Law And Morality

In Book Three, Chapter Four of The Politics, Aristotle claims, “Hence it is evident that the good citizen need not of necessity possess the excellence which makes a good man.” (65) Explain what Aristotle means by this claim, and evaluate.

In The Politics, Aristotle’s main objective is, among other things, to provide a theory of the nature and function of the constitution. In Book Three, he inquires the nature of citizenship. In order to achieve this, he tries to find the best definition of a good citizen. Throughout the text, Aristotle moves back and forth between the practical and ideal definition of the previously mentioned good citizen; he talks about the good citizen alternating between the relative and the absolute sense.

Aristotle defines the citizen as someone who not only supports the political regime, but also shares in political power by taking part in public functions such as voting, holding office, or serving on a jury. He declares that even though living in the city and supporting the political regime is essential in a citizen, it not sufficient since although slaves, women, and children can do this, in no way does this make them citizens.

Aristotle goes on to define the good citizen as someone who upholds and honor the laws. He also defines the good man as the person who pursues his telos and lives his life in accordance with virtue, thus finding happiness. Aristotle then compares the characteristics of a good citizen to those of a good man and differentiates between the two. He differentiates between the excellence of the soul and the excellence of the city – the former being an attribute of the good man and the latter being an attribute of the good citizen. In fact, in Chapter Four, Aristotle claims that, “Hence it is evident that the good citizen need not of necessity possess the excellence which makes a good man.” (65).

However, throughout this paper, I will argue why I believe Aristotle is wrong and will prove that the definitions of a good citizen and a good man do, in fact, coincide regardless of the nature of the state.

Aristotle states that citizenship aims at a common good. However, citizenship is always relative and has multiple standards that depend greatly on the political regime in question. He believes that the definitions of both the good man and the good citizen coincide only in states that are morally and ideally good. Therefore, according to Aristotle, man only becomes good when living in a good regime. It then follows that since there are several types of regimes, there are also several types of good citizens. This entails that no virtue of the good citizen is complete; yet, Aristotle reveals the virtue of the good man is a complete virtue thus reaffirming the difference between the good citizen and the good man.

Be that as it may, I believe that the good citizen is undoubtedly and necessarily a good man and vice-versa. By definition, the law is designed for everyone; it is formed to organize life and make it better and to keep society functional. Laws are formed to promote justice and do the right thing by everyone without giving priority to anyone. To paraphrase Jean-Paul Sartre, the greatest good is what is good for the greatest number of people. Therefore, by abiding by the law, the good citizen necessarily cares about what is good for everyone as opposed to what is good for only himself, thus making him a good man. Aristotle says that there are different standards to consider when comparing the good man and the good citizen and that different compasses are needed to do so. However, one cannot compare using a different compass for each one since law and morality coincide. If a person was brought up within a certain regime, said person usually grows up with the morals that the regime teaches thus making the definition of law

...