a different order of men, and there’s an implicit agreement about the hierarchy.
• The warrior-audience ensures that everyone adheres to their roles, and the story is known in advance. The drama lies in the potential failure of an actor to live up to their part in the story.
• The predetermined roles allow little room for maneuver, contributing to the perception of heroes’ actions as childish, such as the quarrel between Agamemnon and Achilles in the Iliad.
• Despite their seemingly immature behavior, the heroes are not condemned by the warrior-audience. What would be condemned is a failure to pursue the expected paths leading to the inevitable collision.
• The heroes are god-like, but attempting to prevent the gods’ predetermined outcomes would be an act of hubris, an attempt to be like gods, which is unacceptable.
• The heroes are touched by the divine, creating a dividing line between them and the Olympian gods. The gods’ involvement in human affairs blurs the line between religion and everyday life.
• The Homeric gods control the natural world hierarchically, with each god having power over specific natural phenomena based on their importance in the divine hierarchy.
• The Homeric worldview, with its emphasis on hierarchy, order, and predetermined roles, provides a comprehensive explanation for both the human and natural realms.
• In the classical Greek polis, the political landscape was diverse, with numerous city-states, each having its own political system. Aristotle’s classification into One, Few, and Many demonstrates the difficulty of categorizing them neatly.
• Greeks were frank about the class nature of politics, acknowledging oligarchy as a conspiracy of the rich and democracy as a conspiracy of the poor. Citizens expected tangible benefits from politics.
• The Greek polis faced challenges in governance due to its internal divisions and a lack of economic prosperity. Legitimacy was crucial for self-policing, and citizens needed to feel an obligation to obey the law.
• Legitimate power, backed by law, was different from force. The Greeks had a concept of law (nomos) opposed to the arrogance of power (hubris). The law set limits to the conduct of the powerful and was essential for maintaining order.
• The unwritten law in the Homeric world was a combination of moral principles, ancestral customs, and expectations about how individuals should behave. Great ones were expected to flout some aspects of the unwritten law.
• The law of the polis enabled large populations to coexist without constant fear of force. Law was a facility rather than a system of regulation, and legitimate power was subject to formal limitations.
• Citizenship was a privilege with varying political rights and duties based on wealth. Equality before the law did not exist, but access to law was available to all citizens.
• The law was crucial for the polis, providing the opportunity for citizens to live a good life. Citizenship involved more than avoiding legal trouble; citizens were expected to practice virtues valued by the community.
• Free competition within the law was considered a moral principle, and the law aimed at preventing certain harmful actions. Competition for goods such as wealth, strength, wisdom, and fame was encouraged.
• The challenge of the polis was reconciling the agonistic striving of self-assertive individuals with the need for moderation to coexist. Calls for moderation from various moral authorities indicated a tension between individual ambition and communal harmony.
• Ancient Greeks, raised in a moral tradition different from the Sermon on the Mount, were seen as loud and boastful in their pursuit of virtues like nobility, wealth, and achievements. However, their lack of hypocrisy is noted, as they openly admired what they considered good.
• The Greeks valued virtues such as wealth, physical strength, wisdom, courage, self-control, justice, and fame. Philosophers sought to show how these goods could be pursued without causing conflict in the polis.
• Moderation in Greek polis law was seen as a result of individual men’s characters.
• Greeks acknowledged that man-made laws could be altered, leading to a vulnerability of political arrangements.
• Exile was used as a punishment, sending political opponents to other cities to avoid trouble.
• Constitutions with legendary founders were believed to be more enduring, creating a sense of antiquity.
• The Greeks pretended that their constitutions were very ancient to mystify their origins.
• The concept of limited sovereignty emerged later, challenging the absolute sovereignty claimed by states.
• Montesquieu and Founding Fathers found ancient checks and balances but misunderstood ancient ideas of sovereignty.
• The Greeks did not distinguish public and private in the modern sense; the polis judged and controlled its members.
• Political involvement was crucial, and neutrality in a civil war was illegal in Athenian law.
• The opportunity for public performance required leisure, posing challenges for non-wealthy citizens.
• Aristotle’s view of a good life involved being a soldier, man of affairs, and a priest at different stages.
• Athens’ defeat in the Peloponnesian War was attributed to overreaching and a loss of proper limits.
• The Melian Dialogue highlighted the Athenian perspective of yielding to superior force or being crushed.
• Despite the idea of law as a liberating force, thinkers began to question its nature and origin in the 5th century.
• The Sophists argued that laws were arbitrary inventions of the strong and against nature.
• Plato’s “Republic” refuted the Sophists, seeking a different order and political values.
• Plato linked Sophists with democracy, seeing their skills as most marketable in a democratic polis.
• Plato distrusted mob oratory, viewing the common man as easily swayed by demagogues.
• The lack of a sense of limitations in the common man and the demagogue’s exploitation led to potential chaos in a democratic polis.

• The Republic is presented as a long conversation between Socrates and others, with a shift from conversational to more monologue-like tone as the work progresses.
• Some commentators suggest that the Republic might be a composite of two works, but there is a single connecting argument throughout.
• The first and second books are considered as setting the scene for the arguments that follow, with a dramatic opening involving Socrates, Cephalus, and Polemarchus.
• Cephalus, an elderly man, represents a businessman’s ethic of telling the truth, helping friends, and paying debts. His goodness lies in consistency and duty.
• Socrates gently challenges Cephalus on his definition of goodness, highlighting potential problems in specific situations.
• Cephalus, unreflective about his ethic, leaves the dialogue after a brief appearance, suggesting a shift in focus from past moral authority to present examination.
• The Sophist Thrasymachus replaces Cephalus, representing a rejection of ancestral wisdom and the wisdom of the gods. Thrasymachus claims justice is the interest of the stronger, and injustice pays.
• Thrasymachus’ claim to expertise in understanding power dynamics in states is not seriously disputed; he cares about money and refuses to share his views on justice without payment.
• Socrates refutes Thrasymachus formally, arguing that ruling, like other skills, is practiced for the good of the object, not the practitioner. Thrasymachus concedes defeat but remains in silence.
• Thrasymachus’ dismissal is likely due to his vigor and the assumption that there is still something worth controlling in him. Cephalus, with passion spent, leaves the dialogue.
• Plato distinguishes between three classes of knowledge: ordinary knowledge, knowledge of the Thrasymachus kind (seeing beyond world deceptions), and true knowledge that goes further.
• Thrasymachus unwittingly highlights the challenge of discerning political realities, and Plato aims to bring the realities of power out into the open in his Ideal State.
• Plato’s political engineering in the Republic seeks to neutralize the bases of disproportionate power, like wealth and family loyalty, ensuring unity above and disunity below for stability.
• Plato addresses the problem of divided states by constructing a state in which causes of division remain but effects are not divisive, emphasizing unity in the ruling group through the principle of justice.

3. THE GUARDIANS OF THE STATE AND JUSTICE

• Justice is the integrating principle in Plato’s Ideal State, binding classes and providing unity in the ruling group.
• Socrates shifts from exploring justice in an individual to examining justice in a community, arguing that justice is easier to find in the state due to its public and holistic nature.
• Plato asserts that justice is not a set of rules but a characteristic of a well-organized society where individuals are assigned roles based on their skills.
• The ruling group’s claim to rule rests on the art of managing others, and institutional arrangements in Plato’s state focus on training and perpetuating the ruling group.
• Guardians-in-training undergo an extensive education process, and the state’s priority is to preserve this training to produce just rulers who understand justice.
• The training program involves selection, with individuals remaining in the highest class based on their talents, promoting a structured hierarchy.
• Dialectic is a key method in Plato’s Republic, progressing through statement and contradiction to achieve coherence and discover truth about justice.
• Dialectic involves agreeing to necessary aspects: patience, the non-wasteful nature of arguments, incorporation of ideas, emergence of truth from the process, grasping truth, and commitment to the entire process.
• Plato distinguishes dialectic from eristic, a form of argument resembling fast table-tennis, often played for applause. Socrates engages in eristic with Thrasymachus before engaging in dialectic in the Republic.
• Plato allows Socrates to play eristic to highlight the difference between dialectic and show-off argumentation, emphasizing the importance of dialectic in the pursuit of truth.
• Dialectically trained minds strive for the vision of the Form of the Good, which Plato considers the highest philosophical knowledge.
• The Form of the Good illuminates other Forms, and true knowledge begins with it, shaping the entire realm of knowledge.
• Guardians must attain knowledge of the Form of the Good before learning practical ruling skills, ensuring that they understand justice before defending and preserving it in the state.
• Plato’s contention that Philosopher-Rulers must see the Form of the Good is justified by the belief that a common system of education binds the ruling elite together, preventing internal divisions.
• Plato addresses the potential danger of intra-elite competition by explaining that men compete to outdo each other in what they perceive as good, suggesting that the education system fosters elite solidarity.
• Plato argues that there is a limiting condition on competition, especially evident in activities like tuning instruments, where competence is essential.
• Incompetent individuals lacking necessary skills might unknowingly compete with others like themselves, while skilled individuals compete only with others of their caliber.
• Plato contends that just men, like good musicians, do not compete with other just men but only with unjust men, fostering solidarity in the ruling group.
• Men are judged by how they treat each other, and Plato suggests that Guardians should treat each other differently than those they rule.
• The possibility of intra-elite competition is a concern for Plato, as it could threaten the solidarity of the ruling group in the Ideal State.
• Plato emphasizes the importance of selecting true Guardians who are reluctant rulers, contrasting them with potential impostors who may seek power eagerly.
• Guardians must be persuaded to rule, and ruling does not bring personal benefits like wealth or fame; instead, it involves sacrifices such as limitations on possessions, controlled sexual life, frugal meals, and absence of law to guide decisions.
• Plato considers the risk of Guardians avoiding ruling duties and competing to pass the burden to others, introducing an undesirable element of competition within the ruling group.
• Guardians, unlike other rulers, are not motivated by personal gain but by the pursuit of justice and the common good, and they must continually engage in ruling to maintain their fitness as Guardians.
• The absence of a legal system in the Republic serves as a positive benefit, as decisions are based on shared reasoning among Guardians, ensuring consistency and promoting class solidarity.
• The absence of law makes the ruled class easier to govern, as individuals imitate the behavior of the ruling class, creating an informal code of conduct.
• In Plato’s Ideal State, a challenge to the rule of Guardians is more likely to come from the Auxiliary class than from the ruled class.
• The Auxiliary class, comprised of those who didn’t qualify as Guardians, possesses a sense of group solidarity and serves as the military and police power of the state.
• Plato envisions more Auxiliaries than fully-fledged Guardians but fewer than the ruled class.
• Auxiliaries share the disciplined barracks life of Guardians without the compensations, and Plato questions how they would find satisfaction in their roles.
• Economic autarky and isolation from the outside world are key aspects of Plato’s ideal state, similar to the model of Sparta.
• The lack of external threats might lead to Auxiliaries having little to do, potentially causing morale issues or a desire for real wars.
• Guardians, being few in number, would need to rely on the respect of young warriors for older and senior soldiers to prevent discontent and potential military coups.
• Plato suggests that the state religion, based on the myth of the metals, could help in maintaining order and allegiance among the Auxiliaries.
• Critics question whether Plato’s Ideal State, founded on reason, is compromised by the introduction of a state religion and the myth of the metals.
• Plato’s claim that even Guardians should believe in the myth is not a substitute for the vision of the Good; it reinforces the division of classes for the overall good of the state.
• Plato’s inclusion of a state religion may serve as a form of social control, making milder forms of control less likely to be resented than overt exercise of power by the ruling class.
• The longevity of Plato’s Ideal State is a crucial consideration, and he recognizes the link between domestic arrangements, foreign policy, and the sustainability of a state.
• Plato observes a pattern in changes of regime in Book IX of the Republic, suggesting a vicious circle of domestic class wars and foreign policy complications in ancient Greek cities.

