Aristotle vs. Hobbes: Equality in Society

Essay, Pages 9 (2140 words)

Views

493

The debate between Aristotle and Hobbes involves two renowned thinkers from different eras. Aristotle, living during Greece's Golden Age in the 4th century BCE, contrasts with Hobbes, who experienced England's Civil War in the 17th century and became a highly influential philosopher. Drawing from their individual circumstances, both Aristotle and Hobbes formed opinions on the nature of human equality.

However, Hobbes offers a more favorable understanding of natural equality. He allows for greater equality and opportunity within society, particularly for the subjects of a good sovereign.

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get your custom essay on

“ Aristotle vs. Hobbes: Equality in Society ”

Get custom paper

NEW! smart matching with writer

In contrast, Aristotle's hierarchical division of people into natural superiors, inferiors, and slaves restricts their achievements and opportunities. Aristotle's idea of equality only applied to citizens who participate in the political life of their city-state.

According to Aristotle (p. 4), acquiring human virtues and excellences and achieving their natural telos as a "political animal" can be achieved by living within a city-state. Only citizens within a city-state have the opportunity to participate in and enhance their political and practical reason, ultimately fulfilling their human telos.

As Aristotle (p. 4) states, the city-state is one of the things that exist by nature, making it the only natural outcome for humans. However, it's important to note that in Aristotle's perspective, the term citizen does not apply to everyone but rather has limited applicability within the city-state.

The city-state was originally created as a household, a partnership between individuals who are interdependent (Aristotle, 1252a27). Over time, it evolved into a community consisting of households and villages, ultimately resulting in the establishment of a city-state.

Its purpose was initially to meet our fundamental needs and it has continued to exist in order to enhance our quality of life. The household serves as the primary institution within the city-state, enabling citizens to cultivate their virtues as humans.

Both within itself and in relation to the political institution, the household is characterized by unequal relationships. This includes relationships such as natural ruler vs. natural slave, husband vs. wife, and parent vs. child. Aristotle explains that "The slave is wholly lacking the deliberative element; the female has it but it lacks authority; the child has it but it is incomplete" (1260a11). During Aristotle's time, women did not have the right to vote, which means their natural telos would have differed from that of men.

Together with the natural slaves, the men would have been provided with the necessary basic necessities to sustain life in different ways from one another, allowing them to have more time to achieve their telos as a "political animal" (Aristotle, p. 4). Nevertheless, in comparison to women, natural slaves would have had no rights because they are considered inherently lacking rational powers and practical reason. Therefore, they should be enslaved in order to fulfill their natural telos of providing for the natural ruler and dedicating themselves to menial duties (Aristotle, p.15).

Natural slaves are inherently inferior to citizens and exist to serve citizens, allowing them time to improve their lives and pursue political enrichment. In the household, the natural ruler is the citizen who has the leisure to engage in the city-state's political life and participate in the administration of justice and offices (Aristotle, p. 66).

According to Aristotle, living a good life as a citizen involves developing oneself as a "political animal" (Aristotle, p. 4). Monetary supplies for the household should only be used to meet basic needs and fulfill human life, rather than for luxuries or a particular style of living. Aristotle believed that possessions would not bring lasting satisfaction, as the desire for more would always increase (Aristotle, p.17-20).

According to Aristotle, the only way for individuals to attain their highest virtue would have been through politics and practical reason. This is because humans are the only beings capable of rational thinking. Therefore, their main purpose in life is to fulfill their natural telos, which is the good life, by actively participating in politics. In contrast, natural slaves are unable to achieve this telos because of their inherent limitations and inferior status compared to citizens (Aristotle, p. 3-5).

Their inherent role in life is to be in the service of the ruler and meet their needs, as the natural slave lacks the ability for reasoning, "For he is a slave by nature who is capable of belonging to another - which is also why he belongs to another - and who participates in reason only to the extent of perceiving it, but does not have it" (1254b16-23). Aristotle notes that natural slaves are often born from other natural slaves, although there are instances where superiors also possess natural slaves.

However, Aristotle finds it challenging to ascertain the full rational impairment of the natural slave and determine the grounds for enslavement. Consequently, this issue complicates the identification of individuals who should be enslaved, the reasons behind their enslavement, and the differentiation between natural slaves and natural rulers. Aristotle posits that discerning natural slaves is simpler than commonly perceived, as everyone possesses an innate inclination to excel in a specific task that may not necessarily involve politics.

According to the author, Hobbes believes that not all individuals should participate in politics. Instead, he argues that they would be better off focusing on their specific areas of knowledge, as this would benefit both themselves and society. Hobbes' views on equality, inequality, and the good life differ significantly from Aristotle's concepts of natural slaves and natural telos for citizens in political life. While Hobbes sees equality as applicable to all individuals in a physical sense, Aristotle's perspective differs. Hobbes believes that human beings are equally vulnerable to death or being killed, and equally motivated to determine their desires and strive to achieve them (Hobbes, p.169-170).

Through the study of Epistemology and Metaphysics, Hobbes provides a clear depiction of human nature and its motivations. According to Hobbes, humans are driven by desires, internal movements or emotions, which can be categorized as either appetite or aversion. Appetite refers to a desire for something that causes satisfaction, while aversion is an inclination to move away from something (Hobbes, p. 140).

