Page 57 - DPOL201_WESTERN_POLITICAL_THOUGHT_ENGLISH

Unit 4: Aristotle’s Theory of Revolution

Aristotle was the first to pay attention to the economic basis of political institutions by focusing on Notes
the character and distribution of wealth and its influence on the form of government. He considered
extreme inequality of wealth as an important cause for revolutions. He defended private property,
but was a great believer in well-distributed wealth.
With the partial exception of the Levellers from Aristotle to the late eighteenth century it was
generally agreed that it is the greatest blessing for a state that its members should possess a
moderate and adequate property.
Distributive Justice

Both Plato and Aristotle believed that the primary task of a state was to ensure justice. Aristotle
distinguished between distributive, and corrective or rectificatory or remedial justice.
Distributive justice meant that offices and wealth, rewards and dues were distributed among
different social classes according to their contributions based on merit, defined in accordance with
the spirit of the constitution. In an oligarchy, merit meant wealth, while in an aristocracy, it was
related to virtue. In an ideal state, merit meant virtue. Since in Aristotle’s perception the objective
end of the state was to ensure and promote good life, the group that contributed most to this end
could legitimately claim most of society’s honours. On this premise, he believed that a virtuous
minority or an aristocracy supplied the most direct and significant benefits to society. In the last
resort, it would also mean the enthronement of one person with supreme virtue, or an absolute
divine monarchy. Besides virtue and wealth, Aristotle recognized freedom as an important criterion
with regard to the end of the state. Freedom meant free birth, and also being independent of others.

Justice, for Aristotle, was a complete virtue, though not absolute. It was in relation
to one’s neighbour. The social character of virtue was “universal” justice or
lawfulness.

Aristotle agreed with Plato’s assertion that only virtue and wisdom ought to be criteria of who
would rule and exercise political power, but wondered how to approximate it in practice. Although
Aristotle identified virtue as the ultimate qualification for office, he allowed for the enfranchisement
of popular and oligarchic elements as well. He tried to assimilate the two doctrines of distributive
justice that prevailed during his time. One was the democrats’ assertion that equality derived
from free birth, or that each would count for one, and no one for more than one. The other was the
oligarchs’ view that superiority in one represented superiority in others as well. The two principles
of equality and superiority could be made compatible, if both were subordinated to justice.
Distributive justice set forth in the Politics clearly recognized the contribution of each major unit to
society and its unique claim to political participation—while numbers mattered in popular claims,
wealth was an important component in an oligarchic claim, and virtue in an aristocratic claim—
thus giving a share to everyone in the political process. The allotment of honours was based on the
relative assets of each group. The principle of mean balanced the political opportunity of the few,
many and the rich, and was infinitely superior to the partisan principle offered in an unmixed or
pure constitution.
Distributive justice meant proportionate equality, and was linked to a theory of just rewards or
equal shares according to the merit of its recipients. Each person would be awarded responsibilities
as well as financial benefits in proportion to one’s just deserts.
The advantage of Aristotle’s doctrine is that it satisfied the demands of social justice in both
aspects: the point of proportionate equality is more equitable than the democrats’ conception of

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 51