The dynamic of a political society did not emerge in a heartbeat. From the beginning of time, humanity have constituted itself in the form of tribes and statesmen to regulate their political beliefs. One might argue its the natural configuration across all communities. Plato has scrutinized the concept of justice by decreeing a City of Speech.
Following Platonism, various theorists and philosophers have attempted to explain justice and the ideal city in a similar fashion. Aristotle and Cicero, two of the most prominent philosophers in the Roman political thought have explored the realm of justice in the constitutional discourse.
This paper will, further analyze the notion of justice by implementing Aristotle’s concepts in his book Politics, and Cicero’s De Re Publica. I concur that the reasonable person in modern times would find the ideal city of Aristotle and Cicero undesirable since it overshadows and forgoes foreign policy, national security and fundamental laws concerning citizenship rights and property.
127 our experts are availableright now
Aristotle in his book Politics starts with defining the purpose of the city. If Plato represents idealism, Aristotle represents idealistic realism. In a nutshell, Aristotle begins where Plato ended. He addressed two main concerns in Politics; what is an ideal city and what does it mean to be an aristocrat. To put things more into perspective, Aristotle’s aim was to scrutinize the ideal political system, the question of virtue, the dichotomous relationship between nature and convention, and reality versus appearance.
This was not attained by Plato, he did not provide a realistic and analytical framework of the existent government and political systems in Greece. The dynamic of social nations or how they distributed power is an eminent theme in the Aristotelian political philosophy. According to him, if we do what Plato is prescribing, we will destroy the community. Community is based on equalization of relationship; a reciprocal understanding. A community is defined by relationships and friendships among people. The only way to construct a community is that it must relate to each other; “Philosophy from within” (Reeve, 2012).
To add more, the Politics starts from an idealistic and teleological sense. He questions the phenomena or objectivity of politics in life, polis. He believes that everyone lives for one purpose; happiness. For Aristotle, happiness is not just about satisfaction or contentment, it is achieved through knowledge and virtue (Reeve, 2012). Ultimately, a virtuous life is a knowledgeable life. Therefore ‘the best city is happy and acts nobly. It is impossible to act nobly without acting [to achieve] noble things; but there is no noble deed either of a man or of a city that is separate from virtue and prudence.
The courage, justice, and prudence of a city have the same power and form as those human beings share in individually who are called just, prudent, and sound.’ (Aristotle, 1984). A polis is indispensable to live a virtuous life. Moreover, a polis goes beyond the barriers of a city state, it is different than modern states. It is inseparable from society and church. The division of church, society and an individual as a separate entity is diminished.
A polis is not the summation of all these factors or elements, but it is a community. Consequently, people find themselves and create themselves in this community; “a civic life”. Said in other words, it’s the entity or the community that allows people to participate the civic life. It allows people to live in association. Furthermore, according to Aristotle a “man is a political animal”, (Aristotle, 1984) this illustrates that a man himself is an animal, but the only qualification he maintains is that he wants to live in association.
For Aristotle, a good polis must be constitutional, organized, codified by the basic laws. The crucial assumption of the polis is that the members are all equal. They must form a contract confirming the equality among them, unlike families. Plato, on the other hand, believes people form government as an extension of the family. Aristotle contests that there are four levels of the household relationship; parent-child, husband-wife, master-salve (Aristotle, 1984).
The master and slave relationship is based on the assumption that they have different natures. According to him, he believes in natural slavery; master are more superior intellectually and mentally. He concurs that slavery is beneficial because it is inherent and serviceable; a master needs a slave to serve him and a slave needs leadership and guidance. Thus, it is built on mutual reciprocity. However, this is not the same as the relationship of the Polis, it is not an extension to the master-slave relationship. In a polis the king only acts as a representative (Aristotle, 1984).
Furthermore, the child-parent relationship is based on love and admiration. Parents are the role models of children, as they know better. However, a sufficient polis is not based on this relationship. The last level is the husband-wife relationship, the husband has more power since he is wealthier and smarter. ‘It is thus evident that…the moderation of a woman and a man is not the same, nor their courage or justice…but that there is a ruling and a serving courage, and similarly with the other virtues’ (Aristotle, 1984).
Aristotle does not specify what women’s virtue or education they must receive, however he believes that a man’s superiority is connected to nature. This also, does not act as a competent polis. According to Aristotle, “a polis is a community of equals in the pursuit of common virtue and morality, on one condition which is that the differences between the members of the polis must remain limited”(Aristotle, 1984). Inequality must be avoided, if inequality persists, then common morality will not be achieved.
