Reading: Aristotle's View of the State

We're continuing with Aristotle's view of the state, the political institution in society. It's a profound theory of the state, elaborated in great detail. Many of you have been assigned to read parts of it, and my comments are aimed at aiding your understanding. Last time, I raised the topic of slavery.

Aristotle believes that slavery is a natural institution. As you may recall, he differentiates between those who are natural leaders, capable of devising plans, and those who are natural followers, adept at executing these plans. According to him, each group requires the other. A leader's plan is futile without the means to implement it, and the plan can only be carried out with willing followers. Aristotle paints a rather favorable picture of this dynamic. As I mentioned before, he advises that masters and slaves should foster friendship, particularly when thinking of household slaves. This harmonious relationship in a household is intended to accumulate wealth, allowing the master to focus on the liberal arts.

Despite Aristotle's extensive discourse on societal roles, there's a glaring omission: neither he nor Plato ever discuss society's marginalized— the sick, the lame, the poor, the blind, and so on. This omission contrasts sharply with the teachings of the Bible. The Old Testament frequently emphasizes the importance of remembering and aiding the disadvantaged. The laws of Israel were designed to provide for the poor, with farmers leaving crops unharvested for the less fortunate, and land ownership reverting every fifty years to avoid wealth accumulation in the hands of a few. Similarly, the New Testament continually reminds its followers to remember the downtrodden.

In stark contrast, the closest reference in Plato's work is in "The Republic," where he suggests that deformed or impaired infants should be left on a hillside to perish. Greek medical practices mirrored this mindset. They strived for perfection in the human form and would only treat patients who could be restored to an ideal state of health.

This philosophy also influenced the definition of a citizen. Citizens were those who contributed to the preservation of the state, primarily through military service. Only able-bodied male adults in the military had the right to vote or hold office. This limited definition of citizenship might seem restrictive by modern standards, but it was a move towards democracy, albeit a limited one, where all citizens (defined by their military service) had a voice.

I want to delve deeper into the concept of collectivism. The idea that society prioritizes the group over the individual can lead to totalitarianism, where the state has absolute control over every aspect of life. Neither Plato nor Aristotle questioned this complete control. In contrast, under individualism, the goal was to maximize personal freedom, with the state intervening minimally. This balance is essential for justice, as favoring individuals over the collective or vice versa can lead to inequalities.

Aristotle posits that laws must prioritize the state, which then governs every aspect of life. Many might argue that Christianity fundamentally opposes totalitarianism, and I believe this perspective has merit. To fully understand why, we need to revisit the concept of individualism, which historically challenged and eventually replaced collectivism. Most modern liberal democracies lean more towards individualism, a theory propagated by thinkers like Thomas Hobbes and John Locke.

Now, Locke's notion of these "natural laws" grounded in divine creation is fascinating because it's deeply rooted in his Christian beliefs, yet it also becomes foundational for secular arguments about human rights. These natural rights he spoke of — life, liberty, and property — would become seminal in shaping modern Western political thought.

The principle that humans, by virtue of being human, have certain rights that are inherent and inalienable, is groundbreaking. It's also worth noting that Locke diverges from Hobbes in his portrayal of the "state of nature". For Hobbes, it's a state of war of every man against every man, a chaotic realm where life is "nasty, brutish, and short". For Locke, while the state of nature isn't exactly peaceful, it's governed by the law of nature, which dictates that no one should harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.

Locke's views were radical for the time because they placed the individual at the center of the political universe. The state doesn't grant rights; it merely recognizes and guarantees the rights individuals already possess in the state of nature. This is a far cry from the Divine Right of Kings that dominated Europe in which monarchs derived authority directly from God.

One of the profound impacts of Locke's writings is that they would later inspire the American Revolution and the Declaration of Independence. The famous phrase "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" in the American Declaration of Independence echoes Locke's trinity of rights. While the wording differs slightly, the underlying philosophy remains. The shift from "property" to "the pursuit of happiness" might be seen as an attempt to generalize and universalize the idea of property, suggesting that what people really have a right to is the ability to pursue what makes their life meaningful, rather than just physical possessions.

