---
bibtex: @InCollection{sep-aristotle-politics,
author = {Miller, Fred},
title = {Aristotle's Political Theory},
booktitle = {The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy},
editor = {Edward N. Zalta},
howpublished = {\url{http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2012/entries/aristotle-politics/}},
year = {2012},
edition = {Fall 2012},
}
---
"In the Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle describes his subject matter as political science, which he characterizes as the most authoritative science....Since it governs the other practical sciences, their ends serve as means to its end, which is nothing less than the human good."
"The most important task for the politician is, in the role of lawgiver (nomothetês), to frame the appropriate constitution for the city-state."
"On Aristotle's view, a community of any sort can possess order only if it has a ruling element or authority. This ruling principle is defined by the constitution, which sets criteria for political offices, particularly the sovereign office (III.6.1278b8–10; cf. IV.1.1289a15–18)"
Since we see that every city-state is a sort of community and that every community is established for the sake of some good (for everyone does everything for the sake of what they believe to be good), it is clear that every community aims at some good, and the community which has the most authority of all and includes all the others aims highest, that is, at the good with the most authority. This is what is called the city-state or political community. [I.1.1252a1–7]
"He begins with a definition of the citizen (politês), since the city-state is by nature a collective entity, a multitude of citizens...he defines the citizen as a person who has the right (exousia) to participate in deliberative or judicial office (1275b18–21)....Further, he defines the city-state (in the unqualified sense) as a multitude of such citizens which is adequate for a self-sufficient life (1275b20-21)."
"human beings are by nature political animals, who naturally want to live together....“the common advantage also brings them together insofar as they each attain the noble life. This is above all the end for all both in common and separately” (III.6.1278b19–24). "
"Aristotle distinguishes several types of rule, based on the nature of the soul of the ruler and of the subject....despotic, paternal, and marital rule....paternal and marital rule are properly practiced for the sake of the ruled"
constitutions which aim at the common advantage are correct and just without qualification, whereas those which aim only at the advantage of the rulers are deviant and unjust, because they involve despotic rule which is inappropriate for a community of free persons” (1279a17–21).
| Rulers | Correct | Deviant |
|---|---|---|
| One | Kingship | Tyranny |
| Few | Aristocracy | Oligarchy |
| Many | Polity | Democracy |
"polity is later characterized as a kind of “mixed” constitution typified by rule of the “middle” group of citizens, a moderately wealthy class between the rich and poor (Politics IV.11)." -- see Timocracy
"The oligarchs mistakenly think that those who are superior in wealth should also have superior political rights, whereas the democrats hold that those who are equal in free birth should also have equal political rights. Both of these conceptions of political justice are mistaken in Aristotle's view, because they assume a false conception of the ultimate end of the city-state."
"Aristotle argues, “the good life is the end of the city-state,” that is, a life consisting of noble actions (1280b39–1281a4). Hence, the correct conception of justice is aristocratic, assigning political rights to those who make a full contribution to the political community, that is, to those with virtue as well as property and freedom (1281a4–8)"
"Aristotle argues that for city-states that fall short of the ideal, the best constitution is one controlled by a numerous middle class which stands between the rich and the poor. For those who possess the goods of fortune in moderation find it “easiest to obey the rule of reason” (Politics IV.11.1295b4–6)."
"Although Aristotle classifies democracy as a deviant constitution (albeit the best of a bad lot), he argues that a case might be made for popular rule in Politics III.11, a discussion which has attracted the attention of modern democratic theorists. The central claim is that the many may turn out to be better than the virtuous few when they come together, even though the many may be inferior when considered individually. For if each individual has a portion of virtue and practical wisdom, they may pool these assets and turn out to be better rulers than even a very wise individual. This argument seems to anticipate modern arguments for “the wisdom of the multitude” such as Condorcet's “jury theorem.”'"