Not only that, the fourth level or element of human relationship outside the polis is acquisition. There is a good type and a bad type. The good type is when people seek to acquire goods for their use value. On the other hand, the bad type is when people seek to acquire goods to exchange them in the market for monetary purposes. Excessive and unlimited wealth will open the gate for a luxurious lifestyle. This will only lead to decadence (Aristotle, 1984).
Furthermore, coming to examine Aristotle’s theories validity, we can observe that he built a communal society upon justice, not the other way around unlike Plato. He was able to further analyze the regime in terms of territory, citizenship, geography, household, and population, which are all significant elements in any regime. However, he didn’t delve in depth about women’s rights or economic prosperity, which are crucial aspect in modern society. Thus, his argument fails to be completely applied.
On the other hand, Political philosophy is the branch of philosophy concerned with the concepts of community, law, religion, freedom, justice, identity. It’s the philosophy of political; which is power. However, social sciences are objective, they want to reach reason through “mental intellectual process” and rationality not by revelations. They always looking for specificities. This can lead us to nihilism; science and historical thinking.
Political philosophy then act as a platonic and tyranny. Therefore Aristotle and Plato’s work was based on one big assumption, the idea that the city state can manage its affairs independently (Reeve, 2012). The outcome of the city state is determined by the decisions made within the city state. Foreign policy didn’t count.
However, Greek city states were too small and too contentious to be self-sufficient. They would have either isolated themselves which will lead to stagnation, or exchange with the world and hence loose their independence. They become dependent on the stronger nations surrounding them (Mathes, 2000). The Greeks had no option; the only option they had was exchange which means dependency. Persia Macedonia then conquered Greece. In less than 150 years, after the death of Plato and Aristotle, all of the city states fell under the power of Macedonia (Matthes, 2000) .
The classic political philosophy is based on the assumption that Polis is the key political unit. It’s both realistic and idealistic. However, now this is over. It became part of the big empire. Thus, a new political philosophy emerged whose key unit is the empire. A new family of philosophy called the ‘Stoics’ started to inspect cosmopolitan empire. One of these philosophers was Cicero.
On the other hand, Cicero in his book De Re Republic describes the ideal commonwealth which is also conceded in On the Orator. He illustrates his points by providing philosophical basis for exiting Roman institutions and to exhibit that the Republic is superior to any other government because it is a mixed regime (Asmis, 2005). Cicero’s ideal state, inspects the best governing regime rather than a broader comprehension of the ideal polity (Baraz, 2012).
According to him, it combines elements of monarchy, aristocracy and democracy in the most moderate sense. In his paper “Political Society and Cicero’s Ideal State”, Richard Maass has evaluated that this mixed constitution denotes as the most effective system of nonviolent conflict since it aims for an equitable distribution of political power among social classes.
Simultaneously, it delivers the most stable protector for the political society by “precluding the political turmoil that plagues the three simple regimes” (Maass, 2012). Therefore, the mixed constitution is a crucial aspect for Cicero’s ideal state. However, Cicero claimed that this governmental balance was being eroded by the moral corruption of the aristocracy; he had a clash with Caesar and Mark Antony and advocated to return to the republic.
Moreover, In the first book of the De Re Publica, Cicero demonstrated the theory of constitutions, defining res publica is res populi, ‘the property of the people’ (Cicero, 2012). People is denoted as a collection united by common interests and a community of legal rights and institutions. He then classifies the constitutions as three good and three bad. Monarchy, aristocracy and democracy are the good, and the bad are tyranny, government by faction (oligarchy), and mob rule. This is then institutionalized and power is shared among the three, executive represents the monarchial role, senate is the aristocratic feature, and the popular assembly is democracy.
Not only that, the third book of De Re Republic introduces the notion of justice to the scene. Cicero’s reasoning of justice was not directly intertwined with the res publica, but with naturalism and reason (Miller, 2014). Justice is an intertwined phenomena to the political society, which according to Cicero’s definition of civitas, “distinguishes it from any other gather” (Maass, 2012). They are the mostly commonly linked and used to justice/morality concepts. Cicero intervened and connected justice to the concepts of civitas and populus. Justice in itself is founded on the human capacities of fellowship and reason, and is primarily in tremors by moral corruption (Baraz, 2012).
This is especially a problem among prominent citizens, a point proven by Cicero’s contrasting treatments of Caesar and Cato. Overcoming this threat, the spread of justice makes possible Cicero’s ideal state. Furthermore, these capacities legitimize individuals to unite under a common resolution of justice, thereby becoming “members of the same commonwealth” (Cicero, 2014).
