The Presupposition of the Democratic Sort of Regime Is Freedom - Essay Example

The Presupposition of the Democratic Sort of Regime is Freedom Aristotle’s view with regards to the relationship between freedom and virtue explains the assertion he makes that democracy acts as a deviation from polity’s correct regime. Aristotle contends, “the presupposition of the democratic regime is freedom (Aristotle et al 183). There are two major principles of democratic regimes that follow from the emphasis on liberty. The first is to take equality with a basis on the number and not basing on merit and living in the manner, which one wishes. Therefore, what is wrong with the principle that allows one to live in the custom that they desire? Indeed, this idea seems to constitute intuitively of the true definition of freedom and it does in a sense. This is because what everyone wants, on top of all else, is to be happy. Thus, every want is aimed indirectly or directly at attaining the ultimate good. What we can ascertain from this is that, in the deepest sense, what individual wants is to live a life of virtue because a virtuous life is a happy one. Aristotle starts out in Politics by discussing the origins of the city of Polisor. He seems to be clearly fascinated by this form of life that is not so old, and the possibilities that the city offers for human excellence (Aristotle et al 41). Aristotle sees it as being emergent from various natural communities such as villages and families, as well as from the relationships that are present between master and slave, parents and children, and between husband and wife. The manner in which these relationships are ordered and the communities that they are found in calls for an appropriate set of rules. Aristotle makes an argument against people who claim that every rule is the same, insisting on fundamental differences between political rules, mastery of slaves, and household management. This can be taken to indicate the basic freedom sense in Aristotle’s Politics. Individuals who are capable can be free from servitude that means being free from subjection to masters, as well as freedom from having to labor from for life’s necessities (Aristotle et al 43). According to Aristotle, the people who are able to gain freedom in this sense are referred to as citizens and are able to get a life outside the village and household (Aristotle et al 82). This life lets them engage with other people who are not servants or members of their family, although they are also free. Citizens can participate in the molding of their individual futures, as well as the wellbeing and futures of their community in this life. When the city and the city’s constitution fail, then freedom is lost. Despotic rule can be considered as importation of slave domestic management mode to cities that are inhabited by nominally free people. Tyranny is explained as a form of politics that has serious flaws because of its perversions to the tyrant’s sole interests (Aristotle et al 97). Aristotle considers the two manifestations freedom as democratic freedom and as it happens in the best city possible. Aristotle devotes a lot of time in his considerations of the different types of democracy. He views democracy for its weaknesses and strengths. However, he contends that democracy is driven by freedom (Aristotle et al 101). The fact that persons learn to be governed, and how to govern, is a strong feature of democracy. Using a constitution that has its prime grounded in freedom ensures that elections are done on a majority vote basis since everyone is equal. Aristotle is quick to acknowledge that the majority will often achieve judgment that is better than would be if a few people on their own made it. A more radical form of democracy, which is not sans precedence, is whereby offices are given through lots. However, this position on democracy is not uncontested. Aristotle recognizes three human life conditions that lead to justice claims, which are virtue, wealth, and freedom. It is here that we see the differences that exist between aristocrats, oligarchs, and democrats. Each one of them has a partial form justice. While the virtuous, or the true aristocrats, are more likely to remain removed from factional disputes, politics is driven by the contest between the wealthy and the poor (Aristotle et al 107). This, in turn, results in a certain degree of instability. While each of the claims possesses merits, complete justice needs proportional balance. Aristotle, ultimately, is critical of democracy that is not mitigated and the freedom that it espouses. The ability to enjoy oneself or do what one wants is likely to cause a decline in virtue that, for him, is damaging to the life of humans and is contrary to the ends set for the city. In the end to freedom, tyranny is able to take hold (Aristotle et al 111). Aristotle’s form of freedom as he promotes it is dealt with in the best form of regime, that which is aristocratic in nature where there are many virtuous people, and they are the ones in power. The quest as pursued by Aristotle is that of what is constitutive of the best form of life for the city, as well as for the individual. This enhances the discussion as to whether contemplative studious life or the active life is best. Aristotle concludes the best life is active life because it is here that one can exercise virtue (Aristotle et al 123). However, thoughtful action is the kind of action that Aristotle praises with the freedom he seeks being the freedom to act as relates to other individuals with limits. Aristotle insists that the master relationship is not appropriate for those who, by nature, are free, that the best model of governance is that of governed, and being