Aristotles View on Human Nature - Essay Example

Paper Examining Aristotle’s View on Human Nature and his Proposed Best Form of Government Aristotle was born in 384 BC in the province of Macedonia. He studied with Plato and became a lecturer at Plato’s academy, after Plato’s death he was appointed for a short time as tutor to the young Alexander before he succeeded to the throne and eventually became known as “Alexander the Great”. I. Aristotle on Human Nature Aristotle assumed that all human actions are aimed at some good, which must be something that is done for its own sake and not for an ulterior motive. Aristotle argued that the aim of every being is to act so as to prosper and to be in a state of well-being. Humans therefore must carry out all actions and functions that make them into human beings and distinguish them from animals. Aristotle concludes that what distinguishes human beings from animals is their capacity of rational thinking. We are therefore happy as human beings when we do well what makes us human and distinguishes us from other species. But to seek happiness and fulfillment is not all that makes us human – human beings are also inherently very social beings and are political animals (Politics I.2) who seek to live in communities. Aristotle thinks that the state is the highest form of community, but at this point we should bear in mind that at his time the form of state and government Aristotle was most familiar with was the Greek polis, or city state, a relatively small entity both in geographic terms and in terms of population size. II. Ideal Form of Government To Aristotle the polis encompasses all other human associations, from the family nucleus to clans to trade associations. A polis must have a constitution by which the lives of all citizens are organized and it must have a ruler, or law giver. It is important that the polis aims to achieve the highest good for all its citizens. In turn, as human beings are political animals, they can only achieve the good life by organizing themselves as citizens in a state. Citizenship may include holding a public office or serving as an administrator, but always includes some form of direct involvement and service rendered to the polis. Aristotle has three steps in mind, according to the age of a citizen: at a young age a citizen should serve as a soldier to defend his state, in middle age he should hold a public or administrative office and as an older citizen he should carry out religious duties. Citizens should be awarded for their efforts depending how much they have contributed to the running of the state. Aristotle warns against excess in any form and advocates moderation and inclusiveness. The rich and the poor should participate and share in the power so that the poor majority does not become dissatisfied with the ruling elite. All the time, the goal for each citizen must be rational contemplation, and the public services a citizen renders to his state is only a means to achieving that ultimate goal which will ensure happiness for everyone. To ensure this, the right type of constitution must be in place. Aristotle distinguishes between just and unjust constitutions. A good single ruler is a monarch, an unjust ruler a tyrant. A small ruling elite, if just, is called an aristocracy or, if unjust, an oligarchy. Finally, a just constitution under the rule of the masses is a polity, an unjust constitution under mass rule is a democracy. We should note here that the definition of the term ‘democracy’ has undergone some changes since Aristotle’s times. The polis in its ideal form would be large enough to sustain itself and not too large so that the citizens can still feel as a unit and are also capable of identifying with one another. This way, the polis fulfils the social and political needs of its citizens and represents the ideal form of government. As I mentioned above, unlike in modern democracies the citizens of a Greek polis would have been much more directly involved in the government and administration of their state. This almost Utopian model sounds too good to be true (as does Utopia), but unlike Thomas More’s model state Aristotle did in all probability not apply any irony when developing his theses. III. Rebuttal of Aristotle’s Theories From a modern point of view, we can detect a fairly obvious problem, which is: who does the work to sustain the society and therefore the state? Aristotle’s perception of the world is rooted in the model of the polis. His emphasis is on the good of the citizens, but one should bear in mind that only a small proportion of the actual population were considered to be bona fide citizens. The majority of the population, including women, slaves, workers with non-citizen status and foreigners who worked as tradesmen or merchants would not have shared in the rights and duties of a citizen, although they would have carried out the menial tasks and work from child rearing to working in the fields. Although this seems fairly difficult to understand in a modern society, Aristotle supported slavery and declared that women are inferior human beings who are incapable of aspiring to the higher spheres of rational thinking and that foreigners by and large lack the capacity for rationality. Aristotle argues that people who lack the level of rationality that makes them capable of ruling must therefore be ruled by others. So women, as inferior beings lacking the capacity for authority and rational thought, must be ruled by their fathers or husbands; and foreign slaves, lacking the rationality commonly found in a Greek citizen, must be ruled by a master. Interestingly, Aristotle was not in favour of enslaving Greeks from hostile city states as he believed them capable of rational thought, but did not give the same credit to captured foreigners. They were all deemed to be inferior to Greek citizens and therefore would only be able to lead a productive life as slaves. Aristotle’s views of inclusiveness for all citizens does not stand up when we consider that only a minority of the population actually benefited from this inclusiveness. His theories of the polis as an ideal model for a state have not aged particularly well, as they are based on intrinsic inequalities and lack of freedoms for the majority of the population which we struggle to comprehend in modern times. Rather than constructing a communitarian and inclusive model to promote the well being and happiness of the whole population, Aristotle’s model would only potentially achieve this by excluding the majority of the population from these benefits by placing them in a perpetual subservient state. To conclude, Aristotle’s view of human nature describes an exclusive and idealised elite and does not apply equally to both sexes and all races or nationalities – and there can be no place for this type of argument in a modern society. Bibliography Aristotle, The Politics, translation by T.A. Sinclair, revised ed 1991, Penguin Books Cohen, Marc, et al From Readings in Ancient Greek Philosophy, Third Edition, Hackett, 2005 Read More