Not only that, according to Cicero, the “first cause” of human association is not individual weakness but rather “a certain social spirit which nature has implanted in man” (Mass, 2012). The bond or the “spirt” created is not only present with people close to each other, but also with all human beings and forms the foundation of communication and community (Mass, 2012).
Thus, we could trace this notion to On the Orator, using speech to transcend the boundaries of society. “There is a bond of fellowship, which has the very widest application, uniting all men together and each to each” (Mass, 2012). This natural bond of fellowship is the source of the virtues that hold human society together, leading Cicero to declare “our natural inclination to love our fellowmen” to be “the foundation of Justice” (Mass, 2012).
To add more, reason also scripts justice, it gives it the sufficiency not to flutter on random decisions spurred by heat of the moment. “For Justice is one; it binds all human society, and is based on one Law, which is right reason applied to command and prohibition” (Maass, 2012). Unlike the common belief that law is dependent on the government, decreed by the majority, Cicero considers “the belief that everything is just which is found in the customs or laws of nations” to be “the most foolish notion of all” (Cicero, 2014).
Ultimately, reasonable citizens are recommended to continuously harass their legislators to achieve justice; the structure of the political society. “Law is the distinction between things just and unjust,” and “if a State lacks Law,” it must “for that reason be considered no State at all” (Maass, 2012). Therefore the major threat to justice, and subsequently political society, is moral corruption, which “gradually creeps into the hearts of citizens, and, by infecting them with evil desires and evil ideas, works the swift and total destruction of states ” (Cicero, 2014).
To put thing more into perspective, Cicero delineates his ideal state in universal scope and perpetual, based as it is on the shared capacities of fellowship and reason, and their product, justice. The persistence of these capacities in every generation yields the basis for an everlasting political society, to let Cicero to declare that “a state ought to be so firmly founded that it will live forever” (Maass, 2012). As the association in justice that ensures free and secure political life, the state thus fortifies above and beyond our local homeland. “That fatherland must stand first in our affection in which the name of republic (res publica) signifies the common citizenship of all of us” (Maass, 2012).
On the other hand, Cicero was able to analyze justice in a more universal scope which encompasses a more multi-dimensional facade. However, Cicero’s aim was to show that the Republic was the most optimum regime, in that sense he wanted to go back to the past and resisted any political change. From a philosophical perspective he was able to equate justice in a more constitutional framework, in that sense he did what Aristotle and Plato failed to do. From a political perspective, he failed to achieve his theories, thus letting them stagnant in the political competitive realm.
To summarize, Aristotle and Cicero were able to further analyze the concept of justice and integrate it in the constitutional discourse. The fact that their ideas transcended time and space and we are still discussing them until today, proves their validity. However, I believe their theories were able to articulately reflect their historical time. They achieved to narrate and communicate their present unfolding reality through communities; thus philosophically achieving their purpose. This variously, does not indicate their political desirability. Since, there is no mention of foreign policy, state laws equating to justice, or how to regulate diversity or foreigners within a nation. Their arguments is thus incomplete and discontinuous.
References
- Aristotle and Carnes Lord. The Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984.
- Asmis, E. The state as a partnership: Cicero’s definition of Res Publica in his work on the state. History of Political Thought 2004, 25:569–98.
- Baraz, Yelena. A Written Republic: Cicero’s Philosophical Politics. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 2012.
- Cicero, Marcus Tullius and David Fott. On the Republic: And, on the Laws. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 2014;2013;.
- Maass, Richard W. ‘Political Society and Cicero’s Ideal State.’ Historical Methods: A Journal of Quantitative and Interdisciplinary History 45, no. 2 (2012): 79-92.
- Matthes, Melissa M. The Rape of Lucretia and the Founding of Republics: Readings in Livy, Machiavelli, and Rousseau. University Park, Pa: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2000.
- Nicgorski, Walter. ‘Cicero’s Focus: From the Best Regime to the Model Statesman.’ Political Theory 19, no. 2 (1991): 230-251.
- Reeve, C. D. C.Action, Contemplation, and Happiness: An Essay on Aristotle. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 2012.
- Jarvis, Douglas E. ‘The Family as the Foundation of Political Rule in Western Philosophy: A Comparative Analysis of Aristotle’s Politics and Hegel’s Philosophy of Right.’ Journal of Family History 36, no. 4 (2011): 440-463.
- Miller, Fred D. ‘The Rule of Reason in Cicero’s Philosophy of Law.’ University of Queensland Law Journal, the 33, no. 2 (2014): 321-333.
