The Long History Of Legal Codes

APPENDIX 3: Aristotle

In his “Politics”, Aristotle defined democracy as the highest form of community.  Such an arrangement aims at the highest good for the general populace (the many).  The sine qua non of the State, then, is the commonweal.  To ensure the commonweal, the State is obliged to foster an environment in which each person can realize the good life on his own accord (Bk. I, chapt. 1-2).  This requires the provision of certain things (what came to be called public goods) so as to ensure the conditions of basic subsistence.  In this vain, Aristotle advocated for a kind of social welfare system—insofar as it is a mechanism to prevent socio-economic stratification and mitigate the concentration of wealth / power (Bk. 3, chapt. 10).  When the commonweal is the summum bonum of those in power, the State allocates its resources to basic public infrastructure, not to the aggrandizement of those in power.  Aristotle specified that principles of political justice cannot be realized in an oligarchic system (Bk. 6., chapt. 3).  And, foreshadowing Montesquieu’s principle, separation / balance of powers, he noted that no office should have disproportionate power (Bk. 6, chapt. 4).

The State exists to take care of the general populace, not just those who are well-positioned within the system.  Aristotle stipulated that the object of the State is the promulgation of virtue: a prerequisite for fitting the general populace to the good life (Bk. 3, chapt. 6).  The key is to do so without disenfranchising anyone.  In the final analysis, a State is only as virtuous as its citizenry; “for in the virtue of each the virtue of all is involved.”

Aristotle clearly saw that the “we’re all in this together” mentality, when universalized, fostered the optimal societal conditions.  This also explains Aristotle’s concern for public health, and his view that it is the State’s duty to facilitate it (Bk. 7, chapt. 11).  That which is just, then, is determined not by the will of the wealthiest (as in plutocracy) or most powerful (as in an oligarchy).  Interest in the GENERAL welfare requires that no segment of the general populace is marginalized; and that there is equal opportunity.  In this way, the best rise to the top on their own merits.  It is the State’s obligation to ensure the necessary conditions for this to happen; as facilitating “the general welfare” is its role (as in the U.S. Constitution’s preamble states when specifying the raison d’etre of a Federal government).

“The [society] is best governed which has the greatest opportunity [for the most people] of obtaining [attaining] happiness” (Bk. 7, chapt. 1).  This is to be accomplished by cultivation of virtue by as many citizens as possible.  It is the State’s role to ensure this process transpires.  For Aristotle, equal opportunity was a prerequisite for the meritocracy he envisioned.  This involved the promulgation of virtue amongst the general populace.

Public education is the primary means by which virtue is cultivated by the common-man.  It is the State’s obligation to provide it (Bk. 7, chapt. 14).  All citizens matter (that is: should have a chance to rise to prominence according to their merit, not their socio-economic status).  Justice / equality is a matter of treating people of similar merit the same.  Aristotle reiterates this, stating that a Constitution is only good insofar as the commonweal is the ultimate aim (Bk. 3, chapt. 7-9).  Bad Constitutions either tend to favor the privileged few (where rights are proportionate to socio-economic status) or devolve into extreme democracy (mob rule).  BOTH scenarios are antithetical to deliberative democracy.  Thus magistrates are chosen by–and responsible to–the demos.

The ideal State is based on a citizenry that possesses moral and intellectual virtue amongst; and has little to do with maximizing material accumulation among a well-positioned few. The socio-economic elite should not be given license to rule the rest; as their stature is a function of historical accident more than the result of having cultivated virtue.  And it is only the most virtuous (those not driven by avarice) who should be accorded sway in governance.

Aristotle noted that this happens under conditions where social dysfunction and privation are absent.  In the 13th and 14th centuries, the Mongols eschewed privation and aristocracy alike, while creating universal literacy (read: public education).  In the late 18th century, Thomas Paine calling for robust State investment in public welfare (including public schools) so as to ensure universal access to a good education.  In each case, there was the recognition that it is the State’s obligation to provide/ensure the requisite conditions for citizens to procure–of their own accord–the kinds of virtues endemic to a healthy polis.  Materially, there must be enough for EVERYONE to pursue the good life, each in his own way.

Aristotle held that the legitimate State is characterized by the appropriate distribution of wealth / power (Bk. 3, chapt. 3; Bk. 6, chap. 2).  The principle of distribution of power is quite straightforward.  In a just society, people are accorded power the degree to which they can contribute to the commonweal (Bk. 3, chapt. 12).  Political power is not the highest good, and thus is not to be pursued for its own sake (Bk. 7, chapt. 3).

Aristotle articulated the key role civic-mindedness played in the health of any society.  “The many” have a greater stake in the common good than in the aggrandizement of the few (Bk. 3, chapt. 11).  Universal enfranchisement (indicative of a robust civic life) is the hallmark of deliberative democracy.  But what of the interplay between civic-mindedness and individual autonomy?  Aristotle posited “liberty” as the first principle of democracy, whereby individual prerogative is relegated to each citizen, but the general welfare is always to be taken into consideration (Bk. 6, chap. 2).  Meanwhile, his conception of “justice” is a function of meritocracy, which Aristotle equated with a natural order (Bk. 3, chapt. 13).  Hence the criteria by which individuals should rise to the top are neither class (financial status) nor clout (social status).  Thus a contrast: In a despotic regime, the rules are tailored to benefit those in power (the rulers), and power is pursued for its own sake.  In a civil society, law are conceived to foster the general welfare.

Bottom line: The pursuit of the commonweal and the pursuit of personal excellence are not antithetical to one another; they are symbiotic.  Thus civil society is predicated on both civic-mindedness and individual autonomy; and it is characterized by meritocracy rather than plutocracy / oligarchy.  A society without the general welfare as the summum bonum is not genuinely democratic.