Aristotle: Politics. Book I [1] “EVERY STATE is a community of some kind, and every community is established with a view to some good; for mankind always act in order to obtain that which they think good. But, if all communities aim at some good, the state or political community, which is the highest of all, and which embraces all the rest, aims at good in a greater degree than any other, and at the highest good.” (Is this true??) - or is it enough to say that the state is the “politically highest”? [That would be true by definition, perhaps ...] Suppose you must choose between self and state, or family and state, or specialized pursuit and state - which do you choose? [cf. the story of Chairman Yang and Citizen Zhou...] - NOT necessarily the state!

Aristotle: Politics [2] Family - “In the first place there must be a union of those who cannot exist without each other; namely, of male and female” uniting of several makes a village and several villages go together to make up the polis “the state comes into existence, originating in the bare needs of life, and continuing in existence for the sake of a good life” state arises naturally from the others - hence, the state is “natural” also, the state is “prior” [?] for “the whole is prior to the part” the individual, when isolated, is not self-sufficing; and therefore he is like a part in relation to the whole. “he who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god: he is no part of a state.” [implying that this is logically possible...]

Aristotle: Politics [3] A social instinct is implanted in all men by nature, and yet he who first founded the state was the greatest of benefactors For man, when perfected, is the best of animals, but, when separated from law and justice, he is the worst of all justice is “the bond of man in the state” the first and fewest possible parts of a family are master and slave, husband and wife, father and children. the “art of getting wealth” requires “instruments”

Aristotle: Politics [4] Slavery among which are - slaves... a slave is “a living possession” if every instrument could accomplish its own work --- the shuttle would weave and the plectrum touch the lyre without a hand to guide them, chief workmen would not want servants, nor masters slaves. [note: if only Aristotle could have visited 20th Century Canada or America....] ... The slave is not only the slave of his master, but wholly belongs to him. he who is by nature not his own but another's man - is by nature a slave

Aristotle: Politics [5] Personnel pointers .... that which can foresee by the exercise of mind is “by nature intended to be lord and master,” and that which can with its body give effect to such foresight is a subject, and by nature a slave; hence master and slave have the same interest. Now nature has distinguished between the female and the slave. she makes each thing for a single use, and every instrument is best made when intended for one and not for many uses. But among barbarians no distinction is made between women and slaves, because there is no natural ruler among them: they are a community of slaves, male and female....

Aristotle: Politics [6] Slaves: by nature vs. by convention Question: is slavery contrary to nature? “slaves by nature”: body is naturally subject to the soul that some should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary, but expedient [?] from the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule. the rule of the soul over the body, and of the mind and the rational element over the passionate, is natural and expedient; whereas the equality of the two or the rule of the inferior is always hurtful. For he who can be, and therefore is, another's, and who participates in rational principle enough “to apprehend, but not to have”, such a principle, is a “slave by nature.” Whereas the lower animals cannot even apprehend a principle; they obey their instincts.

Aristotle: Politics [7] “It is clear, then, that some men are by nature free, and others slaves, and that for these latter slavery is both expedient and right.” The other kind: Slaves by convention only e.g. when princes are conquered in war and enslaved this is contrary to nature... superior power is only found where there is superior excellence of some kind, “power seems to imply virtue” the dispute is simply one about justice: one party identifying justice with goodwill while the other identifies it with the mere rule of the stronger. the other views have no force or plausibility against the view that the superior in virtue ought to rule, or be master. claim: slavery is better for the slave - in the case of a natural slave [just as it’s better for the woman to be ruled by the man .... ] (!)] for the interests of part and whole, of body and soul, are the same, and the slave is a part of the master, a living but separated part of his bodily frame the abuse of this authority is injurious to both

Aristotle: Politics [8] Hence, where the relation of master and slave is natural they are friends and have a common interest, but where it rests merely on law and force the reverse is true. rule of master over slave is not “constitutional” - it’s a natural monarchy constitutional rule is a government of freemen and equals the “rule” of slaves is sort of a science but - no big deal (“not anything great or wonderful”) for the master need only know how to order that which the slave must know how to execute. ...

Aristotle: Politics [9] A general question: What does it mean to say that something is “natural” when used as a premise in a normative argument? Argument is: x is natural; therefore, x ought to be Why?? The logic should be: x is natural; therefore, x is Is it meaningful to say that some actual thing is “unnatural”??

Aristotle: Politics [10] Question: is there anything to A’s theory about slavery?? Conjecture: An interpretation of Aristotle’s view that may make sense... (1) some people work better under the direction of others (2) others do better under their own direction self-employment isn’t necessarily better but of course, none of this justifies imposing rule (Or so we think, anyway) Perhaps Aristotle was confusing the one distinction (master/slave) with the other (self-employable/non-self-employable) Note that self-employment is not necessarily superior Haydn was the employee (even the “servant”) of Prince Esterhazy... but who was the greater man??