governed (Aristotle et al 128). Therefore, in the first instance, this freedom can be defined as the freedom of action and the freedom to participate in political activities that would result in the city flourishing. However, it is also freedom from drudgery to slaves who are engaged in working towards human needs, as well as from the tiresome work of merchants, craftsmen, and artisans who, while they may be free, have lives that are not directed towards the highest things. What happens eventually is life where leisure becomes a necessity and an end. Luxury becomes an end of work and akin to peace following war (Aristotle et al 129). This is necessary so that the citizens have opportunities to act. It is also dependent on getting a liberal education that seeks to make life the best it can be. Aristotle is also adamant that leisure does not equate to play but, rather, is the availability of resources and time that allows one to put his/her energy towards activities that are noble. When one’s focus is turned towards nature in politics, a number of issues immediately arise that prick sensibilities of the modern world. It involves; insistence on political communities coming from natural communities, the notion that individuals are political animals who are sociable and have the ability to engage on community ordering, the contention that the city is prior to the individual by nature, and the acknowledgment that some human beings, by nature, are slaves (Aristotle et al 147). Cities rise by nature since humans possess the potential to create these kinds of communities and since there is provision of adequate resources by the earth. Cities come around because of human agency rather than by nature. Therefore, they are dependent on the thoughts and achievements of man. However, whether the development is unsuccessful or successful is guided by the final cause that is the best possible city. While this is a portion of the overall picture, a question is raised concerning natural slaves. Aristotle accepts that some human beings are slavish by nature, while others are, by nature, free. The justification given by Aristotle for this position has its basis on the difference of mind quality that is expounded on in Book I. A slave’s nature is one who takes part reason to the extent of only perceiving others but is not possession of reason (Aristotle et al 150). The slave, in other words, has no ability to know what to do ahead of time but is capable of getting commands from his/her master and acting according to the instruction. This can be identified with a deficiency in their ability to make deliberations, which, in turn, leads to the absence of practical wisdom. However, Aristotle, in book VII, makes another justification, which should be taken into account. In this justification, spirit accounts for the difference. Unless a man is passionate about being free, then man cannot be free. In another argument that is somewhat dubious, Aristotle contends that the Greek polis arose because the people there shared the Northern European spirited nature and the Asiatic people’s intelligence (Aristotle et al 154). Therefore, the two were driven towards the ability to command and to freedom. The natural nature of these differences is that they are present when one is born, and their deficiency is not overcome simply through education and habituation. However, before being too critical of Aristotle’s decision, it is important to take into consideration two points. One, Aristotle totally rejects conventional forms of slavery that can be defined most commonly as that slavery which is imposed on people who lose out in a war but are recognized by other kinds of institutional slavery (Aristotle et al 168). Aristotle’s grounds are that it is not just to treat someone as a slave who, by nature, is not slavish. Aristotle also proposes a type of manumission that can rectify enslavement that is just. Secondly, Aristotle’s form of slavery as he envisages is found in the households and he sees it as a relationship where the master is in charge of providing directions, while labor is provided by the slave. The master and the slave do what is they are each good at and which is of benefit to each of them (Aristotle et al 171). The slave shares and enjoys the achievements and excellence of the master, which is absent in the artists who are living freely. Nevertheless, Aristotle’s position comes up against serious difficulties. For instance, where do slaves actually originate? Alternatively, more specifically, should the offspring of a child be naturally slavish? A hint that he may be aware of this problem crops up but is not pursued. While Aristotle acknowledges that natural slaves do exist, and places them in relation to their master in a household, he does not go further to investigate how they end up in their position or are selected. If this sort, of arrangement were to work in the long term, then it would need to be institutionalized by birth with birth, instead of capacity, becoming the prime instrument used to determine the future of the people (Aristotle et al 175). In drawing these arguments all together, it seems that his insight is that, an impetus in the human condition that leans towards servitude exists. Aristotle provides three grounds for the contention. First, man depends on the fruits from the earth for them to survive and their perishable nature places a heavy demand on labor by man (Aristotle et al 182). Second, humans are endowed with different given capacities that are not reducible to opportunity differences for education and upbringing, which makes them experience unequal relationships with each other. Thirdly, especially among the powerful, there exists a drive towards the