Thomas Jefferson and other American founding fathers were deeply influenced by Locke's writings. His concept that the government's role is to protect individual rights, and if it fails to do so, the people have the right to revolt, was revolutionary (quite literally) and found its way into the American psyche.

Additionally, the social contract theory proposed by Locke – the idea that individuals give up some rights in return for the benefits of living within a society – continues to be a foundation for much of Western political thought. The idea that governments are created by the governed, and should serve the interests of the people, stands in stark contrast to authoritarian views that were popular in his time and are even seen in some places today.

However, it's important to remember that while Locke's philosophy was groundbreaking and liberating for many, it wasn't perfect. Locke's notions of property, for instance, have been critiqued for their potential to justify vast inequalities. Some critics have pointed out that Locke's ideas, especially regarding property rights, were deeply entwined with the colonial endeavors of his time and may even be used to justify European land grabs in the New World.

Nevertheless, Locke's influence on modern liberal democracy is undeniable. His argument that humans have inherent rights, grounded not in the whims of monarchs but in natural law and human reason, is a cornerstone of the democratic societies many live in today. Even as we continue to wrestle with the specifics and implications of these rights, the foundational belief in their existence remains a powerful force for social and political change.

That's where Christians certainly can agree with it. God has made the world such that murder is wrong. Theft is wrong. Lying is wrong. Coveting is bad.

Okay, so Locke comes closer than Hobbes does to a Christian view of things. But still, for Locke, it's individuals that have these rights. Only individuals. You'll notice that it's the solitary individuals that choose to give up their rights and create the state by conferring their rights to defend themselves. Now, the members of the state, the officials, possess police powers. But then, what happens to families? Marriages, businesses, schools, churches, labor unions, political parties, charitable organizations, health organizations, and artistic organizations? What happens to all the communities that make up a society?

And the answer is, they're left out by Locke. They don't have any rights. They're not immune from theft or fraud. That doesn't make any sense, does it? But that's how it influenced the founding of the United States. When Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, he wrote noble sounding lines about the rights that people have. They're endowed by their creator with inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This implies that only individuals, and not communities, have these rights.

Think about that for a moment. If Locke's belief was that God had built laws into the world, with principles of justice and morality, then they would govern everything in creation, not just individuals but communities as well. This created a weird set of circumstances in early US history. As soon as the country was founded and the court system established, businesses began suing each other for breach of contract. If only individuals have rights, how can businesses have legal standing? Instead of acknowledging the oversight and asserting that communities also have rights, the US declared that businesses are people. They knew this wasn't literally true, but treated it as such. This "legal fiction" is essentially a lie.

Later in the 19th and early 20th centuries, the class action suit emerged, which partially compensated for this deficiency. It allowed a group of people with shared interests to represent themselves in court. But the underlying issue remained: only individuals have rights. This led to environmental degradation as individual owners could pollute communal resources without repercussions. We've since passed laws against such pollution, but the root cause, this individualistic approach, has never been addressed.

I want to make one more point before turning back to Aristotle's treatment of slavery. Christians have generally opposed slavery, though not all have done so consistently. The New Testament doesn't specifically call for the abolition of slavery. The Roman Empire, during the time the New Testament was written, practiced widespread slavery, much different from the "natural leader-follower" model Aristotle spoke of. The command to love your neighbor is fundamentally at odds with the concept of slavery. It's disheartening to realize how many Christians tried to justify slavery. For example, the US Civil War saw Christians fighting and killing each other over the right to own slaves.

A contrasting example comes from Bartolomé de las Casas, a 16th-century Dominican priest. Las Casas was a missionary to the West Indies, aiming to spread the Gospel. But he saw Spanish soldiers enslaving the very people he sought to evangelize. Las Casas wrote to King Philip II of Spain, a notoriously ruthless ruler, condemning the slave trade. He and the King's chief adviser debated the matter, using Aristotle and the New Testament as their respective sources of authority. In the end, Philip II ordered a halt to the slave trade. The story illustrates that there are positive instances of Christians standing against slavery.

In conclusion, while there are moments in history where Christians failed to uphold their beliefs, there are also instances like Las Casas' courageous stand against a powerful king, showcasing the potential for true positive change.