According to Aristotle, the good of a citizen is to participate in the political life of the city-state, while excessive desire for material wealth is considered evil. However, Hobbes disagrees and argues that humans are driven by their desires, and what one considers good or evil depends on their personal preferences. As Hobbes states, "the object of any man's appetite or desire, that is it which he for his part calleth good: and the object of his hate and aversion, evil; and his contempt, vile and inconsiderable" (Hobbes, p.141).

The fundamental aspects of emotions are easily observable in the 'state of nature', as described by Hobbes. This state, though not historically or realistically accurate, is logically accurate in representing the inherent nature and challenges of human beings. It exists outside of any political system or authority. In this state, all individuals are equal in physical and natural terms. They share equal vulnerability to death and equal potential for achieving their objectives or desires.

Due to the equality between two parties who both desire the same materialistic good, distrust arises. As Hobbes explains, when two men want something that cannot be enjoyed by both, they become enemies. They will then strive to destroy or conquer each other in order to achieve their own self-preservation or sometimes just for pleasure (Hobbes, p. 170). This results in a state of war, not limited solely to physical battles and fighting, but also encompassing the known inclination towards it (Hobbes, p. 171).

According to Hobbes, war can be caused by various factors such as competitions, diffidence, or the pursuit of glory. In such a state, there is no room for industry, cultural development, navigation, convenient architecture, means of transportation, knowledge of geography, artistic expression, written communication, social interaction. The consequences of this state of war are constant fear and the danger of violent death. As a result, human life becomes lonely, impoverished, filthy, bestial, and short (Hobbes, p. 170-171 from Sparksnotes.com).

According to Hobbes' theory of the 'state of nature', there is no injustice or unbreakable social contracts due to the absence of a higher power to enforce punishment. The driving forces behind people's actions are the fear of death and the desire for more possessions to increase comfort, which ultimately leads to the pursuit of peace. Humans are obligated by the laws of nature to preserve their lives, seek peace, establish peaceful agreements, and uphold these agreements (Hobbes, p. 172). It is in their best interest to remain alive and have comfortable lives.

Therefore, according to Hobbes, it is crucial for society to have laws and authoritative figures in place to ensure order and protection. Hobbes suggests that the ideal scenario would involve individuals surrendering their rights to a higher power, who would be responsible for the welfare of the people and provide them with the essentials for survival. However, once this sovereign authority takes control, the concept of equality among individuals changes immediately. Instead of being equal to one another, everyone becomes subordinates to the supreme ruler, whose authority should never be challenged or disrupted, as their primary objective is to establish and preserve peace.

According to Hobbes, equality does not equate to equal political rights for all. Instead, it signifies the shared vulnerability of humans to death and the equal opportunity for each person to pursue and accomplish their goals. Hobbes believes that true fulfillment lies in a state of inequality, where a higher power known as the sovereign enforces order and peace among human beings who are prone to a state of war and mutual distrust in the absence of political authority.

Humans are often described as 'desiring machines', driven by self-interest and focused on fulfilling their own goals, in order to maintain their lives and live comfortably. Hobbes' concept of equality is more attractive than Aristotle's hierarchical system, which places individuals in positions of superiority or inferiority. Hobbes, in contrast, believes that all humans start on an equal footing in terms of physical vulnerability and the ability to pursue their own well-being and achieve it.

According to Hobbes, the subjects of the sovereign give up many of their rights and lose certain liberties, yet under a good sovereign, their lives would improve with the benefits of peace and essential necessities. Additionally, they would have greater opportunities for personal growth. For Hobbes, a fulfilling life is achieved when people are harmoniously connected in a society governed by a benevolent sovereign, ensuring sustenance and support for all.

According to Aristotle, under an Aristotelian rule, individuals' achievements would be restricted and predetermined based on their social status. Aristotle argues that natural slaves tend to produce more natural slaves, creating a cycle of limited opportunities that cannot be overcome. Only citizens are allowed to engage in the political realm, although not all citizens choose to do so. Moreover, some citizens have a limited capacity to develop practical reasoning compared to other areas they may be more interested in.

Aristotle believes that equality only applies to individuals who are subject to some form of political rule. The remaining individuals exist to ensure that those who can participate in politics have the necessary leisure time and basic requirements for survival. Aristotle's concept of a fulfilling life can only be attained by a privileged few citizens who are able to engage in political activities. The rest of society experiences a less fulfilling telos. By examining Aristotle's notions of natural human telos, natural slave, and natural ruler, we gain insight into the historical context in which he lived.

According to one idea, social inequality grants the benefits only to a select few citizens who can attain them through their household and practical reasoning. The remaining members of society are simply the providers and subordinates to the political sphere. In contrast, Hobbes' theory of equality posits that all humans have the same starting point - 'We are all equal because we can all kill each other and we all want to determine what is good for us.' Hobbes refers to humans as 'desiring machines' who fulfill their own needs and self-interests.

According to Hobbes, the fear of death and the desire for more possessions would drive people to seek peace and willingly surrender their rights to a sovereign in order to avoid war-like conditions.

However, Thomas Hobbes' interpretation of natural equality is more favorable because he offers society greater potential for equality and opportunity, compared to Aristotle's hierarchical categorization of individuals into natural superiors, inferiors, and slaves who have limited prospects and achievements.

The text below provides information about two books: "Leviathan. Modern Political Thought - Readings from Machiavelli to Nietzsche" edited by David Wooton and published by Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. in 1996, and "Aristotle. The Politics" translated by C. D. C. Reeve and also published by Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. in Indianapolis/Cambridge.