Aristotle: Politics [11] Property The “art of household management” is not identical with the art of getting wealth for the one uses the material which the other provides Naturalness of property: Property ... seems to be given by nature herself to all For some animals bring forth, together with their offspring, so much food as will last until they are able to supply themselves... In like manner we may infer that plants exist for their sake, and that the other animals exist for the sake of man - tame animals for use and food; wild, if not all, at least the greater part of them, for food, and for the provision of clothing and various instruments Now if nature makes nothing incomplete, and nothing in vain, the inference must be that she has made all animals for the sake of man. ... [uh, huh ...]

Aristotle: Politics [12] Art of acquisition (a): by nature is a part of the management of a household, It consists in finding or making things useful or necessary They are the elements of “true riches”; the amount of property which is needed for a good life is not unlimited But there is a boundary fixed, just as there is in the other arts; for “the instruments of any art are never unlimited” [a Platonic arguoment] riches: a number of instruments to be used in a household or in a state. a natural art of acquisition - practiced by managers of households and by statesmen [?] (Question: does government “acquire”??]

Aristotle: Politics [13] Art of acquisition (b): the other kind is gained by experience and art Exchange: Of everything which we possess there are two uses: 1) proper: For example, a shoe is used for wear, 2) improper or secondary: exchange ( e.g., He who gives a shoe in exchange for money or food to him who wants one, does indeed use the shoe as a shoe - but that’s not its primary purpose) retail trade is not a natural part of the art of getting wealth - had it been so, men would have ceased to exchange when they had enough. [is this true? What does he mean by ‘enough?] The members of the family originally had all things in common; [so, no exchange there...] later, when the family divided into parts, the parts shared in many things - different parts in different things, which they had to give in exchange for what they wanted [division of household labor] “a kind of barter which is still practiced among barbarous nations” barter within the household is not part of the wealth-getting art and “ not contrary to nature”, but needed for the satisfaction of men's natural wants.

Aristotle: Politics [14] A “more complex form of exchange” - arises when “the inhabitants of one country became more dependent on those of another, and they imported what they needed, and exported what they had too much of” - which gives rise to the use of money leading to retail trade “which was at first probably a simple matter, but became more complicated as soon as men learned by experience whence and by what exchanges the greatest profit might be made.” Some identify wealth with possession of coin [refuted by the case of Midas of the Golden Touch ...] “in this art of wealth-getting there is no limit of the end, which is riches of the spurious kind, and the acquisition of wealth.” But the art of wealth-getting which consists in household management, on the other hand, has a limit; the unlimited acquisition of wealth is not its business. their ends are different [Question: Are they?]

Aristotle: Politics [15] Wealth-Getting Not the Aim of Household Management “Some persons are led to believe that getting wealth is the object of household management, and the whole idea of their lives is that they ought either to increase their money without limit, or at any rate not to lose it.” [Aristotle imputes to the “wealth-getter” a confusion of means and ends 1) Wealth as an end: useful goods (houses, food...) 2) Wealth as a means: income, money If you pursue (2) for its own sake, you’re confused! [But note: type (2) is useful to the rest of us - ‘wealth getting’ is increase of capital value, which means more and better consumer stuff for us] [And we might ask: mightn’t type (2) be fun?]

Aristotle: Politics [16] Aristotle imputes excess to the wealth-pursuer [in good Platonic fashion]: “Those who do aim at a good life seek the means of obtaining bodily pleasures; - the enjoyment of these appears to depend on property so, they are absorbed in getting wealth - the second species of wealth-getting. “For, as their enjoyment is in excess, they seek an art which produces the excess of enjoyment; and, if they are not able to supply their pleasures by the art of getting wealth, they try other arts, using in turn every faculty in a manner contrary to nature. [??] [Plato again!] examples: Courage - not intended to make wealth, but to inspire confidence generals and physicians: aim at victory and health. Nevertheless, some men turn every quality or art into a means of getting wealth; this they conceive to be the end, and they think all things must contribute to it. [Question: by ‘wealth’ here, does A. mean money? Or does he mean consumer goods?] - It makes a difference! (1) if he means money, then there’s a philosophical objection: money isn’t itself a good (2) but if he means good things (e.g., a condo in Florida and another on the Riviera), then it’s not clear what the limit might be (Barbara Amiel’s closetful of shoes, e.g.)

Aristotle: Politics [17] Questions for us: is wealth-getting “unnecessary”? If ‘unnecessary’ means useless, then surely he is wrong The claim is that we can decrease the quality of our lives by pursuing wealth for its own sake But (a) is there individual variability on this? and (b) note that you could also do that by pursuing any number of unproductive ends - even philosophy, if you’re not very good at it ... [as noted two slides ago, even getting money “for its own sake” could be fun... The stock-market player may be literally playing.. [note: but socially, the stock-market investor, or other business person is generally beneficial to others, as well...]

