Politics of Plato and Aristotle

To compare the political theories of two great philosophers of
politics is to first examine each theory in depth. Plato is regarded
by many experts as the first writer of political philosophy, and
Aristotle is recognized as the first political scientist. These two
men were great thinkers. They each had ideas of how to improve
existing societies during their individual lifetimes. It is necessary
to look at several areas of each theory to seek the difference in
each.

The main focus of Plato is a perfect society. He creates a
blueprint for a utopian society, in his book The Republic, out of his
disdain for the tension of political life (Hacker, 24). This blueprint
was a sketch of a society in which the problems he thought were
present in his society would be eased (Hacker 24). Plato sought to
cure the afflictions of both human society and human personality
(Hacker 24). Essentially what Plato wants to achieve is a perfect
society.

Aristotle, unlike Plato, is not concerned with perfecting
society. He just wants to improve on the existing one. Rather than
produce a blueprint for the perfect society, Aristotle suggested, in
his work, The Politics, that the society itself should reach for the
best possible system that could be attained (Hacker 71). Aristotle
relied on the deductive approach, while Aristotle is an example of an
inductive approach (Hacker 71). Utopia is a solution in abstract, a
solution that has no concrete problem (Hacker 76). There is no solid
evidence that all societies are in need of such drastic reformation as
Plato suggests (Hacker 76). Aristotle discovers that the best possible
has already been obtained (Hacker 76). All that can be done is to try
to improve on the existing one.

Plato's utopia consists of three distinct, non-hereditary
class systems (Hacker 32). The Guardians consist of non ruling
Guardians and ruling Guardians. The non-rulers are a higher level of
civil servants and the ruling is the society's policy makers (Hacker
32). Auxilaries are soldiers and minor civil servants (Hacker 32).
Finally the Workers, are composed of farmers and artisans, most
commonly unskilled laborers (Hacker 32). The Guardians are to be wise
and good rulers. It is important that the rulers who emerge must be a
class of craftsmen who are public-spirited in temperament and skilled
in the arts of government areas (Hacker 33). The guardians are to be
placed in a position in which they are absolute rulers. They are
supposed to be the select few who know what is best for society
(Hacker 33).

Aristotle disagrees with the idea of one class holding
discontinuing political power (Hacker 85). The failure to allow
circulation between classes excludes those men who may be ambitious,
and wise, but are not in the right class of society to hold any type
of political power (Hacker 85). Aristotle looks upon this ruling class
system as an ill-conceived political structure (Hacker 86). He quotes
"It is a further objection that he deprives his Guardians even of
happiness, maintaining that happiness of the whole state which should
be the object of legislation," ultimately he is saying that Guardians
sacrifice their happiness for power and control. Guardians who lead
such a strict life will also think it necessary to impose the same
strict lifestyle on the society it governs (Hacker 86).

Aristotle puts a high value on moderation (Hacker 81). Many
people favor moderation because it is part-liberal and
part-conservative. There is so much of Plato's utopia that is
undefined and it is carried to extremes that no human being could
ever fulfill its requirements (Hacker 81). Aristotle believes that
Plato is underestimating the qualitative change in human character and
personality that would have to take place in order to achieve his
utopia (Hacker 81). Plato chose to tell the reader of his Republic how
men would act and what their attitudes would be in a perfect society
(Hacker 81). Aristotle tries to use real men in the real world in an
experimental fashion to foresee how and in which ways they can be
improved (Hacker 81).

Both Plato and Aristotle agree that justice exists in an
objective sense: that is, it dictates a belief that the good life
should be provided for all individuals no matter how high or low their
social status (Hacker 91). "In democracies, for example, justice is
considered to mean equality, in oligarchies, again inequality in the
distribution of office is considered to be just, " says Aristotle
(Hacker 91). Plato sees the justice and law as what sets the
guidelines for societal behavior.

