Aristotle's Politics

In reading Aristotle's Politics, I am starting to see the connections between his philosophy and the central themes in the modern day constitution, in the Universal Declaration of Humans Rights and so forth.  Interesting that Hegel and Marx derived many of their ideas from Aristotle.

I agree with the thesis that all relationships and associations are formed with the intent of achieving good, although 'good' can carry a variety of meanings.  No one can deny that humans are social and political animals.  The community's interests trumps over individual interests (within reason).  But how does one decide which are the community's interests?  Aristotle suggests a democracy in which all citizens know each other and partake in active decision-making processes - quite different from our current conception of democracy.  In some ways, the 'communitarianism' advocated by Aristotle reminds me of anarchism except that within Aristotle's context and view, hierarchies need to exist and not all are qualified to become citizens.  If only a minority can reach the end goal, the life of leisure, contemplation and virtue, does the majority (means) really need to be sacrificed so that the minority can reach this goal (end)?  I asked myself similar questions in the context of animal ethics (or lack thereof issues).

I would have to reply with a very strong 'no'.  Even Aristotle admits that  a constitution (the organisation/guidelines of a community) is just when it benefits everyone in the city and unjust when it benefits only those in power.  Yet, he advocates exactly this - that (generally) only Greek men of a certain amount of wealth are eligible to become citizens - rather hypocritical if you ask me...  I am aware that slavery was the norm in his time and slavery was 'needed' to maintain Greek civilisation at the time but I use the word 'need' with much apprehension - I see a significant difference between 'needs' and 'wants' and while slavery was the norm does not necessarily excuse Aristotle's lack of awareness of the injustice of slavery and blatant discrimination against women and other minorities.

I am not discounting's Aristotle's vast contribution to society, rather I am making the point that the elite class that Aristotle belonged to had an agenda to maintain their power, wealth and leisure - he was part of the status and strived to do exactly this.  Sadly, not much has changed in this respect - we still have this conundrum of who can be a citizen today, who has the right to vote, when do they have the right to vote, when they can dissent and how they can become active members of their community/polis/nation-state.  Economic migrants seem to be the preferred class of migrants in Harper's government - is this just?  Is this really in the nation-state's best interest?  I am not convinced that it is.

The demarcation of labour espoused by Aristotle is also very much alive today and in many ways, they are the 'non-citizens' of our society - they remain in stasis, unable to move beyond their current economic condition and education level which people in the middle class (and the wealthy) are able to 'progress', to have some time for leisure and contemplation - I fall into the privileged middle class in society.

Is this the best constitution?  The best possible world?  I don't think so.  I think we can do better.  While I agree with the general essence of Aristotle's argument in Politics, the privilege of citizenship and the ability to reach the good life should be an opportunity available to all, regardless of their status in society.