Ana içeriğe atla

Aristotle's Virtuous Citizen and Man

 

Aristotle defines the citizen as someone directly contributing to the state. On the other hand, according to Aristotle because states can differ, the set of actions determining whether an individual is a good citizen or not can also change making the definition of a good citizen depending on the state. Aristotle says the virtue of a citizen must be suited to his constitution. Consequently, if indeed there are several kinds of constitution, it is clear that there cannot be a single virtue that is -the complete virtue--of a good citizen (p.179). To put it simply, what constitutes good alters accordingly to the state and consequently, the virtue of a good citizen also changes. This is important to understand because when Aristotle contemplates on the question whether workers should be citizens, he implies asking whether their contribution will be beneficial to the state. The answer to that question is tricky because, Aristotle finds mechanics to be vital to the city but not because he thinks that they should directly contribute to the city and be citizens and have a direct impact on juridical and bureaucratic decisions, but because they are doing jobs that citizens should not be doing. Aristotle draws two reasons why he thinks mechanics should not be granted citizenship: they do not have the lifestyle where they can meet the demands of a virtuous life of a citizen. Secondly, someone needs to do the menial jobs so that others can have the necessary resources at their disposal to participate in the state.

It holds great importance to understand how Aristotle depicts slaves in Politics as he finds mechanics to be similar to them in some aspects. Aristotle compares the virtues of a slave and a master and states that the virtue of a slave does not have to be as great as that of a master. He says about the slave that “the amount of virtue required will not be very great, but only enough to ensure that he does not neglect his work through intemperance or fecklessness” (p.96) Here I think the word “require” is very important as it implies a connection between jobs and virtues. In the first chapter of Politics he establishes this connection more explicitly when talking about moral virtues: He says “all must participate in them but not all in the same way. but only as may be required by each for his proper function” (p.95) Simply put, people should participate in virtues only as much as their job requires them to. More importantly, this and the comparison of the slave and the master suggest that some jobs require more virtue than others. So, the question now is: Do mechanics’ jobs require them to be more virtuous? Are they more virtuous compared to slaves? Aristotle suggests that a mechanic “participates in virtue in the same measure as he participates in slavery; for the skilled mechanic is in a restricted sense in a condition of slavery” (96). Therefore, a mechanic is not as virtuous as a master or a ruler and is very similar to slaves in regards to virtues. If “the virtue of the citizen must be in relation to the constitution”(p.179), then a mechanic whose equally virtuous to a slave cannot be a citizen.

Aristotle’s justification of slavery and mechanics is built on the premise that the benefit of the state outweighs the benefit of the individuals. This is because “The state is an association intended to enable its members, in their households and the kinships, to live well”(p.198) In order for the state to allow its members to live well, there need to be people doing menial jobs so that few can focus on matters regarding politics, reasoning, and philosophy. Because slaves and mechanics are not virtuous enough can benefit to the state via their physical strength they should be responsible for menial jobs. I think this justification is not enough and condemns many people to a miserable life where they do not have a voice. The reason I find the justification inadequate is because there is no consistent and scientific way of proving that some people are dispositioned to be better at reasoning and others at menial jobs. Aristotle points out the physical differences between citizens and slaves and suggests that free men(citizens) may not have superior bodies but they have superior intellects. For slaves, they may have superb physical bodies but not superior intellects. However, this justification can also be wrong because there is no direct correlation between the body and the intellect. Slaves and mechanics are born underprivileged and they do not have the opportunity to demonstrate their intellectual capacities. On the other hand, children of free men who are privileged will receive quality education and will be able to prevail more easily than others. Therefore, it is unfair for the most especially considering that mechanics and slaves will not have a voice in politics and has a chance of being neglected and oppressed which can culminate in a civil war destroying every aspect of the state.

 

 

 

 

 

Yorumlar

Yorum Gönder

Bu blogdaki popüler yayınlar

Rhetoric in Hobbes' Leviathan

  Hobbes’ Word Play Hobbes argues in favor of a monarch or an oligarch. To be more precise, he is in favor of the idea that multiplicity comes with complexity, harming the integrity of the state. In his opinion, men are mostly power-driven, greedy beings who must surrender themselves to a sovereign power that can spread the terror of punishment. According to Hobbes, this fear of punishment is the only effective motivating force that can keep people from brutally murdering each other. While this Hobbesian idea of the state portrays the sovereign’s subjects almost as though they are slaves, this essay will argue that Hobbes is not fundamentally against liberty and allows it within the constraints of laws. Hobbes's description of liberty suggests that only external impediments are against freedom. He states that liberty is “the absence of external impediments” (189) and, although these impediments may take away man’s power to do what he would, they do not prevent men from using th...
1 yorum
Devamı

Rousseau on Legitimacy of State

Hobbes'dan sonra Rousseau okumayı Proust'tan sonra Daphnes ve Chloe okumaya benzetiyorum. Proust aşkı öyle yapay, çıkarcı ve öyle çirkin yansıtıyor ki, ondan sonra okuduğun her romana ister istemez Proust'un realist bakış açısından bakıyorsun. Belki de realizm sevdamı bırakmalıyımdır. Hobbes'un determinist bakış açısı da birçok argümanını epey ikna edici kılıyor. Bazen bu bakış açısından kaçmak istiyor insan. Hobbes kimmiş lan, ben ölümlü tanrıya irademi falan teslim edemem, gayet özgürüm demek istiyor. Yine de gel gör ki Hobbes haklı. Nasıl, Kant ödev ahlakında nasıl ki herkes davranışlarının topluma yansıdığını varsayarak hareket etmeli diyorsa, Hobbes da yapılmak istemediğini yapma diyor. Buna karşı çıkmak da biraz zor. Rousseau abi Social Contract'ında denese de Emile kitabındaki ikna ediciliğini devam ettiremiyor gibi hissediyorum. Birazdan okuyacak olduğun yazıda da oldukça soyut fikirler göreceksin ve yer yer kendine e ama niye diye soracaksın. Bil ki ben de ...
Yorum Gönder
Devamı

Hobbes’ Paradox

Hobbes’ Paradox Resolved According to Hobbes, people are born with passions that ultimately lead them into a never-ending war. They require artificial power to stop killing each other. Unless such a power is erected, Hobbes suggests, leaving the state of nature is impossible since people are not inclined to cooperate and trust each other. The core reason why it is impossible to leave the state of nature is because of the innate passions people have that drive them to be constantly in conflict. Hobbes states that in the condition of nature, “any reasonable suspicion” renders any covenant or promise invalid since “bonds of words are too weak to bridle men’s ambition, avarice, anger, and other passions…” (196). Here, Hobbes highlights the importance of punishments, suggesting that without the motivating fear of punishments, covenants are practically invalid. It is also important to understand what Hobbes means by the condition of nature. He argues that because men are born equal, they...
Yorum Gönder
Devamı