Aristotle's Mixed Regime

1819 Words4 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Income and wealth inequality sociology

Throughout book four, Aristotle talks about what would be the best regime. As he goes on, Aristotle relates the four cardinal virtues, justice, courage, wisdom, and moderation to his explanation of the “best” regime. Aristotle is basically presenting the idea as to what characteristics the “best” regime should have in order to be fair to all citizens being governed. In the passage, Aristotle argues that in order to have the best regime, you must create a regime that is equal and fair to everyone. “Hence, agreement must first be reached on what is for everyone, practically speaking, the most choice worthy way of life, and then on whether this way of life is the same for all in common as for each separately or whether it is different” ( 1323a14, …show more content…

Many have argued that a mixed regime may not be the best regime, because citizens won’t agree on what the life of virtue is. Aristotle clears this up saying that there is no regime better than the other; they have both good and bad characteristics. He mentions for those who agree with the philosophical way of life, are mainly the ones who are more interested in a democracy regime whereas those who agree with the political way of life are those who agree on an oligarchy regime. For those who disagree with a democracy regime he states “But since their thinking that all rule is despotic, is not correct, for rules over the free differs from rule over slave…. Also their praising inactivity more than activity is not true for happiness is action and further, many noble things reach their goal in the actions of the just and moderate” (1325a23, Aristotle). Those citizens who are in favor of an oligarchy are misinterpreted of those for a democracy. He states that those who are well and would still allow their neighbor to govern over them should not let them do so and in other ways, do what best suits them as long it does not violates laws put …show more content…

In order for a society to function property it must have a well equally balance of social classes. “For there must be some one thing that is both common and the same for those who are in community together, whether they are sharing it equally or unequally…but when there is something that exists for the sake of another, and this other is the end for the sake of which the first is, then they have nothing in common save by way of making and receiving” (1328a21, Aristotle). Aristotle explains the importance of having multiple cities within a society, and those cities being made up of those who have majority things in common, with the mixture of a regime, the life of virtue should not be affected in a negative way. Those who have different beliefs on what a virtuous life shall be lead to what the true meaning of what a life of virtue is. Aristotle refers back to the history in how the mixed regime came about; he goes on by saying that there is no reason in changing the regime in its entirety and that improving the one put in place. In concluding, Aristotle says the best regime is one filled with happiness, when citizens are governed politically however have the rights to do as they please as long as they abide by the laws put in place. No division of social classes should affect all citizens living a life of virtue. Aristotle mentions and concludes with education, as well

Show More
Related

  • Aristotle's Argument of the Polis

    1743 Words  | 4 Pages

    ... against him. With regard to the second objection, Aristotle can begin by accepting that whereas it is indeed true that the parts prior to the whole or the polis - the single associations, respectively - do not contain the virtue for the achievement of eudaimonia in themselves alone, it is through the conjunction of them all that the capacity for this virtue emerges. Indeed, the parts of the city-state are not to be taken distinctively. For instance, whereas five separate individuals alone may not have the capacity to each lift a 900 lbs piano, the five together, nonetheless, can be said to be able to accomplish this. Similarly, it is the city-state with all of its parts that can achieve the good life. In any case, it remains that humankind is essentially political since it fulfills the function of reason, and this function is best performed under the city-state.

    Read More

  • Thucydides and The Civil War at Corcyra

    2021 Words  | 5 Pages

    In summation this paper discussed the three correct types of regimes according to Aristotle; furthermore it examined the deviations of these regimes. This was done by firstly examining a regime led by royalty, secondly by observing the characteristics of an aristocratic regime and thirdly by discussing a regime ran by constitutional government. Finally defining the three correct types of regimes the deviations of these regimes: tyrannical, oligarchic and democratic were examined.

    Read More

  • Hammurabi And Machiavelli's Theory Of Social Order In Ancient Society

    1045 Words  | 3 Pages

    Aristotle purposed his theory through a way of stating how political community is best of all for

    Read More

  • Virtue and Happiness in Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics

    1147 Words  | 3 Pages

    ...it is necessary to examine human virtue. Something is considered to have reason in two senses: that which has reason in itself and that which listens to reason. These two senses are the origin of the distinction between intellectual and ethical virtues, respectively. The understanding of virtue and happiness is justified in the ideal that happiness is to be found in pleasure, others that it is to be found in honor, and others that it is to be found in contemplation. Happiness is not found in living for pleasure because such a life is slavish. Nor is it found in seeking honor because honor depends not on the person but on what others think of him. In order to be successful in an organization it is key to find a balance between two extremes that is an end within itself, that’s why Aristotle strongly believes that happiness is acquired through political organization.

