Plato, Aristotle and the Ethics of Democratic Government - Research Paper Example

Demos and Dogma: Plato, Aristotle and the Ethics of Democratic Government CONTENTS Introduction……………………………………………………………………………1 Politics and government……………………………………………………………….2 Participation in politics………………………………………………………………..5 Education………………………………………………………………………………6 Community and gender………………………………………………………………..7 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………..8 Name 1 Name Class Instructor Date Demos and Dogma: Plato, Aristotle and the Ethics of Democratic Government Plato and Aristotle represent two of the three sides of Greek antiquity’s great philosophic triad, Socrates being the other third. Together, they form a foundational continuum of philosophic thought, inquiry and hypothesis that underlies Western concepts of politics, government, law and education. It is a matter of more than passing interest that Plato and Aristotle are so closely tied - Aristotle having learned from Plato - since the two differ so fundamentally in many of their beliefs and theories despite the similarities that no doubt are attributable to their personal association. For the relationship between Plato and Aristotle was one of master and pupil, as with the relationship between Socrates and Plato. “Aristotle had sat at (Plato’s) feet, and listened to his lectures; nor could he, if had been pressed, have done otherwise than acknowledge Plato…for ‘his master in humanis,’ and pre-eminently in politicis” (Barker, v).1 Placed in a modern context, their beliefs concerning the state and the notion of ethics in politics resonate powerfully in the present. One need only dwell on the political (and personal) hubris that gave rise to the Watergate scandal and subsequent abuses of Constitutional power in the Reagan and both Bush administrations. Politics, Plato believed, was inseparable from morality; for Aristotle, the symbiotic nature between state and citizen was based on the idea that Name 2 both sides act in the common good. The depredations of domineering and irresponsible states indicate that modern incarnations of government have veered far from Plato and Aristotle’s conceptions of the “good” city-state. As such, an examination of the similarities and differences between their theories is still instructive within the context of modern-day political and governmental ethics. For instance, Plato distrusted the rich, who tended to act in their own self- interest before that of the state, a concern that echoes in the recent destructive transgressions of Wall Street. However, countless examples have proven that Plato’s belief in a sole ruler, even a philosopher king (“enlightened” is, after all, a relative term) can never facilitate the participation of all classes – Aristotle’s mixed and participatory government, despite its flaws, allows for wise and informed individuals to become involved in the processes of government. Politics and government Sacrifice, specifically self-sacrifice, is a trait implied in the Aristotelian Democratic ideal. “Even if the end is the same for an individual and for a city-state, that of the city-state seems at any rate greater and more complete to attain and preserve. For although it is worthy to attain it for only an individual, it is nobler and more divine to do so for a nation or city-state” (Miller, 2011).2 As a shared morality, it would not be possible without the rationality and reason of the law, formalized in a constitution. Reason is one of Aristotle’s five suppositions of politics, a point upon which he and Plato concurred. “Aristotle agrees with Plato’s dictum that, whenever a system contains a rational element, it is appropriate for it to rule over the non-rational Name 3 part, because the rational element alone knows what is best for the whole” (Miller, 2011). Aristotle compares the reasoning capacity of a child with that of its parent, who must exert control by virtue of a more developed cogitative ability. Plato methodically asks, “ought not the rational principle, which is wise, and has the care of the whole soul, to rule, and the passionate or spirited principle to be the subject and ally?” (Plato, 131).3 So it was with Aristotle, who saw reason and ethics as operating hand-in-glove in a moderating, or self-regulating, capacity for the individual as well as within the state. Aristotle asserted that ethical virtue “is the just measure that reason imposes on sentiment or on actions or on attitudes that, without the control of reason, would tend towards one or another excess” (Reale and Catan, 325).4 Taking it a step further, Aristotle believed that justice is the great overarching virtue because it is both the theoretical and physical manifestation of having respect for the state. Justice, Reale and Catan write, “comprehends all the virtues” because the laws that govern the state encompass moral life itself (Ibid, 325). In the Republic, Plato says justice is a mirror image reflecting equally between the individual and the state, a quality (or state of mind) possessed by and shared among citizens. “The just man, then, if we regard the idea of justice only, will be like the just State?” (Plato, 122).5 His answer is an unambiguous “yes.” When it comes to the state itself, Aristotle and Plato break along ideological lines over the notion of justice, specifically over government by the many or the few. Unlike Plato, Aristotle does not regard all states as inherently