• In Book IX of the Republic, Plato discusses timarchy, oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny as degenerations from his Ideal State.
• Plato envisions his Ideal State as having once existed, with contemporary states seen as degenerate copies, and emphasizes the danger of degeneration as a future threat.
• The destabilizing effects of a timarchic character entering the ruling Guardian class have been discussed earlier.
• Plato explores the idea of instability of character as a means to illustrate the inherent instability of all states, except his Ideal State.
• He presents a sliding scale of instability, ranking timarchy as the most stable of imperfect forms, with oligarchy and democracy falling in between, and tyranny being the least stable.
• Plato’s classification of character types is not merely a result of soul-surgery; instead, it corresponds to different political types molded by various polis structures.
• Individual character mattered significantly in the Greek polis, where the city played a role in shaping the characters of its citizens.
• Plato is pessimistic about character, believing that when the best becomes corrupted, it turns into the worst.
• Ancient Sparta, known for character-building, is cited as an example, but even its well-constituted training system, represented by Lycurgus, is deemed to fall short of the ideal.
• Timarchy degenerates into oligarchy as timocrats lack a clear sense of what to admire, leading to brittleness in character and the eventual collapse of systems like Sparta.
• Plato explores how timarchy maintains itself by avoiding luxury and extracting resources from a subject population through a monopoly on armed forces.
• Oligarchy, the next stage, becomes unstable as it cannot offer security to the ruled class and is characterized by misers and their profligate sons.
• Oligarchic sons pose a threat to the system, leading to internal strife and disunity among oligarchs.
• Plato believes that solidarity in a ruling group is crucial for the longevity of a government, and oligarchy’s corruption of sons contributes to its downfall.
• Democracy, the subsequent stage in Plato’s scheme of political corruption, poses a challenge as it appears attractive and offers freedom of choice in lifestyles.
• Plato acknowledges the apparent appeal of democracy, where individuals can pursue self-chosen ends, but argues that its instability makes it the least just form of rule.
• Democracy’s free and easy style of life, where people pursue various pleasures, makes it susceptible to corruption and eventual degeneration into demagogic tyranny.
• Plato’s treatment of democracy differs from other forms as he identifies distinct phases in its political development before it descends into demagogic tyranny.
• The establishment of democracy involves the people realizing their own cowardice, overthrowing oligarchs, and instituting a system where all offices are open to everybody by lot.
• Early democratic leaders often emerge from the discontented under the oligarchy, particularly the profligate sons of oligarchs.
• Demagogic leadership, according to Plato, requires knowledge of crowd psychology, akin to the Sophist training in Athens, and involves robbing the rich to appease the masses.
• Plato suggests that the Sophists play a role in training demagogues by imparting knowledge of the passions and pleasures of the common people.
• Plato describes the first stage of democracy, where rich and superior young men become leaders, often lacking moderation in character and aspiring to conquer the world.
• The crowd acts as a grand-scale Sophist, influencing and shaping these leaders to meet its desires.
• The corruption of the demagogue’s character begins during the transition from oligarchy to democracy, with internal conflicts arising as external controls diminish.
• Democratic leaders, as crowd pleasers, give in to the loudest desires of the undisciplined democratic character, sacrificing the most importunate desire of the moment.
• Flattery initially keeps the crowd satisfied, but the demagogue must resort to more substantial actions like despoiling vanquished oligarchs and redistributing land to maintain support.
• Democracy becomes a breeding ground for new moneymakers, leading the demagogue to rob them by inventing oligarchic plots.
• The tactic of inventing conspiracies may backfire, as surviving oligarchs and nouveaux riches start real plotting, creating internal and external enemies for the demagogue.
• The demagogue’s next strategy involves war, reinforcing the people’s belief in the need for a ruler, while also allowing taxation for the war chest.
• The grumbling crowd, facing taxation and demands for regular work, begins to question the benefits of following the demagogue.
• As the crowd perceives that the demagogue benefits more from democracy than they do, dissatisfaction grows, leading to the third stage.
• The third stage involves the demagogue degenerating into a tyrant, developing a taste for blood through treason trials and perceived internal and external threats.
• To ensure safety, the tyrant establishes a foreign guard loyal to him, composed of discontented sons of the rich from other cities.
• The tyrant’s character becomes dominated by a master passion, unleashing dark and repressed desires, leading to a life marked by debauchery and bloodshed.
• Plato emphasizes the connection between the tyrant’s character and the tyrannical state, with both being characterized by weakness, unhappiness, and the inversion of the Good.
• Plato argues against the poets, who portray tyrants as happy, and contends that the tyrant is the most wretched of men.
• The descent from democracy into tyranny completes Plato’s overarching argument about the relationship between human character and forms of rule.
• Plato’s analysis of political degeneration, though extreme, is presented with detail and care, suggesting a connection to real or imagined experiences in ancient Greek political life.
• The longevity of Athens’ democracy challenges Plato’s claim that democracy is inherently unstable, raising questions about the historical accuracy of his scheme.
• Plato’s attack on democracy is dual, as he acknowledges its short-term attractiveness while asserting its long-term instability, especially in comparison to oligarchy and timarchy.
• The stability of democratic regimes challenges Plato’s characterization of human character and types of political regimes, highlighting potential weaknesses in his overarching political theory.

• Aristotle was born in 384 BC in Stageira, Thrace, a subject of the king of Macedon, with his father being a doctor for King Amynatas.
• His father served the throne later occupied by Philip, who became the father of Alexander the Great. Philip’s conquests made Macedon the most powerful state in Greece.
• Aristotle studied at Plato’s Academy in Athens from the age of seventeen, staying as a student and teacher until he was around forty.
• His Macedonian connections may have caused suspicion in Athens due to Macedon’s threat to Greek city-state autonomy.
• Aristotle faced anti-Macedonian sentiment in Athens twice, possibly linked to the succession question at Plato’s Academy. He failed to become the head of the Academy.
• During his exile, Aristotle went to Assos in the territory of the tyrant Hermias of Atarneus, marrying Hermias’ daughter. He also tutored Alexander the Great for a brief period.
• Aristotle returned to Athens in 336 after Alexander’s ascension to power. He founded his own school, the Lyceum, becoming a prominent figure in Athens.
• The Lyceum’s curriculum covered various subjects, making Aristotle a pioneer in establishing a comprehensive educational institution.
• Athens experienced division between pro- and anti-Macedonian parties (oligarchs vs. democrats). Aristotle, with well-born friends, navigated these political tensions.
• Anti-Macedonian sentiment renewed in Athens after Alexander’s death in 332, prompting Aristotle to move to Chalcis in Euboea.
• Aristotle died at Chalcis at the age of sixty-two, leaving a lasting impact on philosophy, science, and education.

• Aristotle was Plato’s pupil, leading to assumptions about the influence Plato had on Aristotle’s political thought.
• The view that Aristotle broke with Plato is based on the belief that Aristotle, as a model student, must have been reluctant to part with Plato’s influence.
• Speculations on Aristotle’s background as an outsider, born in Macedonian Thrace and an Athenian resident foreigner, contribute to the theory that he overvalued citizenship and idealized the polis.
• Aristotle’s political philosophy is often analyzed in the context of his potential fear of being seen as a Macedonian agent due to his father’s connection to Philip and rumors of tutoring Alexander.
• The banquet at Opis in 324, where Alexander reconciled Macedonians and Persians, marked a shift towards multi-racial empires, challenging Aristotle’s idealization of the polis.
• The Politics, considered a messy compilation, may have been hastily assembled, reflecting the urgency brought about by Alexander’s conquests.
• Werner Jaeger argues for a distinction between the “Original Politics” (Platonic inspiration) and the “Aristotelian Politics” (more empirical), suggesting a developmental shift in Aristotle’s thought.
• Aristotle’s political science is rooted in nature, resembling his empirical approach in biology, contrasting with Plato’s tendency to dismiss much of political life.
• Aristotle values common opinion and believes past mistakes can be instructive, acknowledging that understanding has developed over time.
• Aristotle’s naturalistic approach involves identifying political aspects that align with nature’s purposes and amending those that frustrate those purposes.
• His approach is ambitious, encompassing all political aspects with the aim of achieving nature’s fulfillment in a world full of challenges.
• Contrary to the view that Aristotle settled for the mediocre, he emphasizes the usefulness of political science in achieving the best possible outcomes given the circumstances.

• Book 1: Aristotle’s Defense of the Polis

  • Polis is distinct due to its moral end, not just economic factors.
  • Justification of slavery within a well-managed household.
  • Discussion on wealth acquisition and its relation to household management.

• Book 2: Ideal Communities and Property

  • Discussion of ideal communities.
  • Examination of Plato’s Republic regarding the community of wives and children.
  • Property can be private but used in common through gifts and hospitality.

• Book 3: Defining the Polis and Citizenship

  • The polis is defined by its constitution, not citizens or territory.
  • Citizenship involves participation in public affairs.
  • Classification of constitutions into ‘good’ (monarchy, aristocracy, politeia) and ‘corrupt’ forms.

• Books 4, 5, 6: Morphology and Pathology of States

  • Examination of different forms of government: oligarchy, democracy, tyranny, etc.
  • Answers to questions about the existence of constitutions, the best constitution, and how they are organized.
  • Aristotle’s views on political pathology, preventive measures, and regime changes.

• Books 7, 8: Aristotle on the Best State

  • Population size should meet the needs of self-sufficiency, not excessive.
  • Territory should be sufficient for a leisured life without luxury.
  • Only Greeks are considered fit to be citizens.
  • Roles within the polis: warriors, rulers, priests, craftsmen, laborers, farmers, slaves, and women.
  • Emphasis on the best life for a citizen: warrior in youth, ruler in middle age, and priest in old age.

• Education and the Good Life

  • The polis exists for the good life of its citizens.
  • Education focuses on citizenship, practical reason, and moral development.
  • The end goal of man is found in reason, divided into speculative and practical reason.
  • Education is crucial for enabling citizens to practice virtues and lead the good life.

• Aristotle’s political philosophy is grounded in the belief that certain ways of organizing human life are natural, while others are not.
• In the Politics, Aristotle discusses natural pairs and rulership, emphasizing that rulership exists in relationships between superiors and inferiors.
• Natural pairs, such as masters and slaves, husbands and wives, fathers and children, and rulers and ruled, are deemed natural because each component needs the other to fulfill its purpose and function.
• Rulership, encompassing commands, guidance, and education, is seen in relationships like mind over body and intelligence over desires.
• Aristotle considers the naturalness of rulership over animals, asserting that domestication benefits both humans and animals, providing protection and establishing a sense of ownership.
• Different forms of rulership are explored, distinguishing between absolute rule (mind over body) and constitutional rule (intelligence over desires).
• Rule is always limited by its end, and abuse of power, without a clear purpose, is akin to ‘drug abuse’ in Aristotle’s view.
• Aristotle justifies slavery by arguing that those fit to direct themselves are fit to direct those incapable of self-direction. The relationship is both managerial and moral.
• Slavery is seen as a part of wealth, not a means to increase wealth, emphasizing that slaves exist to free masters from menial tasks.
• The hierarchy of ends is essential in Aristotle’s teleology, asserting that the end of a process gives meaning to the entire process.
• Aristotle’s doctrine of the priority of ends implies that understanding a process requires knowledge of its ultimate goal.
• The natural hierarchy extends from family and village to the polis, where the good life is the ultimate end.
• Aristotle’s teleological perspective is not predictive but offers a rational framework for understanding natural processes.
• The doctrine of natural places justifies the existence of slavery based on perceived differences between men, animals, male and female, and adults and children.
• The sliding scale of suitability for slavery ranges from nobly born Greeks (least suitable) to base-born barbarians (most suitable), with Olympic victors exempted.
• Aristotle rejects the Sophist argument that all power relations are conventional, insisting that some relationships are natural and essential for a meaningful world.
• Criticism of Aristotle’s arguments about slavery often centers on the assumption that the good life requires leisure for virtue, making slavery a perceived necessity rather than a choice.