dominance of the rest. Can this be viewed in a different way m in contemporary life? The difficulty faced pertaining to perishing of crops has been overcome, but we might still be subject to the capital demands, as well as the volatility of financial markets (Aristotle et al 183). Slave as a term is offensive to most people but is the relationship between the manager and employees in bureaucracies and corporations any different? In addition, surely, the will to dominate others is still in existence (Aristotle et al 192). The achievement of Politics, that is reflective of success in Greek politics, is the fact that Aristotle bears the ability to create a space where individuals are free, as well as free to act in relation to the other in the best way possible. Politics targets willful domination through the proposition of governance structures and not through confrontation. These structures allow citizens to participate in the making of decisions, as well as in judgments, in the city in a manner that corresponds to their various abilities (Aristotle et al 192). When Aristotle outlines what he feels is the best constitution practicable in Book IV in distinction to what is the best possible in Book VII, Aristotle describes it as a mix of balanced democracy and oligarchy (Aristotle et al 193). This, usually translated to Polity, but comprehended better as republic is designed in a manner that allows for maximum participation in the city’s rule in the same manner as it recognizes the differences inherent in capability and wealth. This is a sign that Aristotle’s practicality and realism that his best constitution combines two deviant constitutions in Book III. However, it is true that it is not catering well for those who are at the two extremes. Neither the virtuous who are the aristocrats, nor those who are laborers, who are the slaves are catered for (Aristotle et al 194). One main problem with this democratic mentality is that this emphasis on freedom and equality may lead one to treat all manners of acting as choice-worthy in equal measure. Aristotle addresses himself to these flaws of the democratic process (Aristotle et al 195). Democracies badly defines freedom… every person lives in the manner that they want and toward the ends that they crave. However, this is a poor thing. Living with a view towards the regime needs not be supposed as slavery but for preservation. Two crucial implications arise from the assertions made by Aristotle. First, this is not the correct definition of freedom and not freedom itself as is the problem. Second, the definition of freedom as he gives is incorrect since it leads one towards slavery, which consequently acts as a danger to the regime’s preservation. While it is true that freedom, in opposition to the conception lent to it by democracy, entails a single objective, i.e. happiness, and necessitates that all actions of any manner that are incompatible to this end are considered inferior, any such action would defeat freedom. Therefore, it can be concluded that his emphasis on a virtuous life as the major goal of politics stems, in actual sense, from the desire for the preservation of freedom (Aristotle et al 196). When it is examined in this light, his position on the fact that the city is in existence for the primary sake of living and the subsequent belief that every city must ensure it cares for virtue are, in actual sense, a way of protecting the true freedoms of the citizen. In this sense, the rule of law is not absent in its entirety in all democratic varieties, although it exists in lower degrees as democracy tends more to the extreme since the notion of law is antithetical to freedom’s democratic notions (Aristotle et al 197). Because of these reasons, while democracy institutionalizes a form of governing and being governed, this interpretation of democracy is not consistent with the ruling on political justice. Governing and being governed is a general or abstract institutional arrangement that can be specified in different regimes differently. Therefore, ruling democratically in turns has no counterargument to claim, polity and political justice are connected. Aristotle’s aristocracy has no political justice, however. In his words concerning the best regime in Politics VII and VIII, he contends that this aristocratic regime needs to be based, fundamentally, on equality between the citizens. However, when Aristotle talks about the distribution of offices in the city, he has to grapple with the reasoning that, although the city needs people for its defense in military terms, as well as guide it through its deliberative functions; various classes of people normally, fulfill these functions (Aristotle et al 200). Conclusion It is my belief that democratic beliefs are not conducive to political justice. The rotation notion is closely related to the freedom democratic principle. However, while political justice makes presuppositions concerning the rule of law, democratic regimes do not have the rule law in them in two ways. One, the notion of law for Aristotle is referent to the common good notion. Polity, as described, is a regime where the people exercise rulings in turn to achieve the common good. However, democracy is a regime where people exercise their rulings in the interests of those in power. Second, rule of law also needs the society’s constitution to be responsible for the society’s ordering of offices. However, whereas the constitution is above the assembly’s whims in the polity, in real democracies, there is a tendency towards ensuring that people, rather than the constitution, are sovereign. Work Cited Aristotle. Jowett, Benjamin. & Lerner, Max. Aristotle's Politics. New York : Modern library, 1943. Read More