Aristotle puts emphasis on the institution of the polis
(Hacker 77). This institution is not the state or society merely the
larger unit of the two (hacker 77). Neither Plato nor Aristotle found
it to be necessary to distinguish between the state nor society and
therefore it is difficult to define polis (Hacker 77). The polis was
set up to allow political participation on the part of the average
citizen (Hacker 80). This contradicts Plato's theory of one ruling
class controlling the political power and all decisions that effect
the entire society. The theory of Democracy that Aristotle derived
states that democracy is a "perversion" form of government of "polity"
(Hacker 92). Aristotle said, "The people at large should be sovereign
rather than the few best" (Hacker 92). Plato would never allow the
full public participation in government as Aristotle would like.
According to Plato public judgments of approval and disapproval are
based on belief and not on knowledge (Hacker 59).

Plato thinks that is a revolution were to take place it would
be a palace revolution (Hacker 64). A palace revolution occurs when
there is a power transfer from one power holder to someone else.
Aristotle sees the cause of revolutions originating with either the
rich or the poor (Hacker 102). He feels that the means of preventing
revolutions is to anticipate them (Hacker 107). Plato thinks that in a
utopia a disgruntled group of Guardians will emerge and break from the
rules (Hacker 63). He thinks that in an oligarchy two things may
happen to spark a revolution: the first being the ruler and their
offspring grow to be weak rulers and too sympathetic, the second is
that the number of poor grows larger and suffer exploitation at the
hands of those in power over them (Hacker 64). Aristotle states that
to know the causes which destroy constitutions is also to know the
causes which ensure their preservation (Hacker 107-108).

Plato and Aristotle alike were two men who had ideas on ways
to improve existing society. Plato, a political philosopher, was in
the pursuit of philosophical truth (Hacker 114). Aristotle was
concerned with the citizen and the design of political institutions
(Hacker 114). They both had well thought out ideas and plans on how to
build a better society. Both Aristotle and Plato have had a tremendous
impact on political scientists of today. Aristotle helped to developed
some democratic ideas. In conclusion these men were great thinkers.
Their opinions on society and its functions were quite different, but
they both had the same intention, to build a better way of life for
the societies they lived in and for the societies that would come to
be in the future.

The Prince, written by Niccolo Machiavelli, is one of the
first examinations of politics and science from a purely scientific
and rational perspective. Machiavelli theorizes that the state is only
created if the people cooperate and work to maintain it. The state is
also one of man’s greatest endeavors, and the state takes precedence
over everything else. The state should be one’s primary focus, and
maintaining the sovereignty of the state one’s most vital concern. The
state is founded on the power of its military. Therefore, a strong
military is vital to maintaining the state. Machiavelli believes that
men respect power, but they will take advantage of kindness. He
believes that when given the opportunity one must destroy completely,
because if one does not he will certainly be destroyed. The prince
should lead the military, and he has to be intelligent. An effective
politician can make quick and intelligent choices about the problems
that constantly arise before him. He must also have virtue, which
means he is strong, confident, talented, as well as smart. A prince
cannot be uncertain, because uncertainty is a sign of weakness.
Fortune controls half of human’s actions, and man’s will control the
other half. Virtue is the best defense for fortune, and virtue must be
used in order to keep fortune in check. The prince must take advantage
of situations based solely on if it is best for the state. He should
choose his decisions based on contemporary and historical examples. A
prince cannot consider whether his acts are moral or immoral, and he
instead must act in an unbiased manner for the state. Also, it does
not matter how the state achieves its goals, as long as these goals
are achieved. Finally, regardless of the personal morality involved,
the prince should be praised if he does good for the state and berated
if he hurts the state. Machiavelli’s principles have widespread
influence, and they are quite similar to some of Thomas Hobbes ideas
in Leviathan.