• Aristotle addresses the challenge of governing a polis of free and equal citizens, where no natural order exists among them.
• He grapples with the influence of Sophists and Plato, emphasizing the need for a form of government that aligns with justice and is not merely a matter of taste.
• Aristotle shifts the focus from “Who is the best for ruling?” to “What kinds of men can make a good life for themselves?” He identifies practical wisdom (phronesis) as essential, acknowledging its limitations and its reliance on accumulated experience.
• The concept of phronesis is crucial for free men in making decisions, especially in political matters. Aristotle believes that citizens interested in well-governed cities expand their experiences and enhance their decision-making wisdom.
• Aristotle introduces the idea that laws, when properly made, represent decisions about the good life. Different forms of rule, such as kingship, aristocracy, and politeia (rule of the many), are governed by laws for the benefit of all.
• He distrusts even wise rulers with unchecked executive power, preferring decisions to take the form of laws. Laws rule when intelligence operates without the influence of passions.
• The arrangement for holding office in turns resolves the lack of a naturally ruling part among free and equal citizens. Citizens must take turns ruling and being ruled, aligning with the natural principle of equality.
• Aristotle sees this arrangement as providing a moderating influence when conducted through law. The citizens, as consumers and producers of rule, develop judgment and civility through judging and being judged.
• Obedience to law is just one aspect of being a good citizen. Aristotle emphasizes the educative effect of law in promoting cooperative virtues.
• Choices about the good life are crucial but not to be made every day. Aristotle envisions laws as a framework for life and its preparation, mainly concerning education.
• Aristotle’s approach to law recognizes the need for both fixed and changing elements, striking a balance between stability and adaptability.
• Civility, not dialectic, is crucial in Aristotle’s vision of citizen relations. Free men would begin from what is already common among them, promoting cooperation and shared values.
• Aristotle suggests that policy-makers should be those who have already demonstrated successful decision-making in their families and other communities. The head of a family is already accustomed to managing a common enterprise for the benefit of all.
• He asserts the importance of equality among equals, rejecting the rule of a kingly man over free citizens, as it would violate the naturalness of the state and lead to an imbalance of power.
• Aristotle’s claim for the naturalness of the polis hinges on the integration of natural communities, like families and villages, into the supreme community. The progression from family to polis is not temporal but a simultaneous and integrated role.
• The influence of a truly kingly man is considered an embarrassment in the polis, as it challenges the natural hierarchy and undermines the carefully integrated forms of rule in Aristotle’s scheme.
• Aristotle’s argument for the naturalness of the polis responds to the imperial world emerging under figures like Alexander, emphasizing the need for obedience and integration of various communities.

According to Ernest Barker, the origin of political thought began with the ancient Greeks. In other words, Greek political thought is considered one of the oldest in the world. It had a profound influence on the political institutions of not only the ancient times but also of modern times. The simple reason for this is the rational mind, secular outlook and efficient management of city-states by the Greeks. These city-states, in fact, served as laboratories for experimenting with various institutions.

The social and political organization of Greek city-states resembled a common­wealth society wherein there was a great amount of mutual sharing of life and habitat. Religion had no impact on the lives of the people. The entire Greek community opined that state is a natural institution that came into existence for the moral and personal development of the individual.

The state was regarded as a means to an end. Man is regarded as an independent citizen of the self-governing society and there was perfect equality as well as opportunities and rights. Further, a number of Greek city-states practiced different forms of governments such as aristocracy, monarchy and democracy.

Greeks firmly believed in an ethical society. In their view, a city-state is not only a self-sufficient body, but also a self-governing body. A man’s life was expected to be ethical because the state was considered an ethical institution.

Human welfare was the primary objective. There was a great amount of emphasis on education in order to create an ideal state. Ancient Greek philosophers aimed at making a society wherein there was a greater cooperation between the people from different classes.

Some of the unique features of ancient Greek city-states are as follows:

1. The city-state was administered directly owing to its small territories,
2. The city-state was a church as well as a state,
3. The city-state was self-sufficient and self-governed, and citizens enjoyed freedom, and
4. The city-state was an educational, ethical and political body; there was active participation of the people in political activities, and there was greater harmony in the city-states.

Features of Greek Political Thought

Ancient Greek political thought has left a profound legacy on Western political philosophy and remains influential today. The Greek approach to politics combined philosophical inquiry with practical governance, examining the nature of justice, the role of the citizen, and the purpose of the state. Here are some of the main characteristics:

Human-Centric and Rational Approach

• Greek political thought emphasized human reason and rationality in understanding the world, including political and social structures. Thinkers like Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle believed in using reason to discern the best forms of government and the nature of justice.
• This rational approach laid the foundation for critical inquiry and analysis of existing political systems.

Emphasis on the Polis (City-State)

• The Greek polis was more than a geographical area; it was the nucleus of political, social, and cultural life. The Greeks saw political participation as essential for human fulfillment.
• The concept of the polis encouraged direct democracy in cities like Athens, where citizens engaged actively in public affairs, making collective decisions for the community.

Ideas of Citizenship and Civic Virtue

• In Ancient Greece, particularly Athens, citizenship was an esteemed status. Citizens were expected to participate in governance and uphold civic responsibilities.
• Civic virtue was central, with a strong emphasis on citizens possessing qualities like courage, wisdom, and moderation, which were necessary for the polis to flourish.

The Search for Justice and the Ideal State

• Justice was a core theme. Thinkers like Plato explored justice in depth, with his work The Republic presenting a vision of an ideal state ruled by philosopher-kings.
• Plato’s philosophy suggested that the ideal state should be led by wise and knowledgeable leaders, with a social structure that promoted harmony and minimized social conflicts.

Classification of Governments and Analysis of Political Forms

• Aristotle, in Politics, classified governments into three types: monarchy, aristocracy, and polity, and their corrupt forms: tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy. He analyzed the strengths and weaknesses of each, offering insights into governance and balance of power.
• This typology influenced later political thought and set a precedent for analyzing government structures in a systematic way.

Debates on Democracy and Oligarchy

• Athens’ direct democracy provided a practical example of citizen participation, but not all thinkers supported it. While some viewed democracy as the best safeguard of freedom, others saw it as prone to instability and mob rule.
• Plato and Aristotle were critical of democracy, favoring governance by an informed, virtuous elite over rule by the masses, whom they saw as potentially unwise or self-interested.

Ethics and Politics as Interconnected

• Greek thinkers often saw politics as an extension of ethics. Aristotle argued that the state exists to promote the “good life” for its citizens, and that politics is a moral practice aimed at achieving virtuous living.
• Political philosophy was thus intertwined with ethical inquiry, as the Greeks believed that a just society enables citizens to cultivate virtue.

Influence of Religion and Mythology

• While Greek political thought emphasized rationality, it was also influenced by religious beliefs and mythological narratives. Gods and fate were part of the cultural backdrop, impacting views on justice, power, and legitimacy.

Greeks had given great importance to law owing to their ability to think rationally. A number of Greek political thinkers opined that law is the dispassionate reason—objective and unbiased. They believed that law is essential for the promotion of the well- being of the citizen. As far as justice is concerned, Greek thinkers viewed justice as virtue in action.

They contended that justice enables a person to discharge his duties towards the development of human personality. Further, a city-state was considered ideal only if it was based on justice. According to thinkers like Plato and Aristotle, justice is nothing but willful obedience of laws of the state.

The notion of citizenship held today is not a continuation from the Greeks. There were, in fact, stark differences between the Greek notion of citizenship and that of the modern view. Citizenship is not mere payment of taxes, right to exercise vote or obedience to laws. It is a direct participation in the political affairs of the state, as the Greeks did not believe in representative system.

However, not all members of the society were given an opportunity to participate in the political affairs of the state. Slaves, minors, old—and in some city-states women—were not allowed to participate or did not have citizenship because it was widely believed that they could not discharge their duties towards the state.

Even working classes, both skilled and unskilled, were denied citizenship because they lacked leisure, and with this, reasoning and a speculative mind. The Greeks, therefore, restricted citizenship to only those privileged classes of the society who were free from economic insecurity and from other economic day-to- day problems.

The system of governance in the ancient Greek city-states was not uniform despite identical territorial limits and populations. Three important forms of governments were in practice in different city-states, viz., monarchy, aristocracy and democracy.

Aristotle, the most celebrated ancient Greek political thinker, after examining nearly 158 constitutions, argued for a mixed constitution, taking the best of all the available forms of governance. Greeks never believed in democracy, as they never had faith in representative forms of government. Thus, their conception of government is symptom­atic of the class-based authority—aristocracy.

Thus, from the above points, it can be stated that Greeks have a great passion for reason, virtues and knowledge. They attached considerable significance to the discussions for reaching truth. The entire political enquiry was conducted through discussions and dialogues.

Methodologically, they may be viewed as the pioneers for the application of inductive and deductive approaches for the analysis of political phenomena. It is indisputable that the Greek thinkers have left an indelible mark on the intellectual tradition of the successive political philosophers of the medieval, modern and contemporary times in the West. With the above basic premises that guide the Greek political thought, let us study about the two most famous Greek political philosophers, viz., Plato and Aristotle, and their opinions.

Introduction

Plato was the son of noble parents and was born in 427 B.C. He was highly influenced by Socrates. He received his education from his master, Socrates, and later went on a journey to observe the ways of life of people and social and political structures. He also established an institution named the Academy or Gymnasium. He gave various theories on the most important subjects and wrote the famous “The Republic.” While interpreting the nature of justice, he followed the dialectic method. In this method, a person talks with an expert and then tries to understand his ideas, assumptions, and concepts so that he can come to a conclusion and form his own concepts or theories. Plato went on a journey to understand the ways of life of people by conversing with them and understanding their thoughts. The theory given by Plato is also called the theory of social justice because Plato pointed out that the state was a means for the whole of society. Before giving his own theory, Plato evaluated some theories on justice prevalent during his time. 

Evaluation of theories by Plato

Plato evaluated certain theories of his time on justice and found loopholes in each, and subsequently presented his ideas. The theories are:

Traditionalism

In the Republic, traditional views about justice are expressed by the father son duo of Cephalus and Polemarchus. When Socrates asked Cephalus about his views on justice, he said that justice consisted in speaking the truth, being honest and paying back one’s debt. Socrates, however, pointed towards some inconsistencies in his definition. If a friend who lent his weapon to us goes mad, it would not be justice if we return the weapon back to him. He also pointed out that in some cases, being honest and speaking the truth may do more harm than good and it is better to conceal truth in such cases. When Cephalus gave up his argument, his son, Polemarchus carried it forward by saying that justice was giving each man his due, meaning harming your enemies and helping your friends. Socrates again points to the shortcomings of this definition. He says that helping friends may involve immoral acts like stealing or telling a lie. One may also misjudge his friends and enemies and the rule of doing good to friends and harm to enemies may not apply. Hurting someone makes the doer less just or less excellent while justice is about excellence. 

Radicalism

This theory was supported by the Sophists, and according to the theory, justice is in the interest of the stronger. One should act as per his capacity and strength and achieve what is possible. It also meant that since the state is the strongest of will, whatever is done by the state is just, and thus, justice is the will of the ruler. One who has power or authority can make justice work according to their whims. Plato argued that:

• This theory cannot explain the different behaviors and activities of different rulers in different times and the concept of  justice varied from place to place. 
• It does not give any universal idea of justice. 
• It is not a rational principle.  
• It cannot guide a person who wants to achieve justice in his own way. 

Pragmatism 

Glaucon gave this theory, followed by the theory of Social Contract by Hobbes and Rousseau. This theory states that justice is the child of fear and born out of tradition. The people who suffered injustice at the hands of strong people decided as a result of the social contract that they would never do injustice nor tolerate it. For example, punishing a criminal will create fear in his mind and thus, in this way justice will be served to the sufferer. Also, a victim who suffered a loss will probably not commit the crime as he suffered the pain himself. However, Plato opposed this theory by saying that any contract between people is tacit and implied and that if a law is obligatory, one accepts it because it is not imposed by force. Also, people were under the misconception that the state resulted from a social contract between the ruler and the general public.

