Doctrine Of The Mean In Aristotle's Politics example essay topic

The Doctrine of the Mean in Aristotle's Politics. Examining the texts of Aristotle's "Nicomachean Ethics" and "Politics" side by side, one is bound to find parallels between his reasoning with regard to the individual and to the state. In "Nicomachean Ethics" Aristotle discusses happiness, virtue, and the good life on an individual level and lays out necessary provisions for the good life of a person. He maintains that virtue is a necessary element of happiness: a man will be happy if he has virtues of justice, courage, and temperance, each constituting a balance between the extremes. But this requirement of virtue for the happy life goes beyond the individual level, as we see it in "Politics".

There, Aristotle claims that man is by nature a "political animal", and for that reason he can only achieve the above-mentioned virtues as part of a state. And since the city is formed by many individuals, the virtue of the state is constituted by the individual virtues of its citizens. It is therefore clear that fulfillment of requirements for the happy life of an individual, namely being virtuous and self-sufficient, is equally necessary for the state as a whole in order to be happy. We thus see that the virtue of a state is directly linked to the virtue of an individual, and that therefore the means of achieving the former will run parallel with those of the latter. At this point, one might want to examine closer what Aristotle denotes by virtue, by what means it can be obtained, and what the effects of virtuousness are on something that possesses it. Aristotle identifies virtue as "a state that decides... the mean relative to us, which is defined by reference to reason...

It is a mean between two vices, one of excess and one of deficiency". The key concept in this definition is the mean relative to us, by which Aristotle understands the intermediate between something that is equidistant from each extremity. As he puts it, in everything continuous and divisible we can take either too much of something, too little, or some intermediate that is between the excess and deficiency. Moreover, the mean relative to us is not merely a mathematical intermediate halfway between the two extremes. For if, Aristotle explains, "ten pounds is a lot for someone o eat, and two pounds a little, I does not follow that the trainer will prescribe six, since this might also be either a little or a lot for the person who is to take it... ".

. Therefore, the mean relative to us "is not one, and is not the same for everyone". With respect to this, Aristotle states that virtue seeks the mean relative to us, and this is how "each science produces its product well": "by focusing on what is intermediate and making the product conform to that". A well-made product will be that to which nothing can be added or taken away without making it worse, since it assumes that "excess or deficiency ruins a good result, while the mean preserves it". And just like good craftsmen focus on an intermediate when they produce a product, one should aim at intermediate in regard to virtue. Thus we see that virtue is to be achieved by concentrating on the optimal mean between the extremes of deficiency and excess.

But the discussion of virtue would be incomplete if one did not investigate its role with respect to the object possessing virtue and its effect on that object. Since Aristotle defines virtue as a state that decides the optimal mean relative to us, he asserts that "every virtue causes its possessors to be in a good state and to perform their functions well; the virtue of eyes, e. g., makes the eyes and their functioning excellent, because it makes us see well", and this is argued to be true in the case of all objects. At this point, the role of virtue with respect to the object is apparent: something will be functioning at the best level only if it reaches an intermediate at which there is neither deficiency nor excess of the qualities that constitute the object. This argument is the core of Aristotle's Doctrine of the Mean discussed above: in order to make something function well, one has to find an intermediate between two extremes. Aristotle lays out the Doctrine of the Mean with respect to the individual virtue and happiness.

To what extent, one might inquire, does the Doctrine apply to the ideal state that Aristotle discusses in "Politics"? In "Nicomachean Ethics" Aristotle talks about virtue as the means for the happy life of an individual. However, as it was shown above, the virtue of the city as a whole is the sum of virtues of individuals constituting the state. It should thus be clear that if virtue is an indispensable element of happiness for an individual, then so it is for the multitude of individuals - namely, the state. What follows is that just like an individual has to conform to the Doctrine of the Mean in order to be happy, the state has to aim at the mean relative to the components of its constitution in order to be virtuous. If this is achieved, then each element of the state will function well, and such state will indeed be ideal and happy.

In "Politics", Aristotle provides numerous examples supporting this belief, of which some are fundamental with regard to the constitution of an ideal state and ought to be discussed in more detail. Among those are such constituents of the regime as its territory and population, ownership of property, participation in politics and distribution of wealth. Each of them are argued to function well only if their essence is neither excessive nor deficient. In regard to the size of population and territory of the state, Aristotle argues that it should neither be too small nor too large, "for a state like other things has a certain function to perform, so that it is the state most capable of performing this function that is to be deemed the greatest, [and not judged by its size]". As he claims, experience shows that it is difficult to have a good legal government in city with too large a population. Since the law is hard to enforce on an excessively large number, it is almost impossible to maintain order that is implied by the law.

