Political Philosophy

Political Philosophy

Part One (Question 2)

Aristotle, Locke, and Hobbes all place a great deal of importance on the state of nature and how it relates to the origin of political bodies. Each one, however, has a different conception of what a natural state is, and ultimately, this leads to a different conception of what a government should be, based on this natural state. Aristotle’s feelings on the natural state of man is much different than that of modern philosophers and leads to a construction of government in and of itself; government for Hobbes and Locke is a departure from the natural state of man.

Aristotle’s emphasis is on the city-state, or the political world as a natural occurrence. He says “every city-state exists by nature, since the first communities do.” (Aristotle 3). Aristotle continually reiterates the notion that the creation of a community comes from necessity; individuals aim at the highest good of all, happiness, through their own rationality, and the only way to achieve happiness is through the creation of the city-state. Aristotle follows the creation of a household and a village to the creation of the city-state in which citizens are able to come together to aim at the “good which has the most authority of all,” (Aristotle 1) happiness. In turn, this necessity for the formation of a city state comes from the idea of man as a rational being. “It is also clear why a human being is more of a political animal than a bee or any other gregarious animal… no animal has speech except for a human being.” (Aristotle 4). For Aristotle, human beings are political animals because of their ability to speak, their ability to communicate pleasures and desires, and their ability to reason. Aristotle’s state com...

... middle of paper ...

...ased on their heritage as nobles or the virtues of their fathers. Burke states that “there is no qualification for government but virtue and wisdom,” (Burke 561).

The most compelling argument for Burke against Locke is his idea that “government is not made in virtue of natural rights, which may and do exist in total independence of it… but their abstract perfection is their practical defect.” (Burke 564). Burke looks at the rights laid out by Locke and Rousseau and scoffs at them, stating that they have no merit in the real world, attractive as they are in principle. He believes that the pretended rights of these theorists are all extremes, and are therefore morally and politically false. Burke believes that “the rights of men are in a sort of middle,” (Burke 565), and their incapability of definition completely contradicts the extreme rights as defined by Locke.