Page 58 - DPOL201_WESTERN_POLITICAL_THOUGHT_ENGLISH

Western Political Thought

Notes mere numerical equality. Similarly the idea of special privilege which his doctrine introduces is
more justifiable than the oligarch’s claim that either wealth or noble birth by itself deserves the
highest rewards .... Proportionate equality is grounded in the principle of fair and reasonable
inequality of treatment.
Rectificatory or remedial justice was meted out by a judge in matters like contracts or criminal
law, where the merit of a person was not the consideration. The important fact was that all
persons would be treated in a manner of equal merit. Aristotle regarded equality as crucial to
social justice, and justice as central to equality.
Inequality, for Aristotle, arose when equals were treated unequally, and unequals equally. It accepted
the belief that individuals differed in capacities, interests and achievements. Moreover, the varied
dimensions of human life—social, cultural and economic—differed in importance. It was necessary
to distinguish between the deserving and the undeserving. He tried to counter the principle of
equality by justifying inequalities. The reason was twofold. One, the desire for equality was more in
the nature of a wish rather than being grounded in reality. Second, even if one accepted the demand
of equality as a moral one, it still failed to be convincing for it contradicted “the spirit of morality
with its presupposition of men’s different stations and functions, especially their obligations and
duties of obedience on the one hand and their rights and positions of authority on the other”.
Rule of Law and Constitution
Aristotle was categorical that a rightly constituted law was the final authority, and that personal
authority was only desirable if for some reason it was not easy to codify laws to meet all general
contingencies. Aristotle’s ideal was constitutionally-based order. Laws were less arbitrary and
fairer, since these were impersonal as compared to rule by a person. “[t]he rule of law is preferable
to that of a single citizen: even if it be the better course to have individuals ruling, they should be
made law-guardians or ministers of the laws”.
Aristotle contended that a free political relationship was one where the subject did not totally
surrender his judgement and responsibility, for both the ruler and the ruled had a defined legal
status. The “passionless authority of law” gave to the magistrate and the subject a moral quality
and dignity respectively. A constitutional ruler, unlike a dictator, ruled over his willing subjects
by consent:
The relation of the constitutional ruler to his subjects is different in kind from any sort
of subjection because it is consistent with both parties remaining free men, and for this
reason it requires a degree of moral equality or likeness of kind between them, despite
the undoubted differences which must exist.
The authority that was wielded by a constitutional ruler over one’s subject was different from the
one that the master wielded over his slave, since the latter lacked reason to rule himself. Political
authority also differed from the authority that a husband exercised over his wife and children.
Aristotle contended that a serious flaw in Plato’s reasoning was his failure to distinguish political
authority from that of household, as evident from Plato’s comment in the Statesman that the state
was like a family writ large. A child, not yet an adult, would not be entitled to being treated as an
equal. Women, being inferior, were unequal to men. A political relationship was one of equality.
On the contrary, an ideal state would not be constitutional or political if the differences between
its members were so great that they did not have the same virtue. An ideal state is “an association
of equals, and only of equals, and its object is the best and highest life possible (in which the slave
cannot share). The highest good is felicity; and that consists in the energy and perfect practice of
goodness”.
Constitutional rule had three main elements. First, it was a rule in the general or common interest
of the populace, as compared to a rule by a faction or a tyrant which was in the interest of a ruler,
one or few. Since it was lawful, a government was carried on in accordance with general regulations

52 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY