Justice and Its Primacy in the Political Philosophy of Aristotle
Chapter One
PREAMBLE OF THE STUDY
However, Aristotle a master in ancient philosophical thought, whose influence has always rocked the philosophical defense of his contemporaries and successors, has it that the state is natural to man. Also, his refutation of the conventionalist’s notion of the state led him to redefine the state as an association of communities made up of citizens with the aim of achieving the highest common good. Having defined the state thus, he sets himself the task of investigating the activities of the state in order to find out its end and goal; to find out who and who are qualified to be citizens of the state; and if all the members of the state are qualified to enjoy the basic individual rights in the state.
It is in this context that he brought in the issue of justice as the central point on which the activities of the state revolves. Hence, I found it appropriate to treat as my project topic “Justice and its primacy in the political philosophy of Aristotle.” As the political philosophy of Aristotle is concerned mainly with the governmental order of the state, we shall be using the word ‘state’ more frequent in this work.
Furthermore, this work shall be divided into four chapters. Chapter one will deal with the meaning and notion of state and justice respectively, with special reference to Aristotle. Chapter two will deal with the application of justice in the state. Since man is naturally born in the state, there is the necessity for harmonious relationship between members of the state. This harmonious co-existence can only be achieved through the application of justice in the state.
CHAPTER TWO
APPLICATION OF JUSTICE IN THE STATE
JUSTIFICATION OF SLAVERY
The history of mankind has been marked by insecurity and fear. This state of tension has often resulted in wars, tyranic government and oppression at varied degrees. Moreover, some people, races or even families and individuals have often claimed natural superiority over others. These self-acclaimed natural superiors regard others as inferiors or sub-humans and therefore subject them to different degrees of inhuman treatments. Such treatments and notion often end up as slavery.
The issue of slavery has been a crucial one in the liberative history of mankind. Hence many great thinkers have tackled this problem according to the “defacto” situation of their time or in view of the “de jure” position in the slavery justification or condemnation. The New Caxton Encyclopedia defines slavery as: “the condition of being a human chattel, the private property of his owner to whose will he or she is entirely subject.”1 Slavery is also “a system under which an individual is held as a property of another to be used or disposed of at the will of the owner or master.”2 Slavery is the act of depriving one of his natural rights of liberty, freedom or dignity and thereby rendering him less a man-reducing him to a mere instrument of his master, a stopgap.
However, among all living creatures, man is the most unique in view of his rationality. All men possess the quality of reasoning though at varied degrees. These degrees in the rational capacity of man, have often led many to think that those who have the upper hand in it, coupled with some accidental conditions and positions in life should be the superiors of the less privileged, whereby the latter naturally become their slaves. Among philosophers who define slavery is Aristotle. According to him, a slave is:
…he that can and therefore does belong to another, and he that participates in the reasoning faculty so far as to understand but not so as to possess it.3
In this connection, he proceeds to give a philosophic rationalization and justification of slavery. He made a clear-cut distinction between natural and conventional slavery.
Conventional slavery is condemned by Aristotle because; it is acquired under the basis of physical superiority. But this physical strength is not the best criterion for determining the quality of man. As a rational being, man can only measure the extent of his superiority by the degree of his intellectual capacity. This makes slavery by physical superiority wrong.
Also conventional slavery can not be accepted especially when it results from war. This is because, often, wars are unjust. According to Aristotle:
Some claim that enslavement in war has an element of right in it, simply as being legal. But they do not always say this since it is quite possible, that the undertaking of war may have been unjust in the first place.4
CHAPTER THREE
JUSTICE AND REVOLUTION IN THE STATE
So far, we have seen different constitutions, their distinctive qualities and their justifiable applicability in the state. Now, we have to consider the causes of some changes in the systems of government; and how the absence of justice contributes to these changes.
EQUALITY AS JUSTICE
First and foremost, it would be pertinent to distinguish justice from equality, to avoid confusing one with the other. The treatment of equality is not an easy one therefore; we may not afford to give a detailed analysis of it since doing so may deviate us from our main preoccupation in this work. Equality according to lexicon Webster’s Dictionary is: “the state of being equal; likeness in size, number, quantity, value, qualities or degree.”1 In other words, equality means that people should be treated in like manner. Justice on the other hand is: “the constant and permanent determination of the will to give each one his due.”2 Since therefore, justice is giving each his due and equality is treating people in like manner, we can say that they both are inter-related. For Aristotle, “all men believe that justice is equality in a sense.”3
CHAPTER FOUR
EVALUATIONS AND CONCLUSION
CRITICAL EVALUATION
All along, we have tried to expose, to the extent we could, the relevance of justice in the political philosophy of Aristotle. Now it is left for us, to end the work with some few remarks.
In the first place, we have to accredit the ingenuity of Aristotle in helping to introduce into political philosophy the idea of “order” which is not ruled by human passion but by the principle of law and morality. These principles make the realization and application of justice in the state possible.
By making justice lean on morality in political life, he has saved political philosophy from the danger inherent in the philosophy of “might is right” –a state where the “survival of the fittest” is reigning. This philosophy (of might is right) is based on the wrong conception of justice as is evident in Thrasymarchus definition of justice as doing the will of the stronger. This notion of ‘jungle justice’ was taken up and expounded by Nicolo Machiavelli in his work “The Prince.”