flawed. Rather, Aristotle measures the just state Name 4 based on the extent to which its governing (or ruling) body acts to serve its own interests or promotes the needs and wants of those whom it governs (Ostwald, 38).6 Seen in that light, Aristotle’s approach is more pragmatic than Plato’s in that his conception of the just state is one which allows for a “blend” of constitutional types, such as oligarchy and Democracy (Aristotle, 134).7 Both Aristotle and Plato agree that the just state is one that is ruled by people of ability, however, Plato’s assertion that an ideal government would be run by a special ruling group of philosopher kings runs counter to Aristotle’s flexible, constitutional idea of government. Aristotle, too, believed that the state requires a ruling authority, but one whose role is established in the state’s constitution, the creator of which stands as the true “lawgiver” (Miller, 2011).8 It is easy to see Aristotle’s influence on the precepts of the American Republic in his belief that politicians are “craftsmen” who use their skills to adapt and modify the constitution to fit the changing needs of the state. As well, Aristotle’s essential belief in the virtue of mixed government in which many are involved found expression in the United States constitution. In Republic, Plato is very much against the idea of “rule by the many.” He insists that it bears flaws that render it an unreliable remedy for the problems of oligarchy. Specifically, he believed that ordinary people are too susceptible to emotional responses and are not sufficiently educated or mentally prepared to discharge the duties of government and bear the responsibilities of the state with equanimity. Plato was swayed by the ease with which the common people were deceived by the rhetoric of unscrupulous politicians. It is also likely that he was influenced by the fact Name 5 that the demos had failed to resist the catastrophic policies and campaigns instituted by Athens’ rulers during the Peloponnesian War. (Of course, it was the ordinary people of Athens who had supported the trial and execution of Socrates, Plato’s teacher.) Participation in politics Aristotle’s conception of participation in the political process is familiar to us as an expression of the Greek construct of direct involvement. Rather than acting through elected proxies who represent the citizenry, the ancient Greeks believed in each individual taking a direct part in the political process. This was Aristotle’s belief, that everyone should have a role in the exercise of sovereignty, not merely the electing of the sovereign authority, which is ultimately no more than the servant of the law (Barker, 295).9 Aristotle’s particular rendering of this elemental Democratic principle guided America’s Founding Fathers who, though fully committed to the political process as laid down by the Greeks, remained in essential agreement with Aristotle in that they believed those who rule are endowed with intelligence and ability that exceed the common man. For Aristotle, this also required that those who wielded the sovereignty of the law should be men of leisure, individuals whose resources allow them time to learn and reflect on the weighty philosophical aspects of governance. By contrast, the rest of society occupies a relatively servile position, supporting the state and its elected rulers according to their particular lights. To us, this may seem quite undemocratic but it was a widely held belief among the ancient Greeks. Plato believed even more strongly in the primacy of a superior aristocracy. For him, the Name 6 ordinary people of the state had no ability in matters of politics and deliberation. They were too restricted in their cognitive abilities to appreciate art and philosophy and so lacked the intellectual depth necessary to contribute in this aspect of administering the state. Electing those who governed was less a matter of true political representation and participation for Plato than it was a means to avoid rancor and dissatisfaction among the many. In other words, he saw electoral politics as something of a palliative for the populace. In this, one may well argue that Plato betrays the underlying spirit of Democracy, investing too much authority in those who develop policies and too little in an underclass he perceives as too intellectually limited to have an active hand in government. Thomas Jefferson’s idea of an informed electorate, therefore, owed more to Aristotle than Plato. Education The cataclysmic events of the Peloponnesian War and the despotic rule of the 30 Tyrants contributed to gradual changes in Plato’s views on a number of subjects. Among these was education, which the ancient Greeks considered essential to human development and the administration of enlightened government by a sophisticated ruling elite. In the Republic he appears to have grown jaded about the idea of enlightened government. In Oligarchia: The Development of a Constitutional Form in Ancient Greece, Ostwald writes that Plato expressed, “Incipient doubts that a sufficiently large number of experts could ever be found to rule the paradigmatic state are reflected already in the Republic in that he modified his views on ‘scientific’ government” (Ostwald, 32).10 Ostwald also notes that in his later years, Plato came Name 7 to doubt the ability of education to “perfect human nature” (Ibid, 33). Eventually, Plato comes to believe that what