Aristotle: Politics [18] Aristotle on “Usury”: two sorts of wealth-getting: 1) a part of household management, - “necessary and honorable” 2) the other is retail trade - which is unnatural, and a mode by which men gain from one another. [what does he mean by ‘from’? Is he implying that it’s at the expense of the other??] The most hated sort, and with the greatest reason, is usury “ which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural object of it.” money “was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest.” Questions: intended by whom? - and why?

Aristotle: Politics [19] Interest - critique of Aristotle’s criticism: • interest is a function of exchange: (1) A lends B the use of A’s money for a period of time (2) Interest is the charge for this use (3) It presupposes that B has a better use for it than A (4) A’s loan enables B to engage in this use. (5) So (if B is successful), it’s a mutually beneficial exchange: A’s best use of his money is to lend it to B; B’s best use of his future income is to pay some of it to A for enabling B to make his improvements The story about Thales [the early Greek philosopher who was said to have cagily bought up all the wine-presses before harvest-time, cornered the market, and made a fortune] - “proves” that business isn’t all that difficult [the academic’s perennial snip at the lower orders who make more $!]

Aristotle: Politics [20] Rule for unequals... “The male is naturally ruler over the female” But the rule is constitutional rather than royal (which is for the kids...) - Do such people share in virtue? A problem: “Yet how strange is the supposition that the one ought, and that the other ought not, to have virtue!” [e.g.: surely to “obey well” is possible as well as to rule well... and wouldn’t that imply some virtue?] “solution”: almost all things rule and are ruled according to nature. But the kind of rule differs the freeman rules over the slave after another manner from that in which the male rules over the female, or the man over the child; although the three parts of the soul are present in all of them, they are present in different degrees. For regarding the “deliberative faculty”: (1) the woman has one, but it is “without authority,” and (2) the child has one, but it is immature (3) the slave has “no deliberative faculty at all” ... [!]

Aristotle: Politics [21] Rule for unequals... “Clearly, then, moral virtue belongs to all of them; but the temperance of a man and of a woman, or the courage and justice of a man and of a woman, are not, as Socrates maintained, the same” .... [?] Is there anything to this?? (1) Plato’s point: all of these differences would be statistical, not “essential” i.e., some women will show more of the same kind of virtue that some men do, some slaves better virtue than some aristocrats, and even some children etc. [which implies that virtues etc are fundamentally individual] e.g., the standards for women’s athletics are lower than for males - but the fastest woman can run a lot faster than I can! Note: Even the statistical claims are disputed by some ... In intellectual matters, things are more obscure .... How much of observed disparities are due to social arrangements?? - obviously a major problem One important question is: so what?? [that is: should social institutions be built on the assumption of such differences? (e.g., women were long denied the vote...)]

Aristotle: Politics [22] (2) Aristotle seems to recognize (sort of!) that women (e.g.) might have certain typical virtues in higher degree than men: “All classes must be deemed to have their special attributes; as the poet says of women, “Silence is a woman's glory” - but this is not equally the glory of man.” ... [is this “damning with faint praise”??] (notably re child-rearing, but also in certain kinds of human relations, etc.) Question: why didn’t that count with him? Probable answer: his intellectual bias [question: how much of a “bias” is that? Is a preference for the intellectual some kind of defect? hmmm .. ] (3) The “constitutional” idea applies in Aristotle mainly to the (male) citizens but he still counts the man-woman relation as constitutional This is an interesting idea - and maybe ahead of its time... [19th C. European quip about American marriage: “The man makes the major decisions “The woman makes the minor decisions; and “The woman decides which decisions are major and which are minor!” - that would illustrate “constitutionality”!

Aristotle: Politics [23] Rule for unequals (concluded) “For, inasmuch as every family is a part of a state, and these relationships are the parts of a family, and the virtue of the part must have regard to the virtue of the whole [therefore] women and children must be trained by education with an eye to the constitution, if the virtues of either of them are supposed to make any difference in the virtues of the state. And they must make a difference: for the children grow up to be citizens, and half the free persons in a state are women.” Question for us: What’s the significance of the classification as “free persons”? ...... [end of Book One]

Aristotle: Politics [24] Curve for Quiz 1: 32+ A+ 30-31 A 28-29 A- 27 B+ 25-26 B 24 B- 22-23 C+ 20-21 C 17 D Average: 25.4 [74%] (same as median) [scarcely a curve at all! Closely adheres to the university curve except at bottom: D for 17 (50%) is a little higher than the university curve