    Read More

  • Comparing Aristotle and Plato

    791 Words  | 2 Pages

    The understanding of Plato's regime is one that involves both the self and the regime. Aristotle on the other hand shows that development of state can be achieved without being the most wise. He also looks upon the regime with a positive regard rather that the pessimistic view of Plato, that things will always get worse. Aristotle understands that the coming together of people with common interest will always yield a city, and then onto a regime. Plato takes the planned out way, making sure that everything is in order before the regime or city can be formed. Both ideals of a regime are ones that would yield strong frivolous and successful places of habitation, yet we have never had a chance to see them in today's world. If only now we could see how virtuous they could be?

    Read More

  • Aristotle And Aristotle's Three Types Of A Good City

    1660 Words  | 4 Pages

    Aristotle describes three different types of political states, two of which do not meet the criteria of an excellent city, and one that best suits the citizens to live a self-sufficient and excellent life. Aristotle begins to describe the city-state as a city in which free citizens share in ruling not to merely rule over citizens but to rule over them for the sake of the city. As for the sake of the city is to live a good life and be in pursuit of excellence. The virtue, in this sense, drives the citizens to live a good life around justice because their virtues constitute that that is the greater good of being a citizen of an excellent city.

    Read More

  • The Balancing Act Between The Individual Interest And The Common Good

    1612 Words  | 4 Pages

    The reason that unreasonable restrictions on the individual's interests cannot be entirely ignored is that human nature doesn't allow for such selflessness. Since that is so, citizens will not allow for common good to exist in a society if it as the expense of their interests. However, small restrictions can be readily accepted it they believe that such impositions actually affords them the safety and opportunity to nurture their interests. For example, the property owner will gladly pay taxes to the government for the common good if they believe that the government will protect them those who would steal their land. In Aristotle's critic of Plato, Aristotle points out that humans cannot learn what the common good and what their proper role in society is without having individual interests. For example, Aristotle pokes holes in Plato's position that philosophers should not possess personal property as irrational as it does not take into consideration that property ownership "contributes to the overall rational structure of society and thus to people's happiness," which is a requirement before the common good can be realized. Aristotle's criticism of Plato hinges on the presupposition that personal happiness must exist before civic virtue can. Accordingly, family, friendship, and personal property are "needed in order to enable individuals to feel that their lives have value, and both are necessary dimensions of a well-organized polis that secures a sense of communal solidarity among diverse people" (DeLue 54).

    Read More

  • Difference Between Aristotle And Alfarabi

    1116 Words  | 3 Pages

    Like a government 's purpose, a government 's rule is meant to uphold a proper conduct among its people. To Aristotle, a government is what determines is good or bad in a society. As religion was directly tied to government in Greece, morality was closely tied to ones ' civic life. He also determined that a government is supposed to regulate between just and unjust behaviors. While Aristotle does not define what is just or unjust in his Politics, he tells his readers that good will acts as the measure of what is just or superior. Since good works are directly tied to the purpose of government, one could define a government as being just in its abilities to govern its people. Aristotle uses the example of slave as a barbarian, since they are outside of what is considered good in a society. He considers that there is naturally a ruling and a ruled class in society. This helps to highlight hierarchy in a society, since slaves are ruled by a freed man, and freed men would be the individuals to participate in government. Alfarabi holds this same opinion, as he believes that a ruler in government has the right to set rankings among his people based on their good acts. Alfarabi considered political organization as part of a natural order in society. He also states that a ruler can apply this logic of ranking to objects and ideas. This would allow a ruler in a government

    Read More

  • Aristotle

    1235 Words  | 3 Pages

    The primary concern of political theorists is to determine by what form of constitution the state will most likely succeed. According to Aristotle the definition of political success means the general happiness of the citizenry. Both Aristotle and James Q. Wilson share the belief that molding excellent character within the citizenry is the first and most important step towards solidifying the happiness of the state as a whole. The basic structure of Aristotle’s philosophies are derived by gathering as much information about the history of a subject as possible (in trying to develop the ultimate constitution Aristotle went through 150 constitution from historically great nations) taking from the good and removing the bad Aristotle thought he could develop superior political theories. The conclusion Aristotle came to in his effort to write the perfect constitution was that it was necessary to first pay attention to the development of the parts of a society (the citizens). Once the parts are in harmony the emergence of the whole is the next logical step. In developing political theory Aristotle begins by addressing issues of personal character on a microscopic level believing that in turn this will assist the state on a macroscopic level. Developing character or as Aristotle refers to it, “human excellence” is an activity of the soul, rather than the physical body. Aristotle refers to the cultivation of human excellence as an activity of the soul because on a spiritual level he believes the soul to be the whole of an individual, similar to his belief that on the political level the state is the whole of a group of citizens.