Rationalism 

Justice, as seen by Socrates, is an art. The ruler tries to bring justice by removing the defects from the general public. Since Plato was highly influenced by Socrates and his ideas, he gave the ‘rule of king’ for achieving the ideal of republic. What Socrates tried to say is that not everyone can rule or serve justice. One who knows how to deal with the interests of the people and works for their benefit in a welfare state can be a ruler. 

Plato’s Theory of Justice

After examining the prevailing conceptions of justice, Plato gives his theory of justice. Justice was one of the four cardinal Greek virtues – other three being wisdom or prudence, courage or fortitude, temperance or self-control. Greek philosophers defined justice as virtue in action. They always conceptualised justice in terms of harmony and order, whether they used it for an individual, state or the universe. Greeks before Socrates used to describe the cosmos, which means order as just. The idea of harmony and order is clearly visible in the contemporary usage of justice as fairness. In Greek language, the word for justice is ‘Dikaiosyne’ which means righteousness or just. Plato’s justice was based on morality and ethics, not on legal basis. It was reflected in doing one’s duty and contributing to the society as per an individual’s capabilities.

Plato believed in the Socratic dictum that virtue is knowledge and knowledge can eradicate political ills and injustice. For Plato, the ideal state possessed the four cardinal virtues. Wisdom would prevail due to knowledgeable rulers while courage would be present through brave warriors. There would be self-control due to the harmony in society following a common understanding pertaining to who would be the ruler and lastly, justice would prevail as everyone would do their duty for which they are best suited and not interfere in other people’s work. Plato saw the state as an ideal while justice was its reality. Sabine says that the theory of state in the Republic results in the conception of justice. He also said that justice for Plato is a bond that holds the society together. Plato’s idea of justice came from his vision of the political community and justice serves common interest. Even a den of thieves would need principles of justice to survive. Every state needs principles of justice as its foundation. The individuals in a state should be convinced that their state is a just state and they must follow the principles of justice of their state. Justice is the greatest good that people can attain as individuals and as members of a larger political community.

Three Classes and Three Souls

Plato starts his discussion on justice in a state by saying that the state is natural as no one is self-sufficient and human beings require each other for survival. Plato says that self-sufficiency consists in maintaining division of labour in a state. A successful political community has to perform three functions – production, protection (defence) and statesmanship (ruling). Hence, justice would consist in fulfilling these three activities based on functional specialisation. It would ensure that justice prevails as not only the common interest would be served but individual happiness and well-being is also served since there is harmony in what individuals do, what they get and their individual psyches. Based on functional specialisation, Plato gives three types of classes in a state (also called the three classes and three souls, an idea Plato borrowed from Pythagoras).

• Rulers: Every state would need rulers to rule with a function of making policy decisions.
• Auxiliaries: This is the class of warriors with a military function and they are part of the guardians.
• Artisans: This class has to perform economic function and includes all those who produce goods and perform socially necessary services, for ex. traders, farmers etc.

Each class exhibits certain virtues. The ruling class must have the virtue of wisdom and must have knowledge of properly ruling the state as a whole. Since the auxiliary class has to defend the state, they should possess the virtue of courage. The artisans must show temperance or self-control to curb their passions. They should understand that they have to perform an economic function in the state and possession of wealth or status should not prompt them to take over other functions like rulership; which they are not equipped to handle.

The division of labour is also a division of virtue in Plato’s ideal state. Those who have a superior role in division of labour also have superior degree of virtue. Since the rulers have knowledge or wisdom due to the rigorous education process, they have complete virtue while the other two classes have incomplete virtue. They have knowledge of ideas like justice, beauty, courage and truth and other moral attributes which Plato called Forms. According to Plato, each entity that exists in our world is an imperfect copy of the Form of that thing that exists in a transcendental realm. Only the rulers with wisdom can see these Forms and only they can ensure justice matches its Form as much as possible. For Plato, education was a necessary tool for moral reform to transform human soul. It would facilitate performance of one’s social functions and in attaining fulfilment. Rousseau regarded Plato’s Republic as the finest treatise ever written on education. Plato’s system of education combined best elements from Athens and Sparta’s education models. From Athens, he picked up creativity, excellence and individual training while from Sparta; Plato drew the feature of civic training.

Plato’s conception of justice could be called distributive as it stood for giving his due to an individual like skills and training while in return, the individual would perform his duty with responsibility. To substantiate his argument about differences in individual capabilities, Plato used a ‘noble lie’ through the myth of the metals which would be uttered by the rulers. The myth would propagate that as children of earth, all were born with some metallic component in their bodies. The rulers were born with components of gold in their bodies, auxiliaries with silver while the artisans had parts of brass in their bodies. This noble lie served two purposes. All people would believe that they were part of a bigger family with other members being their brothers. Secondly, all would accept their station in life as naturally suited to qualities they were born with and hence, would sustain functional specialisation. There was an elaborate system to select rulers in Plato’s state and any child, irrespective of sex and class could be a ruler if he or she exhibited capabilities to learn philosophical truths. Plato stood for a society based on merit not birth. He did not believe that talent and skill could be passed on from one generation to the other. 

Communist Principles

Plato wanted to remove objects of desire from the ruling class. He argued that it was easy for an individual to go against the common interest for the sake of his family. Hence, Plato abolished private property and family for the rulers as it encouraged nepotism, favouritism, factionalism and other corrupt practices. Plato wanted the rulers to promote common good, not their personal interests. He proposed that the rulers would live together in common, like soldiers in a barrack. Their basic needs for simple food and clothing had to be met by the artisans. Mating would be regulated to ensure a future pool of rulers, but it would take place outside any family structure. Children would be held in common and they would not know their real parents and would identify the state as their family. There would be nurseries maintained by state to take care of the children. Plato’s communism applies to the ruling elite and not the majority of population.

Communism of Plato and Marx: A Comparison

There is a big time gap between Plato and Marx and stark differences in socioeconomic and political environment in which they gave their ideas on communism. Plato advocated an ascetic communism to remove objects of desire from the ruling class, not meant to distribute them more equitably. It was also called koinonia, meaning fellowship or communion in Greek. There are a number of differences between the two. Ernest Barker called Plato’s communism as aristocratic and half communism, as it applied only to the ruling class while Marx’s communism was universal in nature. Plato’s communism was applicable to property and family while that of Marx was concerned with means of production. Communism was introduced by Marx as a weapon to destroy class distinctions and create a classless and stateless society. On the other hand, Plato introduced communism to maintain class hierarchy to maintain harmony in the state.

Justice at Individual and State Level

Plato argued that in a just individual, the philosophic element (wisdom) rules his soul. An individual’s soul should be in harmony and his reason, spirit and appetite should be in right relationship with each other so that he does not cross Plato: Justice his boundaries. A just individual does his own job and does not interfere in matters of others. He would take only his share and would not claim that of the other. Socrates said that justice consists in minding your own business and not interfering with other people. In an unjust person, the division of labour in the soul or psyche has broken down and his passions and desires begin to rule his soul than reason. At the state level, justice would exist when each class maintains its appropriate position in society and ensures harmony between different virtues in a state. Plato, however, left one aspect unsolved. He insisted that the artisans would willingly subordinate themselves to the ruling class, but he was uncertain as to how long this subordination would last. He has even recommended the use of force and rhetorical persuasion leading to control and monitoring. This raised concerns whether the ideal state would be a happy one as well. Towards the end of the Republic, Plato has highlighted the contrast between misery of an unjust life and happiness of just life. He has discussed the decline of the ideal state arguing that the state would disintegrate as it is a human institution which is an imperfect representation of an ultimate reality. Change is in the nature of this sensory world and the ideal state is no exception. The downfall of the state begins with the ruling class which gets corrupted by attraction of property and desire starts to rule wisdom and reason. They would enslave the citizens and the new virtue would be courage. Honour would be held above knowledge and this new type of regime would be called Timocracy, a state ruled by the auxiliaries. Timocracy would give way to oligarchy or the rule of a few rich and oligarchy would make way for democracy, rule by many. Plato emphasised that human beings are a product of their social environment and they will be corrupted if the social order is corrupted. 

Criticism of Plato’s Theory of Justice

• Plato laid more emphasis on the duties rather than the rights enjoyed by the people in a society. Rights keep the society united and bring solidarity among the people. Thus, both rights and duties are important and interconnected in a state. 
• He gave enormous powers to the philosopher-king but failed to realize the principle that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Thus, even the wisest king can become corrupt if given absolute powers. 
• He divided society on the basis of tendencies of the personality. But heredity is not solely responsible for personality traits. As a result, he laid the foundation of such a system of education in the society which develops one-sided personalities and does not give any importance to the environment which is yet another important feature responsible for the personality of a person. 
• The theory given by Plato lays the foundation for facism according to which each citizen is expected to show loyalty towards the state. On the other hand, modern thinkers suggest that the state must not be given absolute powers which might also curb the rights and freedom of people in a society. 
• He considered guardians above law. What Plato calls justice is the dictate of guardians in the state. His theory does not provide a reasonable basis for law and justice cannot be dependent on personal will and conscience. He also neglected to differentiate between moral and legal obligations. 
• His concept of justice is passive and cannot form a basis for jural regulation. He does not provide any solution if there is any conflict between the desire and duty or duties and rights. 
• He laid too much stress on the unity of state and thus, gave absurd ideas of communism of women and abolition of marriage and family. 

Influence of Socrates on Plato

Socrates was the teacher and master of Plato. His image never faded from the mind of Plato and was highly influenced by his master, so much so that it is reflected in his work. The ideas of Socrates can be easily determined by the ideas of Plato and his thinking. 

Virtue is knowledge

Socrates considered virtue and knowledge synonymous with each other. According to him, if knowledge has no impact on the conduct of a person, it is useless and meaningless. On the ideas of Socrates, Plato developed his concept of a philosopher-king in the Republic. Thus, both Plato and Socrates do not differentiate between ethics and politics. 

Theory of reality

Socrates believed that the virtue of a thing is not in its existence but in its fulfillment. On this basis, Plato gave the idea that the world of ideas is more real than the world of things. 

Theory of knowledge

Socrates divided knowledge into 2 types: casual and true knowledge. The latter is self-knowledge and is concerned with the conduct and character of an individual and influences the total personality of an individual. 

Philosophical method

Socrates invented the question-answer method for philosophical discussion, which was followed by Plato to prepare his dialogues. With this method, a person asks questions to thinkers and analyzes their thought processes, and then comes to a conclusion with the help of constructive criticism. 

Art of government

Socrates considered the ruler as a philosopher. However, this was different from what the Sophists believed. 

• According to the Sophists, the world is mechanical, but for Scorates it is purposeful. 
• Sophists believed that goodness is an art and can be achieved by specialized knowledge but Socrates considered it an innate power of man. 
• The theory of knowledge presented by Socrates is very much different from what Sophists gave. 
• The Sophists considered that social rules are not based upon natural law and are man-made, while Socrates kept traditional laws above man. 

These ideas of Socrates highly influenced Plato, so much that his work entirely revolves around the thinking and teachings of his master, Socrates. 

Analysis of Plato’s Theory of Justice

Plato was first a philosopher and then a political thinker. His political philosophy is mostly based on social philosophy. However, he does not provide any reasonable and just basis for the law in the state. He mainly connects his theory with morality rather than legality. He believed that justice could be achieved if all the people belonging to different social strata fulfilled their roles and duties in society. However, the society Plato talked about is not legal as it is not based upon the legal rights of individuals. Justice, according to him, guides men in the fulfillment of their duties. The concept is closely related to the self-control of an individual. 

This theory does not find its existence in the present society. Society today is driven by legal rights and duties. People are aware of their power, rights, and duties. Countries mostly follow the democratic system of government where the real power vests with the citizens to choose their representatives who form the government. The President, or the ruler, in the words of Plato, is not given absolute power nor is he an expert in philosophy. There is a system of checks and balances in the society given by the Constitution of each country which is the supreme law of the land. The idea of justice as given by Plato is very much different from what is observed in the present society. 