Machiavelli has a very low opinion of the people throughout
history. In general, he feels that men are "ungrateful, fickle,
liars, and deceiver." "They shun danger and are greedy for profit;
while you treat them well, they are yours. They would shed their blood
for you … but when you are in danger they turn against you."
Machiavelli basically has little respect for the people, and he feels
as though they have not earned much either. He uses this as
justification for the use of fear in order to control people. He also
feels that men are "wretched creatures who would not keep their word
to you, you need not keep your word to them." This sense of fairness
justifies breaking one’s word to men. Machiavelli also writes about
how hard it must be for a prince to stay virtuous. He concludes that
with so many wretched men around virtue is hard to create in oneself.
"The fact is that a man who wants to act virtuously in every way
necessarily comes to grief among so many who are not virtuous."
Overall, Machiavelli is very pessimistic about the abilities of the
people. He feels that after examining people through history, his
conclusions of wretched men are correct.

Machiavelli tells us that the sovereign must take whatever
action is necessary to maintain order in society. In time this will
result in the most compassionate choice too. Machiavelli explains
that, Cesare Borgia, by using cruelty was able to achieve order and
obedience in Romangna. This contrast with the inaction of the
Florentines, who allowed internal conflict to develop in Pistoia,
resulting in devastation of the city. Therefore, a number of highly
visible executions can be a very effective means of controlling the
people and in preventing a major out break of violence and murder.
Machiavelli also cites the tremendous military successes of Hannibal.
Even though Hannibal led an army of different races over foreign soil,
he never had any dissension because of his reputation of extreme
cruelty. Machiavelli further concludes that it is difficult to be
loved and feared simultaneously. Hence, one should always prefer to be
feared than to be loved. During adverse times, the fear of punishment
is far more effective in maintaining control than depending people’s
goodwill and love. Finally, excessive leniency will lead to ruin,
because leniency is seen as a sign of weakness. A good historical
example was when Scipio’s armies mutinied against him in Spain.

Machiavelli talks consistently about the Roman empire and its
rulers. Particularly, he stresses the importance of having a strong
army and popular support by the army and people. The Roman emperors
proved to us many times that a ruler who is perceived to be weak is
the most vulnerable to attack. Alexander Severus was controlled by his
mother and considered feminine by his troops. He was a good ruler, but
it was this appearance of weakness that led his troops to kill him.
Antonius Caracalla is another example of an erroneous ruler. He was a
very strong military leader who was a great fighter. Unfortunately, he
became an incredibly cruel and harsh ruler over time, and he was hence
killed by a centurion. Machiavelli also includes the country of Italy
into much of his writings. He hopes to reclaim the land which has been
taken away from them. He feels that Italian princes have lost their
states because they have not had armed people. Machiavelli tells us
that an "armed population is a stable population". The Italian princes
also have not acted quickly, like a real prince should act. Julius II
did act quick, and Machiavelli attributes this to his success. In
reality, the whole purpose behind Machiavelli writing The Prince was
to try and help Italy free itself from foreign domination.

The Prince has been an incredibly important book. It was written
in the 1500’s, but much of it still applies today. The book also has
influenced many people in history. Many philosophers credit
Machiavelli with leading the way in political science. They say this
because he was the first person to take a rational approach at
analyzing government and politics. Many of Machiavelli’s critics would
say that he is to harsh in his ideas, and that he even seems immoral.
The truth is Machiavelli is only being honest with what he has
observed consistently in history to be true. The effect of his writing
are still found today too. People still need virtue in order to be a
good ruler or manager. Success is still to those who can make quick
and intelligent choices. The government is still supported most by it
amount of power. However, countries are held accountable today, and
few would agree that the end justifies the means as Machiavelli wrote.
Overall, Machiavelli’s work has lasted through the years, and it has
proven to be a classic piece of literature by standing the test of
time.