However, Aristotle’s emphasis on justice in the state has provided a springboard for all right thinkers to aim at that which is good for the happiness of all and not that of the rulers alone. This principle which has been developed and expounded by many philosophers like Saint Thomas Aquinas, Thomas Hobbes, J. Locke etc, have led to the establishment of world peace.
Having acknowledged Aristotle’s magnanimous spirit in the restoration of sincere justice based on proportionate equality, we must also have to point out that which are discredit to him.
One of the major “archiles heel” in the political philosophy of Aristotle is his justification of slavery. The present and future generations are yet to forgive him on this. According to Copleston, “we regret that Aristotle canonized the contemporary institution of slavery…”1
However, this canonization was a historical accident. This is because, he allowed his philosophical reasoning to be shrouded in the political realism of his time-where the class distinction between noble born and low born was prevalent in Greek political organization.
Furthermore, apart from these historical or contemporary accidentals:
What is censurable in it is not the recognition that men differ in ability and in adaptability (the truth of this is obvious need of elaboration) but the over-rigid dichotomy between two types as something almost less than human.
Nevertheless, though there may exist some accidental inequality among men, yet all men are ontologically equal. Edward P. rightly affirms that:
…despite the many points of inequality, all men are alike in possessing reason or some other essentially human characteristic or a nature by virtue of which they stand equal.3
The overwhelming abuses of the dignity of human person inherent in slavery and slave trade have moved the thoughts of countries to “kick” against it. According to 1776 American declaration of independence, it is categorically stated that we hold this truth to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…4
This equality arises from the essence of man which gives him dignity as a person even when be might have been accidentally disfavored by nature or circumstance. He should share his full right, dignity and love in the society. Therefore, “no one shall be in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.”5 In other words, slavery of any kind, conventional or natural, implicit or explicit, direct or indirect should be abolished and let to die a natural death.
Another observable error in the political philosophy of Aristotle is his regard of the state as the final and ultimate end of man. According to him:
…that association which is the most sovereign aim highest, is at the most sovereign of all goods…is the association which we call the state the association which is political.6
This notion of the state as where man can achieve his most sovereign and supreme good has given rise to atheism inherent in the materialism of the contemporary communism. For them, since man can attain his highest and perfect good in the state, the question of God or supernatural realities are reduced to mere medical obscurantism.
However, in as much as the state helps man to perfect himself, it (the state) is not in itself the end of man but a means of achieving the ultimate and perfect happiness, which cannot be found in this imperfect world. Therefore man is naturally inclined to seek the most perfect happiness, which cannot be found in this material state. Affirming this Thomas Aquinas says:
Therefore, God is obviously the end of all things. Besides, in any kind of causes, the first cause is more a cause than the secondary cause, for secondary cause is only a cause through primary cause…But God is the first cause in the order of goods.7
Therefore, the justified political state provides a temporary happiness, which is a means of attaining the permanent and ultimate good found in God. The good in the state must be sought with God in view and not an ultimate end itself.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion therefore, we shall re-emphasize the necessity of justice in any political philosophy or organization. It is not merely any kind of justice, but that, which is grounded on objective morality and the fear of God-the supreme God.
However, it is because, man due to his egocentric inclination, has lost the sense of seeking the common good in the state that is why politics is often regarded as a ‘dirty game.’ In our present world, it has become a ‘game’ where ‘trick stars’ and ‘professional defrauders’ compete for supremacy while the virtuous stay clear. What a deviation.
This abnormal situation in the contemporary politics posits a great challenge to the contemporary man, a question mark on his rationality. But man as a rational being should transcend his animalistic tendencies, where passion and selfish instincts rule. He should therefore embrace reason (which confers his uniqueness) and build a state where justice reigns and the good of all achieved. So, our daily life experience if for no other reason should make us agree with Aristotle, an intellectual giant and a moralist, that justice is the foundation on which any meaningful state should be built.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
- APPADORAL, A., The substance of Politics (11th edition) London: Oxford University Press. 1975.
- AQUINAS, T., Summa Contra Gentiles Books Part 1 (Trans) Bourke J.U U.S.A Double day and Co. Inc., 1956.
- __________ Summa Theologica Part II Fathers of the English Dominican Province (Trans). London: 1967.
- ARISTOTLE, The Political T.A Sinclair (Trans) England: Penguin Books Ltd. 1962.
- __________ The Political (Revised Edition) T.A. Sinclair (Trans).
- __________ The Nich Ethics J.A.K. Thompson (trans.) England: Penguin Books Ltd. 1976.
- BOURKER, Ethics: A Test Book in Moral Philosophy Vol. 1. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1967.
- BRUEHL, P.C., This Way Happiness Milwankee; Bruce Pub., Co. 1941.
- COPLESTON, F., History of Philosophy Vol.1 New York: Image Books Co., Ltd 1985.
- EDWARD, P., The Encyclopedia of Philosophy Vols. III and IV. London: The Macmillian Pub. And The free press 1972.