There are laws for each and every field and one who commits an offence by doing something prohibited by law is punished by the state according to the law and procedure are given in the statutes and Constitution. The citizens of a state enjoy fundamental rights which are not absolute and have reasonable restrictions. Unlike the classification of people given by Plato, there is no such classification in society based on personality traits or tendencies. Every person can do any work or choose any occupation. Thus, the idea and concept of justice given by Plato no longer exist in society and has become obsolete. 

Conclusion 

It can be concluded that Plato was highly influenced by his teacher, Socrates, which is visible in his work. He gave various theories on various subject matters. His theory of justice is based upon his own imagination of an ideal body politic or state, which is utopian and hard to find in the real world. Thus, when compared with today’s society, his idea of justice does not prevail. 

Plato’s theory of communism was certainly a corollary of his conception of justice. He believed that without communism there would be clash of ideas and interests between reason and appetite. Plato’s communism is based on the premise that property, family instincts and private interests would distract man’s attention from his obligations to the community.

He strongly opined that family and property are always impediments not only to philosopher king, but also to a commoner in his discharge of duties. As property and family relationships seemed to be the main source of dissension in the society, Plato stated that neither of them must be given any recognition in an ideal state. Therefore, a sort of communism of family and property was essential to offset the consequences of Plato’s design of ideal state.

Plato strongly believed that an economic division between the citizens of a state is the most dangerous political condition. This belief was mainly due to the widespread and frank opinions expressed by the Greeks that economic motives are very influential in determining political action and political affiliations.

Long before The Republic was written, Euripides had divided citizens into three classes, viz., the useless rich—who are always greedy for more, the poor—who have nothing and are devoured by envy, and finally the middle class—a strong body of men who saves the state.

An oligarchical state to a Greek meant a state governed by, and in the interest of the well-born whose pos­session of property was hereditary, while a democratic state was governed by and for the many who had neither hereditary birth nor property.

These economic differences were the key to the political institutions and it was no new idea, which the Greeks were following since ages. The cause for unrest that Plato was experiencing in Athens was mainly due to the troubles present since the days of Solon a statesman reforms in Athens.

This situation convinced Plato that wealth has a very pernicious effect on the government, but was dismayed at the fact that there was no way to abolish the evil except by abolishing the wealth itself To cure greed among the rulers, there is only one way and that was to deny them any right to call anything their own. Devotion to their civic duties admits no private rival.

The example of Sparta, wherein the citizens were denied the use of money and the privilege of engaging in trade, undoubtedly influenced Plato in reach­ing this conclusion. The main reason for Plato to emphasize on communism of property was to bring about greater degree of unity in the state.

Plato was equally vehement about the institution of marriage and opined that family affections directed towards a particular persons, as another potent rival to the state in competing for the loyalty of rulers.

He stated that anxiety for one’s children is a form of self-seeking more dangerous than the desire for property, and the training of children at homes as a poor preparation for the whole and sole devotion, which the state has the right to demand. Plato was, in fact, appalled by the casualness of human mating which according to him would not be tolerated in the breeding of any domestic animal.

The improvement of the race demands a more controlled and a more selective type of union. Finally, the abolition of marriage was probably an implied criticism of the position of women in Athens, where her activities were summed up in keeping the house and rearing children. To this, Plato denied that the state serve half of its potential guardians.

Moreover, he was unable to see that there is anything in the natural capacity of women that corresponds to the Athenian practice, since many women were as well qualified as men to take part in political or even military duties.

The women of the guardian class will consequently share the work of the men, which makes it necessary that both shall receive the same education and strictly be free from domestic duties. Plato’s argument about breeding of domestic animals refers to the sexual relations between men and women.

It is not that he regarded sex casually, but he demanded an amount of self-control that has never been realized among any large populations. According to him, if the unity of the state has to be secured, property and family stand in the way, therefore, they both must be abolished.

Forms of Communism

Plato’s communism is of two forms, viz., the abolition of private property, which included house, land, money, etc., and the second, the abolition of family, through the abolition of these two, Plato attempted to create a new social order wherein the ruling class surrendered both family and private property and embraced a system of communism. This practice of communism is only meant for the ruling class and the guardian class.

However, Plato did not bind this principle on the third class, namely, the artisans. In other words, they were allowed to maintain property and family, but were under strict supervision so that they do not become either too rich or too poor. Though Plato structured the society in this manner, he never made any attempt to work out his plan that ensured such a system to function.

The following is a brief description of each form of communism:

1. Communism of Property

Plato’s communism of property is in no way related to the modern communism or socialism because there was no mention of socialization of the means of production. Plato’s approach was mainly concerned with one factor of produc­tion, that is, property that has to be socialized.

The land and its products were in the hands of the farmers. So, only the guardians were deprived of property. Plato deprived them of all valuables such as gold and silver, and were told that the diviner metal is within them, and therefore there is no need for any ornaments as it might pollute the divine thoughts.

The guardians were paid salaries just right enough for their maintenance. They were expected to dine at common tables and live in common barracks, which were always open. Thus, Plato’s communism was ascetic in character. Plato’s communism existed only for the governing class. Therefore, it was political communism and not economic communism.

2. Communism of Wives

Plato’s scheme of communism deprived the guardian class not only of property, but also a private life or a family because family introduced an element of thine and mine. He believed that family would destroy a sense of cooperation that forms the basis for a state. To destroy family, it is important to destroy selfishness. Plato wanted the rulers of an ideal state not to get distracted from their work and get tempted towards self-interests.

Plato opined that family was the great stronghold of selfishness, and for this reason it has to be banned for the governing class. This situation brings about a question of ‘Did Plato deny his guardians class a normal sex life?’ For this, Plato stated that mating was encouraged between those who can in the best possible manner produce children of the desired quality.

Another question that was raised was related to those children who were born out of this union. According to Plato, they would be the property of the state. Immediately after their birth, they would be taken to a nursery and nursed and nurtured there. This method would make sure that no parent would have any affection upon one child, and thus love all the children as their own.

Further, the guardians, instead of caring for the welfare of their progeny, would thrive for the welfare of all. Thus, guardians of the state would constitute one great family wherein all children would be treated equal and common. Bound by common joys and sorrow, there is personal or exclusive relation to one family and in the process the entire state.

Plato further stipulated the age for both men and women for begetting children. He stated that the proper age for begetting children women should be between the age of 20 and 40 and men between 25 and 55 because at this time, the physical and intellectual vigor is more. If anybody flouted the rules, they were treated as unholy and unrighteous beings.

Thus, Plato’s communism of wives provided social, political and psychological bases for the ideal state. Plato believed that such a communism of family would remove the conflict between the personal interests and the objectives of the state.

Education for Plato was one of the great things of life. Education was an attempt to touch the evil at its source, and reform the wrong ways of living as well as one’s outlook towards life. According to Barker, education is an attempt to cure a mental illness by a medicine.

The object of education is to turn the soul towards light. Plato once stated that the main function of education is not to put knowledge into the soul, but to bring out the latent talents in the soul by directing it towards the right objects. This explanation of Plato on education highlights his object of education and guides the readers in proper direction to unfold the ramifications of his theory of education.

Plato was, in fact, the first ancient political philosopher either to establish a university or introduce a higher course or to speak of education as such. This empha­sis on education came to the forefront only due to the then prevailing education system in Athens. Plato was against the practice of buying knowledge, which accord­ing to him was a heinous crime than buying meat and drink. Plato strongly believed in a state control education system.

He held the view that without education, the individual would make no progress any more than a patient who believed in curing himself by his own loving remedy without giving up his luxurious mode of living. Therefore, Plato stated that education touches the evil at the grass root and changes the whole outlook on life.

It was through education that the principle of justice was properly maintained. Education was the positive measure for the operation of justice in the ideal state. Plato was convinced that the root of the vice lay chiefly in ignorance, and only by proper education can one be converted into a virtuous man.

The main purpose of Plato’s theory of education was to ban individualism, abolish incompe­tence and immaturity, and establish the rule of the efficient. Promotion of common good was the primary objective of platonic education.

Influence on Plato’s System of Education

Plato was greatly influenced by the Spartan system of education, though not completely. The education system in Athens was privately controlled unlike in Sparta where the education was state-controlled. The Spartan youth were induced to military spirit and the educational system was geared to this end.

However, the system lacked the literacy aspect. Intriguingly, many Spartans could neither read nor write. Therefore, it can be stated that the Spartan system did not produce any kind of intellectual potentials in man, which made Plato discard the Spartan education to an extent. The platonic system of education is, in fact, a blend of Athens and the organization of Sparta. This is because Plato believed in the integrated development of human personality.

State-controlled Education

Plato believed in a strong state-controlled education for both men and women. He was of the opinion that every citizen must be compulsorily trained to fit into any particular class, viz., ruling, fighting or the producing class.

Education, however, must be imparted to all in the early stages without any discrimination. Plato never stated out rightly that education system was geared to those who want to become rulers of the ideal state and this particular aspect attracted widespread criticism.

Plato’s Scheme of Education

Plato was of the opinion that education must begin at an early age. In order to make sure that children study well, Plato insisted that children be brought up in a hale and healthy environment and that the atmosphere implant ideas of truth and goodness. Plato believed that early education must be related to literature, as it would bring out the best of the soul. The study must be mostly related to story-telling and then go on to poetry.

Secondly, music and thirdly arts were the subjects of early education. Plato believed in regulation of necessary step towards conditioning the individual. For further conve­nience, Plato’s system of education can be broadly divided into two parts: elementary education and higher education.

Elementary Education

Plato was of the opinion that for the first 10 years, there should be predominantly physical education. In other words, every school must have a gymnasium and a playground in order to develop the physique and health of children and make them resistant to any disease.

Apart from this physical education, Plato also recommended music to bring about certain refinement in their character and lent grace and health to the soul and the body. Plato also prescribed subjects such as mathematics, history and science.

However, these subjects must be taught by smoothing them into verse and songs and must not be forced on children. This is because, according to Plato, knowledge acquired under compulsion has no hold on the mind. Therefore, he believed that education must not be forced, but should be made a sort of amusement as it would enable the teacher to understand the natural bent of mind of the child. Plato also emphasized on moral education.

Higher Education

According to Plato, a child must take an examination that would determine whether or not to pursue higher education at the age of 20. Those who failed in the examination were asked to take up activities in communities such as businessmen, clerks, workers, farmers and the like.

Those who passed the exam would receive another 10 years of education and training in body and mind. At this stage, apart from physical and mathematical sciences, subjects like arithmetic, astronomy, geometry and dialectics were taught. Again at the age of 30, students would take yet another examination, which served as an elimination test, much severe than the first test.

Those who did not succeed would become executive assistants, auxiliaries and military officers of the state. Plato stated that based on their capabilities, candidates would be assigned a particular field. Those who passed in the examination would receive another 5 year advanced education in dialectics in order to find out as to who was capable of freeing himself from sense perception.

The education system did not end here. Candidates had to study for another 15 years for practical experience in dialectics. Finally at the age of 50, those who withstood the hard and fast process of education were introduced to the ultimate task of governing their country and the fellow beings.

These kings were expected to spend most of the time in philosophical pursuits. Thus, after accomplishing perfection, the rulers would exercise power only in the best interests of the state. The ideal state would be realized and its people would be just, honest and happy.

Plato reviewed the condition of the Greek city-states at that time. He observed that there were full of anarchy and tyranny in Athens. After his observation, he prepared the outline of an ‘ideal state’ to establish national strength, harmony prosperity, and unity among the people. Plato created his ideal state and discussed the relationship between man and the state. A good nation can develop good qualities in its citizens. The human soul is primarily composed of conscience, attitude, and appetite. He believed that this would create an ideal state and the country would move on the path of progress. The purpose of this Ideal State was actually to give direction to the nation and government of Greece. Plato’s ideal state has some important features, which are the highlight of this theory.