__________________
Life is a kaleidoscope of flaws, desires, emotions and mishaps__ YHK

Locke firmly denies Filmer's theory that it is morally
permissible for parents to treat their children however they please:
"They who allege the Practice of Mankind, for exposing or selling
their Children, as a Proof of their Power over them, are with Sir Rob.
happy Arguers, and cannot but recommend their Opinion by founding it
on the most shameful Action, and most unnatural Murder, humane Nature
is capable of." (First Treatise, sec.56) Rather, Locke argues that
children have the same moral rights as any other person, though the
child's inadequate mental faculties make it permissible for his
parents to rule over him to a limited degree. "Thus we are born Free,
as we are born Rational; not that we have actually the Exercise of
either: Age that brings one, brings with it the other too." (Second
Treatise, sec.61) On top of this, he affirms a postive,
non-contractual duty of parents to provide for their offspring: "But
to supply the Defects of this imperfect State, till the Improvement of
Growth and Age hath removed them, Adam and Eve, and after them all
Parents were, by the Law of Nature, under an obligation to preserve,
nourish, and educate the Children, they had begotten." (Second
Treatise, sec.56) Apparently, then, Locke believes that parents may
overrule bad choices that their children might make, including
self-regarding actions. Leaving aside Locke's duty of self-
preservation, his theory permits adults to do as they wish with their
own bodies. But this is not the case for children, because their lack
of reason prevents them from making sensible choices. To permit a
willful child from taking serious risks to his health or safety even
if he wants to is permissible on this theory. Parents (and other
adults as well) also seem to have a duty to refrain from taking
advantage of the child's weak rational faculties to exploit or abuse
him. On top of this, Locke affirms that parents have enforceable
obligation to preserve, nourish, and educate their children; not
because they consented to do so, but because they have a natural duty
to do so. 2. The Problem of Positive Parental Duties The first
difficulty with Locke's theory of childrens' rights is that the
positive duty of parents to raise their children seems inconsistent
with his overall approach. If, as Locke tells us, "Reason teaches all
mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and
independent, no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health,
Liberty, or Possessions." (Second Treatise, sec.6), it is difficult to
see why it is permissible to coerce parents to provide for their
offspring. In general, in Locke's scheme one acquires additional
obligations only by consent. Even marriage he assimilates into a
contract model: "Conjugal Society is made by a voluntary Compact
between Man and Woman " (Second Treatise, sec.78) We should note that
in section 42 of the First Treatise, Locke affirms that the radically
destitute have a positive right to charity. "As Justice gives every
Man a Title to the product of his honest industry so Charity gives
every Man a Title to so much out of another's Plenty, as will keep him
from extream want, where he has no means to subsist otherwise." But
this hardly rules out relying on voluntary charity if it is sufficient
to care for all those in "extream want." Quite possibly, this right
would never have a chance to be exercised in a reasonably prosperous
society, since need would be minimal and voluntary help abundant.
Moreover, it is hardly clear that the duty to provide for the
extremely needy rests only on some sub- group of the population. This
passage seems to make it a universal duty of all of society's
better-off members. For these two reasons, then, it would seem hard to
ground positive parental duties on the child's right to charity. For
if the number of children with unwilling parents is sufficiently tiny,
and the society in which they are born sufficiently rich, the
preconditions for exercising the right do not exist. Moreover, there
is no reason for parents, much less the parents of a particular child,
to have a duty to that child; more plausibly, all able-bodied members
of society are equally obliged to fulfill this duty. Nor would it work
to say that parental obligation is derived from the right of
restitution for harm, which Locke explains a criminal owes to his
victim: "he who hath received any damage, has besides the right of
punishment common to him with other Men, a particular Right to seek
Reparation from him that has done it." (Second Treatise, sec.10) How
has a child "recieved any damage" from his parents? At the time of
birth, his mother has already endured a painful burden in order to
give the child life. Far from having in any way harmed her newborn
baby, a mother could easily claim to have long since dispatched her
share of the social obligation to care for the radically destitute
after nine months of carrying him. The father may or may not have
assisted the mother in this process; but surely he can't be said to
have harmed the child in any way that would give the child a right to
restitution from him. 3. The Question of Consent The second difficulty
with Locke's theory of childrens' rights is that he doesn't integrate
the theory with his overall contractualist approach. If Locke could
find some sort of a contractual understanding between parents and
their children (as he does for marriage and other social interaction),
then the theory of childrens' rights would better cohere with his
overall theory. A contractualist approach might also better illuminate
the nature and extent of parental duties.