    Read More

  • Characteristics Of Aristocracy

    1254 Words  | 3 Pages

    In today’s day and age, we tend to think that our regime, whatever that may be, is the best regime out there. Aristotle, a Greek philosopher, deeply analyzed which regime is not only the best but the most just. In his argument, Aristotle discusses how others define justice, the most just claims to political office, and the drawbacks, and weighs which regime is the best. At the end of this long thought out discussion it seems plausible that Aristotle comes to the conclusion that Aristocracy would logically be the most just regime. In that bold claim he is not taking credit from any of the other regimes, because he believes that all regimes are just if they serve the common advantage; Aristocracy would just be the most just.

    Read More

  • Good Citizen vs. Good Man

    568 Words  | 2 Pages

    Consequently, if indeed there are several kinds of constitution, it is clear that there cannot be a single virtue that is the virtue-of a good citizen. But the good man, we say, does express a single virtue: the complete one. Evidently, then, it is possible for someone to be a good citizen without having acquired the virtue expressed by a good man" (1276b). What Aristotle doesn't tell us is who is better off. Is it sufficient to be the good citizen or is it definitely more satisfying to be the good man? The good man is recognizably superior to the good citizen. The good man possesses everything that is good. He does what is just and what is just is beneficial to himself and to those around him. His soul is completely well-ordered and, therefore, cannot allow for his desires to take over and commit evil or injustice of any kind.

    Read More

  • Aristotle, Conflicting lifestyles

    808 Words  | 2 Pages

    When comparing the contemplative lifestyle to the moral virtuous lifestyle, one finds the differences to rest on the three types of good: goods of the body, external goods, and goods of the soul.

    Read More

  • Nicomachean Ethics And Eudemian Ethics

    668 Words  | 2 Pages

    In Book I, Aristotle begins by appreciating that there is an inherent disagreement upon what is good for human beings. There is no absolute theory that can explain what humans need to do to attain ‘happiness’. He is also not in search of a list of good things, even though such a list can be drawn up. Humans are generally faced with choices and one action often conflicts with another. What Aristotle searches for in his treatises, is the highest good. He alienates three distinctive features of such: it has inherent value, it is not desirable for the sake of fulfillment of other actions, and all other goods are desirable for its sake. Aristotle recognizes that human action is directed towards the attainment of a certain ‘good’; we make efforts to ...

    Read More

  • A Comparative Study on the Philosophies of Plato and Aristotle

    1587 Words  | 4 Pages

    Both Aristotle and Plato were very critical of the democratic system. They believed that such a system took the state away from its true nature. It upheld principles of equality among classes, promoted participation of all individuals in politics and allo...

    Read More

  • Aristotle's Ideal State: Hierarchy And Equality

    1516 Words  | 4 Pages

    In this essay I will examine Aristotle’s ideal state in order to find out whether it is rather a place of hierarchy than equality. First it is necessary to define what is meant by hierarchy and equality. This seems to be an easy task, since these are commonly used words. But by equality, do we mean for example equal property, equal power or equal rights for everyone? For 21st century Sweden, for example, is usually thought to be rather equal state, while it is however true that even there everyone doesn’t have equal property, equal power or even equal rights. And would equal property for everyone even be equality, since then those who work harder would get the same benefits than those who work less and therefore there would be unfair inequality in amount of work to been done. With these considerations in mind, my definition of equality is that everyone gets what they deserve. Therefore, if a person for example kills another person, he or she clearly doesn’t deserve the same rights or property than everyone else. By my definition a state doesn’t become hierarchical or unequal if it simply punishes criminals. Now the question is that what people deserve and on which grounds and whether in Aristotle’s ideal state people get what they deserve.

    Read More

More about Aristotle's Mixed Regime

Open Document