Features of Plato’s ideal state

1. Rule of the Philosopher King:- Plato’s state is ruled by the King, who is also a philosopher, who has the role of head of state. It is the rule of the philosopher-king. It is the rule of knowledge and wisdom. The Philosopher King is the embodiment of wisdom and knowledge.

2. State-Controlled Education System: A state-controlled education system can raise philosopher kings and establish them in a better position. It can also develop inherent qualities in every individual, and this was the ultimate objective of this education system. The state is an educational institution and training is essential in all government-controlled educational systems. The training will help in gaining higher knowledge as well as in state management. Higher education courses include science education, mathematics, astronomy, logic, etc. In the primary education system, the child’s body and mind are kept healthy by giving physical education and music education. To build an ideal, education system of Plato play an important role.

3. Communism of Wives and Property:  In Plato’s view, the philosopher king would not care about anything other than the national interest. The philosopher king can be free from family disputes and concentrate on the welfare of the state and gaining greater knowledge. Feminism and money communism only apply to the ruling class. They can personally dictate all of their actions without recourse.

4. Justice: The main idea of Plato’s ideal state is justice. In an ideal state, justice should be established at the highest place. The correctness of justice and the school of law is known only to the philosopher king. Promoting, spreading justice, and making every person aware of his duty represent the practice of the true wisdom of the Philosopher King. He will represent knowledge itself and maintain the unity and harmony of the country. Since the ideal state and justice are inseparable from each other, the king must implement its results. Justice means the duty of citizens and the duty of the person who is appointed to do his duty properly.

5. Functional Specialization-  According to Plato, there are three classes in the state. The first is the philosopher’s king or ruler, who would represent wisdom. Since they are experienced in politics, they will spend their time on the welfare of the country. The second class is the military. They are engaged in the security of the country by carrying out its military tasks. The third class is producers. People in the third category will naturally try to prevent hunger and engage in productive work. Plato believed that they could not rule. Therefore, when the philosopher-king organizes his work, then people of other classes will also be able to organize their work. This is called Plato’s system of division of labor or the principle of performance. While the ruling group was acknowledged as gold, the defenders were acknowledged as silver, and the producers were acknowledged as copper. Most importantly, these three classes should not interface with every class’s work.

6. Equality between men and women: Plato has given equal places to both men and women in his ideal state. In his opinion, the day women’s liberation or independence comes, it will be said that a real ideal state has been built. Keeping women in the corner of the house is like depriving half of the country of their right to vote. This type of system can not provide proper justice to every individual. So he introduced an equal education system for both men and women.

7. Control of art and literature:  According to the Platonic state, art and literature are under the control of the ruling class. There should be a way to prevent cheap, wrong ideas from reaching people. People need to read only literature that is morally sound and wise in its content.

CRITICAL EVALUATION OF PLATO’S IDEAL STATE

1. It is tyrannical.- Plato favors the absolute rule of the philosopher king. He believes that those alone who know make his rulers absolute and concentrate unlimited authority in their hands. The truth that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts is bound to reflect on the philosopher king. Degeneration of moral values among philosopher rulers will surely make them tyrants.

2. It ignores the law.- Plato’s ideal state is based on the basic premise of knowledge. He establishes the sovereignty of knowledge. But the problem with his theory of the ideal state is that he completely forgets about systems legal, administrative, and judicial, which are so strongly required to run a state. In his emphasis on knowledge, he completely ignores this and leaves it undefined.

3. It is utopian.- Plato’s ideal state is an ideal only. It is too idealistic to be practical. Plato is hardly a political thinker. He is a moralist, an idealist whose concept of the ideal state is entirely utopian. He imagines a ‘city of nowhere’. It is the dream city of Plato, which cannot exist on this Earth at least.

4. His communism is not practical.- The communism of property and families, which he expects his guardian’s class to practice, is not only unwanted but also impractical. It is against basic human psychology and therefore almost impossible to implement.

5. It restricts Human Growth.- Plato’s rigid division of labor restricts the personal growth of individuals by confining them to specific roles. This system discourages the development of diverse talents and interests, leading to a society where individuals are assign to a particular category roles that may not fully utilize their potential.

6. It is against Democratic Values.- The absolute and tyrannical rule of knowledge gives no space to liberty and equality. These values are virtually sacrificed for the sake of the dominance of knowledge and reason. Artisans and toiles, who constitute a large chunk of society, are completely neglected. So this view of the ideal state is completely opposed to democratic values.

Conclusion

There is hardly any doubt that Plato’s ideal state is a dream city and can be found in clouds only. Plato, who had learned from Socrates that beauty cannot exist without a beautiful thing, and like him, he too believed that the idea is real, had conceived this ideal state as only an ‘idea’. This was his idea of ‘good’. He knew about its instability and that is why he talked about his second-best state in his later writings like Statesman and Laws.

Aristotle, often regarded as the “Father of Political Science,” provided an enduring framework for understanding the state in his seminal work, Politics. His analysis of the method, origin, nature, and end of the state integrates philosophical inquiry with empirical observation, making his theories foundational to the study of political thought. Aristotle’s approach is methodical, deeply rooted in teleological principles (the study of ends or purposes), and reflects his conviction that the state is a natural and ethical institution essential for achieving human flourishing (eudaimonia).

Method of Analysis

Aristotle’s method for studying the state is both empirical and normative, combining observation with ethical theorization. He begins with the examination of existing political structures and practices, analyzing their strengths and weaknesses. This empirical approach reflects Aristotle’s commitment to studying the “what is” before determining the “what ought to be.” He systematically categorizes forms of government and compares them across different city-states, using historical and contemporary examples. His method involves:

• Induction and Deduction: Aristotle collects data on existing political systems and uses inductive reasoning to identify general patterns and principles. He then employs deductive reasoning to derive conclusions about the ideal state.
• Classification: He categorizes constitutions into three primary forms—monarchy, aristocracy, and polity—and their perversions: tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy. This classification highlights his systematic approach to understanding political variation.
• Teleology: Central to his method is the belief that everything in nature has a purpose or end (telos). For Aristotle, the state exists to achieve the highest good, and its nature can only be understood in terms of its purpose.

Origin of the State

Aristotle argues that the state arises naturally and is a culmination of several preceding associations. His theory of the origin of the state is based on his doctrine of naturalism, which posits that human beings are inherently social creatures whose nature compels them to form communities. The state evolves in stages:

• The Family: The family is the basic unit of society, formed to satisfy basic human needs such as reproduction and survival. It is the first natural association, consisting of the relationships between master and slave, husband and wife, and parent and child.
• The Village: A collection of families forms a village, which exists to meet needs that surpass the capacity of the individual household. It represents a higher level of association aimed at greater self-sufficiency.
• The Polis (State): The state is the highest and final form of human association. It emerges when multiple villages unite to achieve the common good. Aristotle views the state as a natural institution because it fulfills the human need for community and provides the conditions necessary for a good life.

Aristotle famously states, “Man is by nature a political animal,” emphasizing that the state is not a human invention but an inherent part of human existence. Unlike earlier associations, the state exists not merely for survival but for the achievement of the highest moral and intellectual virtues.

Nature of the State

The nature of the state, according to Aristotle, is both natural and ethical. Its existence is rooted in the natural tendencies of human beings to seek community and order, but its purpose extends beyond mere survival to the promotion of virtue and justice.

• Organic Conception: Aristotle views the state as an organic entity, where individuals are parts of a whole. Just as the health of an organism depends on the proper functioning of its parts, the well-being of the state depends on the harmonious relationships among its citizens. This analogy underscores the interdependence between the individual and the state.
• Justice and Law: The state is the custodian of justice, which Aristotle defines as the common advantage. Law, as the embodiment of reason, is the tool through which the state administers justice. Without law, there can be no order or ethical life.
• Self-Sufficiency: The state is self-sufficient (autarkia), meaning it can provide all that is necessary for a good life. This self-sufficiency distinguishes the state from earlier forms of association, such as the family and village, which cannot fully satisfy human aspirations.
• Participation and Citizenship: Aristotle emphasizes active participation in governance as a defining feature of citizenship. Citizens are not merely subjects of the state; they are its co-creators, sharing in the deliberation and administration of justice.

End of the State

For Aristotle, the ultimate purpose or end (telos) of the state is the promotion of eudaimonia (human flourishing). The state exists to create conditions in which individuals can achieve their full potential, both morally and intellectually. This end is rooted in Aristotle’s broader ethical philosophy, where the good life is one of virtuous activity in accordance with reason.

• Moral Development: The state provides the environment for cultivating virtue. Through education and law, it shapes the character of its citizens, guiding them toward ethical excellence.
• Common Good: Unlike associations based on economic or private interests, the state aims at the common good, transcending individual or sectional interests.
• Unity and Diversity: The ideal state achieves unity without suppressing diversity. Aristotle warns against excessive unity, such as that proposed by Plato, arguing that the state must balance individual differences while maintaining collective harmony.
• Mixed Constitution: Aristotle advocates for a mixed constitution that combines elements of democracy and oligarchy, ensuring stability and fairness. Such a system, he argues, best serves the common good and protects against the excesses of any single class.

Conclusion

Aristotle’s analysis of the state reflects his broader philosophical commitments to naturalism, teleology, and virtue ethics. His method combines empirical observation with normative theorizing, providing a comprehensive account of the state’s origin, nature, and end. He views the state as a natural and ethical institution, essential for achieving the highest human aspirations. By emphasizing the role of justice, law, and the common good, Aristotle establishes a vision of the state that remains a cornerstone of political thought, offering enduring insights into the challenges and purposes of governance.

Property

Economic Activity in Political Analysis:

• Both Plato and Aristotle considered economic activity as significant for political analysis.
• They believed that economic activity should be subordinate to political goals because politics aimed at the good life in a multidimensional sense, while economic activity was concerned with acquiring a single good, wealth.

Aristotle’s Distinction in Acquisition of Wealth:

• Aristotle distinguished between two modes of wealth acquisition: natural and unnatural.
• Natural modes included activities like hunting, grazing, and husbandry, which were considered natural because they met individuals’ basic needs, and nature imposed limits on consumption.
• Barter was seen as an intermediate stage that allowed individuals to acquire what they needed for survival.

Aristotle’s View on Money and Retail Trade:

• Aristotle criticized the use of money, as it led to other forms of acquisition, particularly retail trade.
• He viewed retail trade negatively on moral grounds, as it had no limits on acquisition and was considered an illiberal occupation.
• Small businessmen, shopkeepers, and petty usurers were seen as corrupted by a desire for financial gain.

Aristotle’s Preference for Landed Property:

• Aristotle preferred landed property over trade and commerce as a means of acquiring wealth.
• He emphasized that the right amount of wealth, rather than excessive wealth, was important.
• Aristotle’s main focus was on leading a good and happy life, where material goods were necessary but not an end in themselves.

The Relationship Between Economic Activity and Good Life:

• Aristotle stressed that material goods were necessary for a good and happy life but considered happiness of the soul as infinitely superior.
• He highlighted the intimate link between pursuing bodily pleasures and a person’s ethical character.

Use-Value vs. Exchange Value:

• Aristotle recognized that in simpler societies, economic activity was directed towards use-value, benefiting the producer and their family.
• With increasing complexity and specialization, products began to have both use-value and exchange value.

Aristotle’s Consideration of Wealth Distribution:

• Aristotle paid attention to the character and distribution of wealth and its influence on political institutions.
• He saw extreme wealth inequality as a potential cause of revolutions.
• While defending private property, he believed in well-distributed wealth as a blessing for a state, promoting social stability and justice.

Aristotle’s Views on Slavery

Aristotle strongly believed and justified the institution of slavery. He opined slaves as the possession of the family or, in other words, was considered the property of the master or the family. He stated that slavery is natural and beneficial to both the masters as well as the slaves.

He was of the belief that the slaves have no reasoning power despite the ability to understand and follow their intellect. Therefore, according to Aristotle, natural slaves are those who understand reason but possess no reasoning ability.