---

Reconstructing the Theory of Childrens' Rights The best thing
about Locke's theory of childrens' rights is that it explains why
children must be treated differently in order to respect the human
rights that they share equally with adults. Some thinkers in the
Lockean tradition have been willing to defend the "rights" of children
to be molested by adults, to buy drugs, to sell their legs, and so on.
I think that there is a grotesque confusion here (as well as a lack of
common sense), since it assumes that childrens' serious lack of
intelligence and information in no way taints the voluntariness of
their consent.

While I am in agreement with Locke up to here, I think his
theory needs to be reformulated. First of all, we should deny that
parents have a non-consensual obligation to support their children. As
explained earlier, even if we endorse Locke's right to charity, no
involuntary duties to one's offspring follow. Second and more
basically, we should integrate the theory of children's rights with
Locke's theories of contract and consent. The main obstacle to such an
approach is that a child can't consent in the normal sense; indeed, if
he could, why would the child need a guardian in the first place?
Tacit consent works no better than explicit consent, since lack of
rational ability undermines tacit consent too. The difference between
explicit and tacit is merely in the manner of expressing consent; and
if a child is rationally unable to say "I consent" then he is no more
rationally able to indirectly imply that he consents.

So neither explicit nor tacit consent work. But despair not;
for there is a third concept of consent, namely hypothetical consent.
While this notion is ordinarily suspect, in the case of children it is
uniquely useful. Adults must treat children only in ways to which they
would consent, if their faculties were sufficiently developed.
Everyone has the duty to treat children only in ways to which they
would consent: there is a general obligation to refrain from using
violence against children, molesting them, giving them poison or
drugs, and so on. And a child's would-be guardians can only become his
guardians on terms to which the child would consent if his mind were
mature. The precise content of the consent, being hypothetical, is of
course quite vague (which, happily, implies that there is no need to
sacrifice the pluralism inherent in wide parential discretion). But at
minimum, the hypothetical contract would assure the needs of
nourishment, preservation, and education. Though the child's consent
need merely be hypothetical, the consent of his guardian(s) much be
actual (probably tacit rather than explicit). Since it is the mother
of the child who automatically suffers a large cost to bring the child
to term, there should be a strong presumption in favor of her
exclusive guardianship. Naturally, she may share guardian duties with
the father if they both consent through an agreement such as marriage;
or she may give up her guardianship of the child through adoption.
Some may object that hypothetical consent is infinitely variable.
(Robert Pollock told me that he heard a NAMBLA member recall how glad
he was that he was molested as a youth.) But I think that every theory
of childrens' rights eventually appeals to hypothetical consent: for
you could also deny that a child would refuse to be killed, or
crippled, or castrated. On most modern Lockean rights theories (though
not in Locke himself), such things are only a rights violation if the
victim refuses to consent; so such things violate a child's rights
only if in some sense his consent is absent.

You might argue that all that is necessary to know is that it
is extremely unlikely that the adult into whom the child will grow
would consent to poisoning, castration, or molestation. That is one
possible reply to the NAMBLA objection. Alternately, perhaps this
suggests that it is futile to try to develop an exclusively political
theory of morality. While the law should not try to instill a
particular view of the good life in adults, children may be another
matter. Maybe we should treat children as they would consent to be
treated if they were not only rational, but also virtuous. If this
view turns out to be right - and I am not sure that it is - our whole
understanding of classical liberalism may change. In particular,
classical liberal theories that try to address only political
philosophy, remaining silent on all other questions, will turn out to
be wrong. As might be expected, the anamolous case of childrens'
rights raises new and serious questions about the ultimate
justification of a liberal order.

__________________
Life is a kaleidoscope of flaws, desires, emotions and mishaps__ YHK