is needed is a kind of caretaker, a “manager” rather than a philosopher. As such, he marginalizes the importance of education. One doesn’t have to look very hard to see in this an epiphany of a frustrated older man who has come to see the world in very practical terms. Aristotle’s ideas about education derived from his philosophy concerning the role of the individual within the state. He believed that the young should be schooled in a manner aimed at producing a character that “corresponds to the demands of the State upon the individual, and is…calculated to preserve the integrity and stability of the State” (Barker, 424).11 As such, the education that is administered to students should be “find-tuned,” or fashioned so that it suits the particular constitution of the state. For Aristotle, education was a lever by which the moral character of the citizenry could be developed to suit the characteristics of the state. Character, then, is the means to a desired political end and is more important than knowledge (Ibid, 424).12 Community and gender Plato and Aristotle were both concerned, in their own particular way, with the good of the community. Plato believed in a harmonious community in which each citizen occupies his place and discharges his duties for the general good. For this model to work properly, Plato said that society’s rulers need to be “removed from any concerns for wealth or prestige so that they could strive for what was best for the community” (Spielvogel, 59).13 To achieve this necessary end, Name 8 they should live sequestered from the rest of society, alone and separate from the hoi polloi so that they do not succumb to mundane, physical matters. Aristotle, too, believed that individuals should serve the needs of the state, though he and Plato parted ways over the notion of a class of philosopher kings. They also differed over the role of women in the community. Plato held a more enlightened view on the subject in his assertion that women could, and should, be included in the ruling structure. Aristotle resisted the suggestion that women possess the innate abilities necessary to govern and to think analytically. In this, he was profoundly (and negatively) influential on the slow development of Western ideals concerning the roles of the sexes. Aristotle held that the state of marriage is critically important to the well-being of the state, and that women play a necessary role because they provide support and comfort for their husbands. At best, women are simply incomplete versions of men, biologically inferior people who must remain subordinate to the male. “The association of man and wife seems to be aristocratic; for the man rules in accordance with his worth and in those matters in which a man should rule, but the matters that befit a woman he hands over to her” (Aristotle, 210).14 Conclusion An examination of the beliefs of Aristotle and Plato leads one to the conclusion that Aristotle comes closer to capturing the essence of representative Democracy than Plato. Both were skeptical of the intellectual and spiritual depth and ability of the ordinary people, but Aristotle’s allowance for a mixed form of government offers advantages necessary for Name 9 equitable representation and for mitigating the power of the ruler. Even if the ruler is very wise and knowledgeable, he is likely to commit mistakes in the decisions he makes - he is only human. A mixed government means that all the classes of society take part, which helps to eliminate opposition and revolt arising from the exclusion of people from the right to make decisions. Hence, empowering ordinary citizens to contribute means there will be stability in the body politic (Aristotle, 9).15 It should be remembered that mixed government expands the field of ideas and maximizes the impact that the naturally talented and intelligent may have on the political process. By including many of the wisest of people from society in the government, it possible to greatly reduce the chances of making bad, or poorly informed, decisions since each of these wise people would be free to draw from their own experiences and state their opinions on specific topic of import to the state. Consequently, most decisions would be arrived at reasonably and by a majority vote. Thus, Aristotle’s model of government is healthier for the state than that espoused by Plato because it is more inclusive and in keeping with the concept of Democracy. Name 10 Works Cited Aristotle. The Nicomachean Ethics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 1998. Aristotle. Politics. Middlesex, UK: The Echo Library. 2006. Barker, Ernest. The Political Thought of Plato and Aristotle. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons. 1906. Miller, Fred. “Aristotle’s Political Theory.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (Spring 2011 edition), Edward Zalta, ed., URL=< http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-politics/>. Ostwald, Martin. Oligarchia: The Development of a Constitutional Form in Ancient Greece. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. 2000. Plato. Republic. Oxford, UK: The Clarendon Press. 1881. Reale, Giovanni and Catalan, John R. A History of Ancient Philosophy: Plato and Aristotle. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. 1990. Spielvogel, Jackson. Western Civilization: A Brief History. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Press. 2010. Read More