The logic given by him was that those who were not virtuous were slaves and that it was possible to determine who is virtuous and who is not. He further stated that as there are inequalities with reference to their capabilities and capacities, all those who had higher capacities were called masters and the rest are slaves. He also categorically stated that slave belonged to the master and not vice versa.

Aristotle justified the institution of slavery on the fol­lowing grounds:

Natural

Slavery is a natural phenomenon. The superior would rule over the inferior just as the soul rules over the body and reason over appetite. In other words, people with superior reasoning powers would rule over those inferior in reasoning. The masters are stated to be physically and mentally strong than the slaves. So, this set-up naturally makes the former the master, and the latter the slave.

Necessary

Slaves are considered necessary because they provide leisure that was most essential for the welfare of the state. Aristotle stated that slavery benefited the slaves as well. Because by being a slave, he would be able to share the virtues of the master and elevate himself.

Expediency

Aristotle was of the opinion that slaves have sustained the Greek social and economic system, and they helped Greece against social disorder and chaos. He stated that slavery is a social necessity. It was complementary to the slaves as well as the masters and that it aids in perfection.

Aristotle approved slavery only under certain conditions, as follows:

1. Only those who were mentally deficient and virtuously not superior should be enslaved. Aristotle, however, never agreed to the enslavement of prisoners of war because victory in the war does not necessarily mean intellectual superiority of the victor or the mental deficiency of the vanquished. He was against the idea of slavery by force.
2. Aristotle insisted that masters must treat their slaves properly, and strongly propa­gated that cruel masters must be subjected to legal punishments.
3. He advocated the liberation of only those slaves whose conduct was good and who developed capacity for reasoning and virtue.
4. Slavery was essential for the all-round development but the master has no right to misuse his power. Slaves are only assistants but not subordinates.

Criticism of Aristotle’s Theory of Slavery

1. Classification of individuals on the basis of capacities is wrong and Aristotle never provided any logical method to be adopted to classify individuals.
2. He rejected historical origin of slavery and justified it on philosophical rationalization.
3. His views on slavery reflect his conservatism and primitive outlook towards life.
4. His theory is highly prejudicial and contradictory to the human dignity and niceties of life. It is prejudicial, in the sense it presupposed that Greeks were fit to rule the world and they could not be enslaved even if they were defeated by the barbarians.

Aristotle explained in great detail the theory of revolution. It is his study of nearly 158 constitutions that helped him understand the implications of revolutions on a politi­cal system. In his work, Politics, he discussed at length all about revolutions. Based on his study, Aristotle gave a scientific analysis and expert treatment to the subject of revolu­tions. He gave a very broad meaning to the term ‘revolution’ which meant two things to him.

Firstly, it implies any major or minor change in the constitution such as a change in monarchy or oligarchy and so on. Secondly, it implies a change in the ruling power even though it did not lead to a change in the government or the constitution. He further stated that a revolution could be either direct or indirect, thereby affecting a particular institution.

Causes of Revolution

According to Aristotle, the two categories of causes of revolution are general and par­ticular.

The following is a brief explanation of each of the causes of revolutions:

General Causes

According to Aristotle, revolutions take place when the political order fails to correspond to the distribution of property and hence tensions arise in the class structure, eventually leading to revolutions. Arguments over justice are at the heart of the revolution.

Generally speaking, the cause of revolution is a desire on the part of those who are devoid of virtue and who are motivated by an urge to possess property, which is in the name of their opponents. In other words, the cause of upheaval is inequality.

Aristotle listed certain general causes of revolutions that affect all types of govern­ments and states. They are: the mental state or feelings of those who revolt; the motive, which they desire to fulfill; the immediate source or occasion of revolutionary outburst.

The mental state is nothing but a desire for equality and it is a state of disequilibrium. Another clear objective of those rebel or revolt is to gain honour. Apart from these, Aristotle provided some more reasons, which are psychological as well as political in nature that lead to revolutions. As far as psychological factors are concerned.

They are as follows:

1. Profit means that the officers of the state try to make illicit gains at the expense of the individual or of the public. It puts the latter to an undeserved loss and creates a mood of discontent.

2. Rebellions occur when men are dishonored rightly or wrongly and when they see others obtaining honors that they do not deserve. If like-minded people join the movement when the government fails to redress their grievances.

3. Revolutions occur when insolence or disrespect is displayed by the other members. A revolutionary climate would be soon created, especially when the state officials become haughty, arrogant and drunk with power, or pay no attention to the genuine problems of the people.

This leads to a deep divide in the society, especially between the state and the people. Over a period of time, people’s complaints against corrupt officials increase which culminate into revolutions.

4. Fear is a genuine and a worst enemy of man and human institutions. It disturbs peace of mind and other emotions. Revolutions can occur either out of fear of punishment for a wrong actually committed or a fear of an expected wrong to be inflicted on the person who is afraid.

5. Contempt is closely related to revolution. This contempt can be towards rules, laws, political and economic situations, social and economic order. The contempt is also due to inequalities, injustices, lack of certain privileges and the like.

6. Finally, revolutions are also the result of imbalances in the disproportionate increase in the power of the state that creates a gap between the constitution and the society. In the end, the constitution reflects social realities, the balances of social and economic forces.

If this balance is disturbed, the constitution is shaken and it will either get modified or will perish. For instance, if the number of poor people increases, the polity may be destroyed. Similarly, if there are more numbers of rich in the government, it may lead to an oligarchical set-up. Thus, any sharp differences in the polity would result in revolutions.

As regards the political factors, issues such as elections intrigues, carelessness, neglect­ing small changes, growth in reputation and power of some office, or even balance of parties lead to deadlock and finally foreign influence.

A brief explanation of these factors is as follows:

1. Election maneuvering greatly disturbs people’s faith in the constitutional process. If they succeed, they prevent the constitution from functioning efficiently or else they create much more troubles. These election manipulations not only frustrate the public opinion, but also destroy virtue and good life and they generate new social issues such as corruption, bribery, nepotism, favoritism and the like.

2. The foundations of the state can be devastated due to carelessness or willful negli­gence leading to revolutions. If the rulers are careless while selecting the officials, anti-social elements would creep in and subvert the entire constitution. In such conditions, a trivial matter of just selecting suitable officials with little care proves to be the most fatal.

3. A statesman must never neglect any small issue relating to the governance. If decisions are made in haste without considering its implication such actions are likely to lead to an uproar. It is for this reason; Aristotle stated that a need for over­hauling the entire system actually comes when small changes are overlooked. He also warned leaders that appearances are deceptive and can create problems.

4. As regards the influence of the powerful neighbouring states, which have an impact on the constitution, especially when the constitution of the other nation happens to be of a different type.

Particular Causes

Apart from the general causes of revolution, Aristotle also gave certain specific causes in various types of states. For instance, in democracies, discontentment is bred by the demagogues who attack the rich either individually or col­lectively and build hatred among the people who become revengeful and violent and this situation leads to conflicts.

In oligarchies, revolutions occur when masses experience an unpleasant treatment by the officials resulting in dissensions within the governing class. Personal disputes may further the flames of fire and though imperceptible, changes in the class structure of society may invisibly alter the ethos.

Aristotle further believed that it is not necessary that oligarchy become democracy or vice versa, but they might change into a completely different system altogether. In aristocracies, revolutions occur when the circle of the rulers get narrowed down and become thinner and thinner. It is, in fact, the disequilibrium in the balance of the different elements or parts of the constitution that causes revolutions.

As far as the monarchies and the tyrannies are concerned, revo­lutions are caused by insolence, resentment of insults, fears, contempt, desire for fame, influence of neighbouring states, sexual offences and physical infirmities.

Methods to Prevent Revolutions

Aristotle in order to ensure that there are lesser chances of revolutions suggested the following methods to prevent them:

Aristotle called upon the kings to believe in one principle maxim that ‘prevention is better than cure’. He wanted the rulers to obey laws even in smallest matters. He believed that transgression, of even in small amounts, would sooner or later result in total disre­spect and violation. Further taking cue from the rulers, if people start breaking the laws, the entire social order would be at stake.

He strongly advised the rulers that they must believe that they can fool some people all the time, all the people for some time and not all the people all the time. In other words, people should not be taken for granted, and sooner or later they will explode with suddenness that might take the rulers by surprise.

He also stated that the rulers must provide due care to all those people in their domain. They should not discriminate between the officer and commoner, between governing and non-governing and the like. The principle of democratic equality must be followed.

Further, every citizen must be given a chance to express their opinions about the government and that the tenure of the officials must be short-term. By this method, oligarchies and aristocracies would not fall into the hands of the families.

As the internal feuds among the rulers would sap the energy and unity of a state, the ruler must be on constant vigil and keep all quarrels and seditions among rulers at a distance. No person or official should either be raised to the highest position or suddenly stunned. There has to be a balance.

Those who have acquired too much wealth or amassed great wealth must be ostracized or banished and no single society should be allowed to establish its dominance over the other. To achieve this, offices must be given to the opposite elements like the rich and the poor, in order to maintain a balance. Aristotle further stated that public offices must not be made lucrative. By doing this, the poor would not be attracted and the rich might occupy them without any additional advantage.

The poor then stick to their work and grow rich, and the rich would occupy offices without getting richer. Under these conditions, the poor would have satisfaction that they all have jobs, and the rich, on the other hand, would be satisfied that they occupied high positions.

Thus, democracy and aristocracy would be combined to pro­duce a stable polity. The retiring officer should hand over the charge of public funds to another in public, and the officers whose performance was good must be honoured.

He further stated that the rich should not be allowed to exhibit their riches as it rouses jealousies among others. Finally, a statesman interested in avoiding revolution must pre­vent extremes of poverty and wealth, as it is this condition that leads to conflicts. He must encourage colonization as an outlet for a dangerously congested population and he should foster and practice religion.

Secondly, Aristotle opined that quality ruler would never be able to stop revolutions. So to ensure this quality, rulers, must be first loyal to constitution, secondly, they should be competent, able and worthy and perform their duties, thirdly, they must have goodness and justice that is suitable to the nature of each constitution, if there is any lack of an able person to serve as the ruler, a combination of persons will also help to prevent revolutions.

Finally, Aristotle argues that a correct system of education is the most effective instrument for curbing the revolutionary instinct and preserves social order.

Introduction

Nature and purpose of the state

Aristotle’s theory of citizenship

What is a citizen ?

Criteria for Citizenship

Classification of the citizens

Criticism of Aristotle’s theory of Citizenship

Modern relevance

Was Aristotle a Conservative?

Conclusion

Introduction

In 1992, Cheryl Hopwood filed a case in the US Supreme Court claiming that she was being discriminated against because she was white. She argued that black applicants with the same test scores as hers got accepted into the University of Texas Law School. The only reason she did not was her race. Thus, she ‘deserved’ to get in too.

Hopwood’s case stands in stark contrast to a 1950s case involving the same University. In this case, the university was sued for not allowing in any Black applicant. Instead, it had established a separate and inferior university for people of colour.

In both of these cases, it was argued that the applicants had no “right” to be accepted to their institution. Instead, their candidature was accepted based on which candidate would best fulfil their objectives. In the first case, the University opposed Hopwood’s contention, arguing that 40% of Texas was made of African-Americans. The mission of its Law School was to produce future leaders across various fields- be it social, political or legal. Different perspectives are essential to obtain that end, and diversity brings these varying perspectives to the table. Thus, affirmative action benefits the entire student body.

In the second case too, the University invoked the argument of its ultimate ‘mission’. It claimed that this mission was to promote professionals for the Texas bar and law firms. Since law firms at the time did not welcome black people, it was impractical for them to have people from the community. 

The dichotomy between these two cases gives rise to various questions. What is the distinction between these cases? Can institutions arbitrarily decide their objective? What should their objective be? What do these institutions ‘owe’ applicants? And what do the applicants ‘deserve’?

Aristotle’s Theory

Aristotle is one of the most widely-known thinkers in the world. He is credited with being ‘the father of political science’. Aristotle’s theory of justice is built around a central supposition- justice means giving people what they deserve. 