Hence, with too large a population, the state will be away from an ideal because or der will not be fully enforced. On the other hand, the purpose of the state is self-sufficiency, so with too little a population the ideal will not be achieved, either. Therefore, Aristotle shows that event though "certainly beauty is usually found in number and magnitude... there is a due measure of magnitude for a city-state... Too small or excessively large will not possess its own proper efficiency". We thus see how Aristotle applies the Doctrine of the Mean to the property of the state in a similar way as he would apply it to the property of an individual: moderation is a necessary requirement for efficiency and good quality. Aristotle's discussion of ownership of property early in the book gives us another perspective on the Doctrine of the Mean in regard to the state.

Answering the question whether property has to be owned in common or privately, he criticizes the communism of property suggested by Plato in "The Republic" as one extreme that does result its best use. If the produce of work is to be shared equally whereas contribution to the production is unequal among individuals, "complaints are bound to arise between those who... take much but work little and those who take less but work more". Such communism is thus viewed as a source of discontent and quarrels among the population, proving not to be the best use of property. At the opposite extreme, Aristotle condemns private ownership ruled by selfishness, since it does not add to the sense of unity of the residents of the state but rather to their alienation and covetousness. What Aristotle suggests is, in accordance with the Doctrine of the Mean, being at the midpoint that would combine the advantages of two types of ownership - that is, owning property privately but sharing it commonly among friends. Such system, it is argued, "If further improved by good morals and by the regulation of correct legislation, would be greatly superior".

For such virtue will not cause mutual complaints on one hand, while allowing pleasure of bestowing favors and assistance on friends or comrades on the other hand. Clearly, then, property will yield the most good if its ownership is balanced between the two extremes of common ownership and selfish private possession, which serves as another illustration of the Doctrine of the Mean with respect to the state. At this point we come to the characteristic of a state that is of fundamental importance for its happiness and as we will see, its ideal, too, complies with the principles outlined in the Doctrine of the Mean. The question is, which type of governance are we to choose in order to make the state perform its function - providing citizens with good life - in the best way possible? Before answering, Aristotle recognizes that what draws the line between a just and a deviant state is whether it is committed to providing the good for the entire population or just the part of it. Meanwhile, he points out the conflict that seems to be ever present in existing states - the one between the rich minority and the poor majority.

These classes represent two extremes that have differing views on equality and their positions in the state. On one side there are the oligarchs that believe that since people are unequal in wealth, they must be unequal in everything, whereas on the other side are the democrats whose belief is that having been born equal, all should be equal in everything. Clearly, letting ether of the classes rule over the city exclusively will render the regime deviant since that class will pursue its own self-interest. The solution proposed to this dilemma by Aristotle is, as one would by now expect, the middle way between two extremes, represented by the principle of distributive justice: all are allowed to govern, yet those that contribute the most to the state are given proportional rights to rule. As we see, such principle yields an ideal combination of equality and inequality in the system of government without the flaws of both extremes. Aristotle classifies this type of regime as a polity, which is defined as a good regime governed by all: there is broad participation in the deliberative functions of the government so that the no one class is favored over the other; yet the highest offices are reserved for the best, which produces the highest functionality of the government.

Returning to the above-mentioned problem of unequal distribution of wealth in the state, we proceed to analyze the way by which Aristotle expects to keep the conflict between classes under control and to secure the regime. In this case, one extreme is the upper class, which is only capable of ruling and does not know how to obey. The upper class suffers from excess ambition and is not willing to listen to reason. On the other extreme is the lower class, which suffers from too little ambition and is only able to obey but not to rule.

Aristotle shows that without doubt either of the extremes is unfavorable: this creates the state of masters and slaves, whereas happiness of the community depends on friendship and unity. To resolve the mis balance, we turn to the middle class, which is a mean between the two extremes, to be a buffer between the upper and the lower classes. The middle class suffers least from ambition and is the most willing to listen to reason. Therefore, in order for the state to be good and stable, it is necessary to adhere to the mean and make the middle class as large as possible relative to the lower and the upper classes. We have now observed a series of instances in which a constituent of an ideal regime has to comply with the Doctrine of the Mean in order to be efficient and make the state better and not worse. Having started with virtue and good life of an individual and extending the concept to the level of the state, we could see that the Doctrine is not merely a means of individual happiness.

Rather, its application is much more universal, ranging from a single person to an entire city. In each case, though, the key is the same: moderation and avoidance of extremes. Whether we want to make an individual happy or the whole city, placing an object at the mean related to this object is what is necessary to make it virtuous, and virtue in turn will ensure its excellence..