Aristotle and Locke Politics

Contrary to the thought that Aristotle and Locke strive for entirely different political ideals, Aristotle and Locke hold not such drastically different ideas in regards to politics. While Locke fully endorses democracy, Aristotle tiptoes between oligarchy and democracy, perhaps in hopes of compromising between the two. The most dramatic difference is found in their contradicting ideas of the ultimate purpose of political life and the most basic intentions and principles of politics. Locke stresses equality and the rights of individuals in terms of liberty and possessions; Aristotle emphasizes the unity of the community and a constant search for virtue. The basis of this disparity is found in the roots of both arguments. Aristotle and Locke each make certain assumptions that they build upon, brick by brick, until the edifices of their heavy arguments rely on the foundation of these assumptions.

One of the first and most important discrepancies between the arguments, found in the foundation of each, is that Locke assumes that all men are equal. Aristotle does not. Early in his Second Treatise of Government, Locke speaks of a "state of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another" (II. 4). Locke describes "this equality of men by nature" to be "evident in itself, and beyond all question" (II. 5). Really, Locke gives no enlightened explanation for his postulation of equality among humans. Humans differ greatly in their physical, emotional, and intellectual capabilities. For example, a brawny, muscular person has a greater ability to plow crops than does an academic scholar; likewise, a person born with a great intellectual capacity and an innate desire to learn would be more likely to become a scholar, and would, furthermore, benefit the society more than an obtuse person also attempting to become a academic. It is with this principle that Aristotle advocates a beneficial form of slavery. Often it is more realistic to rely on nature than nurture; that way the fact that humans are inherently unequal in their abilities and their skills can be addressed. In a positive light, this can be seen as the reassuring idea that every human has their unique characteristic that allows them to excel in some way, whether socially, or physically, or academically. Of course, these measures of excellence are unequal as well. Ultimately, if humans are not equal in their capabilities, in what way are they equal?

This suggestion of inherent unequality is found in the root of Aristotle's argument: "Justice seems to be equality and it is, but not for all, only for equals; justice also seems to be inequality for in fact it is, but not for all, only for unequals" (1280a7). According to Aristotle, once a political society accepts the lack of equality among humans, virtue is easier achieved by those who are worthy of it. Aristotle believes that some are meant by nature to be ruled over and that slavery is acceptable in very limited and specific situations: "A certain mutual benefit and friendship exist between master and slave when they deserve by nature to be master and slave, but the opposite happens when their relationship is not like this but is by law and forced" (1255b4). Aristotle's philosophies are embedded in the idea that when humans accept their innate differences and each devote themselves to bettering the community as a whole by performing the tasks at which they each excel, the best possible political society will be formed. "The city is by nature prior to the household and to each one of us taken singly. For the whole is necessarily prior to the part. For instance, there will be neither foot nor hand when the whole body has been destroyed (except equivocally, as when one speaks of a foot or hand made of stone), for such a foot or hand will have been ruined... But anyone who lacks the capacity to share in community, or has not need to because of his self-sufficiency, is no part of the city and as a result is either a beast or a god." (1253a18) Aristotle emphasizes again and again that it is human nature to belong to a community, to have that unity and connection with other human beings striving for survival and virtue and goodness. To further his point, Aristotle argues that any human who completely refuses to partake in the communal sharing is, in fact, not a human, but a "beast or a god," made of stone instead of human flesh.

Meanwhile, Locke creates quite a different philosophy off of his foundations of equality. Based on his idea that every human is equal, every one has the right to live freely, in a somewhat limited "state of liberty," in which each person has "an uncontrollable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not the liberty to destroy himself" (II.6). By granting each human the freedom to dispose of his possessions, Locke also grants everyone with the right to have and gain these possessions: an idea that has become very ingrained in the American philosophy. And so, according to Locke, who states "no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions," it is the government's responsibility to protect these individual rights (II.6). Essentially: for Locke, the individual comes before the community; for Aristotle, the community holds priority over the individual. While Aristotle believes that it is human nature to belong to a community and work towards the betterment of that group, Locke believes that it is human nature for each to strive for him or herself.

Aristotle's polis is perhaps idealized, but is it not more logical for a group of people to combine resources, or their unique capabilities and skills, to search for virtue rather than economic gain, and make much more progress for the community than one could ever make individually? Locke's politics aim to give each member of the community an equal say in matters, while Aristotle tends to create distinctions between the educated minority among those who know what is best for the community as a whole and the uneducated majority. In Henrik Ibsen's An Enemy of The People, a character named Billing states, in true Lockean fashion, "Society's like a ship: all hands have to stand at the wheel," to which the more Aristotelian character replies, "Maybe on land; but at sea it wouldn't work too well" (Ibsen 129). Metaphorically, if all members of society had to steer a ship together, the ship would probably go in circles. People would be forced to underhandedly conspire and make alliances in order for the ship to go in any one direction; for the society to make any sort of progress, the members are forced to become conniving and deceitful, and since the whole basis of the society is personal gain, one can generalize that the members of this ship are probably greedy as well. On the other hand, what if a more educated, sea-worn man stepped up to steer the ship, perhaps a captain? Though not everyone will get an entire chance to steer, more progress will be made for the community. Thus, although it may be human nature for each person to gain as much economically as possible, regardless of this questionable fact, the best way each community can function is for each to remember to surrender a small amount of that individuality and personal gain. Aristotle understood this small sacrifice and inherent promise that humans make when they join a community, that not only do they belong to it, but they are a part of that society, much like an appendage is only one part of a body.

It is difficult for one to discredit the philosophies of individuality and personal gain because it is so entrenched in the American system of beliefs, that American spirit that is growing and spreading to new parts of the world at rapid paces. Locke's democracy sounds somewhat encouraging on paper. The idea of human rights and liberties is certainly appealing, but the actual foundation of a Lockean society is one in which there exists a constant pressure to gain as much as possible, and thus the society honors material objects more than anything else, even the search of truth. Americans, and most of the globalized world, have been raised in an atmosphere of constant competitive pressure on individual economic gain. I would much rather live in an idealistic community that strives for virtue and truth as a whole than a society in which a constant pressure is held on gaining as much as possible economically.

Ultimately, though, it is impossible to say that Locke's ideas are wholly bad. His political philosophies of individual rights and security are indeed innovative and sharp; his writings helped to form new ideas about what the individual is, and the relationship each individual has with their society. I do think that it is easier for a Lockean democracy to become warped into a greedy, treacherous, and sad society in which each individuals existence is based on financial competition. In an Aristotelian polis, however, it is easier for the society's original intentions to remain pure because just as the agriculturally brilliant will better the community by doing what they innately succeed at: farming; those educated few, in turn, who truly understand the purpose of their society will be the ones who lead the government. An Aristotelian society as a communal quest for progress and virtue is superior to the unavoidable impurity of a Lockean democracy.