A person’s rightful due is determined by their worth. This worth, in turn, is determined by the roles that people play in society.

The acceptable way to choose what roles one must play in society is determined by the virtues of the people. Aristotle defined virtue as a situation and a state, whether good or bad, that a person chooses against their actions and reactions. Virtue is ‘a state or monarch’, i.e. the reason that causes a man and his actions to be good.

Those who hold the virtues necessary for a role are best adept at the role. So, they are bound to play it. This was called teleological reasoning. This way of life is the path towards a ‘good life’ for individuals as well as the collective society. 

Teleological reasoning

In Ancient Greece, the word ‘telos’ was understood to mean the aim or purpose. Teleological reasoning is based on the ‘end’ that the particular institution wants to achieve. Aristotle works back from this end to connect it with the people who are most likely to achieve them.

For instance, the object of a Bar exam preparation centre should be who is most likely to clear the test. Those who have the most influence or can pay the maximum amount should not be favoured over another who can get more marks in the test. 

What people deserve

Equals should be treated equally

Aristotelian ‘Equality’ does not align with the modern understanding of the term. It is instead determine⁄d based on what is being given. He opines that equals should be treated equally. Thus, equals should be assigned equal things. 

Aristotle argues that giving people their due and thus justice, involves discrimination. The basis of discrimination must, however, be fair. According to this reasoning, promoting an activist who wants to make legal aid more accessible should not be preferred over another who simply wants to gain money. One of them might encourage the ‘greater good’ for the entire society. However, this greater good is not the object of the centre. The sole consideration must be the ability of candidates to clear the exam. 

Thus, it looks only at the proximate object of any institution or practice. Here, this object is candidates clearing the test. Seat allocation is based on who can perform best simply because that’s what the exam centre is for. Better lawyers may be a by-product, but that shouldn’t be the central criterion for decision making.

Against arbitrariness

Denial of honours or rewards to a person must be based only on the object of an institution, not arbitrary factors. To illustrate, take the case of Manjunath Gouli v. Union of India and Others (2021). Here, the petitioner challenged the respondent’s denial of a gallantry award to him. He claimed others from his team from a Naxalite encounter were considered for the award, while he wasn’t. However, he had played an integral role in an encounter and thus, deserved the award. On further inquiry, it was stated that the petitioner’s gallantry in the encounter was not up to the level of an award. 

The Court rejected the petitioner’s contention, holding that he had no ‘legal right’ to the award and was only entitled to be considered for it. It stated that in case of irregularity in decision making, the court could intervene. However, there was no irregularity here. 

This aligns with Aristotle’s conception of justice. The object of the award was to honour bravery in the field, not the result of the act, i.e., taking out high profile targets. Aristotle would disapprove of the award being denied for reasons that did not have a causal connection with the object of the award. Some of these arbitrary factors are social status, unpopularity or corruption. Denial of the award because the level of gallantry is not up to par is the only reasonable ground. Any other reason for not honouring the petitioner would violate his theory. 

The ‘good life’

Politics to obtain the good life

The ultimate objective of politics is a good life for the people. To obtain this good life, cultivating good character and virtue is essential. So, politics form social institutions to that end. Social institutions connect people to the roles they would best perform and pave the way for a good life.

Those with the greatest contribution to political institutions should be rewarded with greater power and influence. This is because they can contribute best to the objective of politics, the reason that politics exists. If all social institutions work together with the people most adept at performing their functions, the end of ‘good life’ would be realised.

Social institutions act as intermediaries

All social institutions are simply means to obtain a good life. Institutions like religion, politics and personal relationships exist to connect people to the roles that they ‘fit’ in.  

However, finding one’s role and developing virtues is not easy. Thus, we have to practice virtues by doing. This is why social systems that encourage virtues are integral to Aristotle’s setup. Once individuals find the virtues they excel at and can contribute best towards, they have found their place in society. 

Social institutions then perform the role of giving due credit to selected virtues for those who perform them well. As an incentive, excelling at their chosen roles on account of virtue, merit or simply for the effort put in allows them credit, honour and influence. Those who have the best human virtues hold the highest offices. This is because of two main reasons-

• They can contribute best to the end of the institution.
• They must be honoured for their contribution.

Thus, all social institutions work together to help people obtain a ‘good life’.

Positive role of law

According to Aristotle’s view, the law shouldn’t just be something that secures the rights of people against each other. It shouldn’t just stop injustice. It should also have a positive role. 

Interaction in a social and political community is the best way to the full realisation of our potential and for a good life. So, the law should take a proactive part in human life and facilitate this interaction. This view invariably supports legislation on morals for better interaction between people.

Features

Not utilitarianism

Several theorists criticise Aristotle claiming that his theory resembles utilitarianism. The theory of utilitarianism advocates maximising pleasure for the majority, at the cost of the pain of a minority. They hold the view that Aristotle argues for connecting people with their virtues and performing the best role for the collective good of the entire community. Just like utilitarianism, it focuses on the pleasure of the maximum number of people. The greatest good of the collective community takes precedence over everything else, even if the cost is the pain of a minority. 

For instance, utilitarians would prefer hospitals to choose a cardiologist based on who would maximise pleasure for the maximum number. This is because it would be most beneficial for the maximum number of patients. Critiques of Aristotle claim that he would support this too. However, this critique is fallacious. It misunderstands Aristotle’s ideas. 

Aristotle does not argue for the best people to perform the role most suited to them for the good of the collective society. He argues that they should simply because that is what the role is for. The hospital would not choose a cardiologist who takes big risks that are usually successful; someone who saves most lives but makes others a lot worse. It would not choose one who has the best lives saved to lives lost ratio. 

The hospital would instead choose the cardiologist who is best equipped at treating and providing care to patients. T The hospital would choose the cardiologist who would try their best to treat people without taking big risks, in favour of trying to save as many as they can. The hospital would choose the second doctor even if their lives saved to lives lost ratio is much worse. Having good doctors and treating patients is the purpose of the hospital. So, hospitals must focus on mitigating the pain and treating all patients to the best of their ability. They should not save most and forsake others. This is the difference between Aristotle and utilitarians.

The natural world

Aristotle limits the application of teleological reasoning to social interactions and institutions. He reasoned that the natural order was a well thought out one. Everything in it was the way it is ‘supposed’ to be. The people were tasked with identifying and understanding the objective behind all these natural practises and finding where they fit in them. 

However, modern science has given us a better understanding of nature. The ‘natural’ order is deeply coloured by the lens of what the powerful in an ancient society constructed. For instance, the caste system was upheld because elites in ancient times felt lower castes were ‘naturally born’ for manual jobs. As science and logical reasoning spread in the world, people realised that these ideals were irrational. No certain class of people, here- lower castes, had any ‘hereditary disposition’ towards menial jobs. This distinction wasn’t made by nature, but by society.

Regardless, this has led many to criticise that Aristotle’s views are not relevant today. They found favour with an ancient society that was deeply involved with nature and had simplistic ideas of the world, disregarding its real complexity. Contemporary society has a better understanding of the diversity and intricacies of the world.

Defence of slavery

Aristotle has been widely criticized for promoting slavery as necessary to society.  He holds that some people are “meant to be ruled”. They can’t reason for themselves, only be reasoned with. So, they are meant to work as slaves and being enslaved is the right role for them. Moreover, to allow more virtuous people to be free from menial, manual work and pursue their true virtues, other people need to do that. Thus, the institution of slavery was just.

Nonetheless, Aristotle conceded that the Athenian practice of slavery was not just. In ancient Athen, those who were losers in war were forced to be slaves. Aristotle conceded that the act of forcing them to be slaves shows that those coerced were not be meant to be slaves. They simply had the misfortune of being losers in a war. 

He was not against coercing people to be slaves. Forcing them was simply an indication that they were not naturally fit for that role. If they had to be coerced into the role, it wasn’t their true calling. Thus, they should not be forced into it.

Criticisms

Prejudices attached to the natural world

The justification of slavery brings us to a broader critique of Aristotle. In the ancient world, some people and communities were considered to be ‘naturally fit’ or ‘born’ for some roles. Those with light skins were considered rulers and those with darker ones were meant to ‘be ruled’. These prejudices were based on ill-reasoned justifications like dark skin being meant for work in the sun. 

Ancient and mediaeval society was rife with such practises that were justified by pseudo-scientific reasoning. For instance, women were placed under the subjugation of men. The reason attributed was that most ancient societies considered biological women as weak because of the ability to menstruate and bear children. Aristotle seems to have not only supported but laid down the groundwork for these discriminatory practices.

Whether or not these arbitrary discriminatory practices are justified by Aristotle’s theory of justice though, is a matter of contentious debate. Modern supporters of Aristotle may argue that there isn’t enough of a causal connection between childbirth and menstruation and treating biological women as weaker. Conversely, the ability to withstand pain may prove they’re strong. This disagreement brings forth another criticism.

Differing views on the object

Aristotle argues that all institutions have a specific object or end. Yet, today’s world is awash with multitudes of opinions. Take the example of affirmative action. Some hold that it is an apology for past wrongs. Others opine that it is meant for the economic upliftment of the historically marginalised. Still, others argue that it is a means of social mobility instead of economic. Agreeing about the ‘intrinsic object’ of any practice or institution often feels like an unwinnable battle. This highlights the practical difficulty in implementing teleological reasoning.

This disagreement isn’t limited to public policy or the law, but also the social arena.  People have different views of the objectives of various social institutions. For some, family is a means to understand and learn to navigate the world as a child; less involved in later stages. For another, it is a lifelong companion to guide them throughout life. Both of these views resonate in some cases and are inapplicable in others.

The intrinsic worth of individuals

A major criticism of Aristotle comes from individual rights theorists who believe in the intrinsic worth of individual people. Teleological reasoning ends up treating people based on what the collective society needs from them, instead of acknowledging their worth independent from what they can give to others.  

For instance, a judge who works 10 hours a day might prefer to have more personal time for leisure activities. Yet, Aristotle’s theory encourages them to perform their role as a judge over taking time off. It exploits people by seeing them primarily as means to an end, not as an end in themselves.

Liberal critique

Liberals place the highest weight on the freedom of choice and dignity of all individuals. Liberal democracy, the most popular form of government in today’s world, supports this idea. It promotes the idea of intrinsic human worth and freedom to pursue one’s perception of a good life. 

On one hand, liberals claim that people must be given the freedom to choose their life. If someone exceptional at science enjoys art better, they must have the choice to pursue that. In contrast, Aristotle’s theory of justice pushes people to do what they would do best, disregarding individual choice. Someone who has the qualities to be a great scientist must be one. 

Equality of opportunity

According to equal rights theorists, awarding the result of the virtues is in itself, a fallacious idea. The question is that if people aren’t given equal opportunity to prove themselves, how they will be rewarded based on what they are due? If a poor person has the virtues to be a great chess player but was never allowed to learn that, how do we give him his real due? 

This critique is a misinterpretation of Aristotle’s theory. The theory holds that social institutions must function towards connecting people to their true role, not inhibiting that. He advocates for allowing everyone the right to pursue the role they are best at, without arbitrary discrimination.  

Social institutions must work to ensure the poor kid has the option to pursue his best virtues too. Equality of opportunity being denied because of arbitrary factors like familial wealth violates his equality since it does not let people realise their best and true virtues. 

Genetic lottery

This critique works in tangent with using people as means to an end. People are chosen based on the skills society wants from them. They win honours, titles and roles due to no effort of their own. Their skills just happen to be valued by society at that particular time. 

For instance, at one point in time, manual labour might be valued. Later, they might be replaced by machines. So, those with physical strength, dubbed ‘virtuous’ here, are just those who lucked out in a genetic lottery. By luck of chance, their skill coincided with the one valued by their society.

Supporters of Aristotle, however, argue that people put in the effort to inculcate the skills they think society needs. Therefore, they deserve credit for it. The truth lies somewhere in between. The virtuous are rewarded for both, their genetic and familial privileges as well as the effort they put in. Aristotle does not separate the two, simply focuses on the result.