This is a comprehensive summary of “Politics” by Aristotle. The book explores a foundational work in the history of western political philosophy.

what’s in it for me? a bite-sized guide to aristotle’s political philosophy.#

Introduction

aristotle.

politics.

narrated by ariane stanley and morag sims how relevant is aristotle's political thought today?

on the face of it, it's about as far removed from contemporary politics as it's possible to be.

the highest form of political life for aristotle was the polis, or city-state.

this was a small, independent city of maximum 100,000 citizens that enabled a life of contemplation and political debate.

the polis died out in late antiquity, and we wouldn't want to revive it as these city-states relied on a large population of slave labour.

but aristotle's politics isn't just of historical interest.

as antiquated as we may find many of his conclusions, the questions aristotle raised in his work still matter today.

what's the best way of organising society?

what makes humans happy?

how can we ensure the common good?

in these chapters, we'll retrace aristotle's arguments and shed light on some of his most famous ideas.

humans can speak and reason, and this makes us moral creatures.#

how should states be ruled?

what is the best form of government?

these questions have been at the heart of western political philosophy for some 2,500 years.

at the very beginning of that tradition, in 4th century bce greece, aristotle set out to answer them.

but before we can talk about how best to arrange a society, we need to know something about the people who live in it.

what is their nature?

answering this can help us think more clearly about what it is that we actually want states and governments to do.

the key message in this chapter is, humans can speak and reason, and this makes us moral creatures.

aristotle was an empiricist.

he believed in the power of observation.

if you want to understand any animal, he thought, you have to look at how it behaves.

follow a bee, for example, and you'll observe it gathering food.

stay on its trail and you'll learn that it isn't merely satisfying its own needs.

it's collecting resources for its hive.

here you'll discover a society with a division of labour.

some bees farm, others are soldiers.

at the top, there's even a ruler, the queen.

bees, it turns out, are social animals like us.

humans live in states, bees live in hives.

both are communal constructs that serve the common good of their members.

but there's a vital difference.

in the ancient greek polis, a city-state like aristotle's athens, labour was also divided among farmers, soldiers, workers and rulers.

each class fulfilled its individual role, and the result of their collective work was the common good, the preservation of their city.

but humans who lived in city-states did something bees don't.

they also thought and talked about how our society should be organised, just as we still do today.

we do this because we, unlike other animals, possess logos, a greek word meaning both reason and speech.

these faculties have profound moral implications.

say someone is causing you physical pain and you'd like them to stop.

here, your logos would come in handy.

to express pain, all you need is a voice.

a grunt or bark will do.

humans aren't just animals, though.

our voices are capable of conveying far more than mere grunts or barks.

we can attempt to stop the pain by explaining why it's morally right to treat others as you'd want to be treated yourself.

and other humans have the faculty of reason to accept or reject our arguments, and change their behaviour accordingly.

aristotle, who believed that nature makes nothing in vain, says that this is why we possess the gift of speech.

it allows us to make moral judgements and cooperate with others in leading a life that conforms to what we think is right.

humans are political animals.#

chapter 2 of 9 when aristotle wrote his political treaties, he was entering a centuries-old debate about the polis.

on one side of the debate, sceptics drew a sharp line between nature and culture.

humans, they said, are born free.

cities and their laws are artificial constructs that keep us shackled.

their opponents disagreed.

to live in a polis, they argued, is a blessing.

why?

well, laws may be artificial, but that's a good thing since they provide a corrective to our dangerous natural instincts and appetites.

similar positions continue to shape debate in our societies today.

aristotle, however, thought both camps were wrong.

as he saw it, the polis doesn't rein in our beta instincts.

it also doesn't negate our freedom.

rather, it fulfills it.

here's the key message.

humans are political animals.

what does aristotle mean when he calls us political animals?

let's start with the greek term he uses, zoon politikon.

literally translated, this means animals of the polis.

what aristotle is suggesting, in other words, is that the city-state is our natural habitat.

recall what we said about reason and speech in the previous chapter.

these faculties allow us to distinguish between justice and injustice.

this doesn't mean that we are innately good, only that we can become good or virtuous.

the real question, then, is about what makes this transformation possible.

the answer aristotle gives is the polis.

when we live outside political communities, he says, we are the most dangerous animals of all.

gifted with a superior intellect that sets us apart from other creatures, we are craftier than tigers and crocodiles, and therefore more formidable.

when we use our brainpower for immoral ends, we are capable of unrivaled evil.

but when we choose to live in a city-state, we are making a free choice to live in a community that is based on reason and speech.

to make laws, we have to think rationally about, and discuss, ideas with others.

what kind of lives do we want to lead?

which laws will make that kind of life possible?

answering these questions creates a shared moral language that reveals the common interest of all.

now, in his previous work on ethics, aristotle had already told us that working with others to discover justice and live justly is the very definition of the good life.

this, for aristotle, is the best kind of life because it answers our highest needs as humans.

and if the highest part of our natures can only be satisfied within a polis, it must follow that we are political animals by nature.

if city-states don’t pursue virtue, it’s because they are badly ruled.#

chapter 3 of 9 so far, we've followed aristotle to the conclusion that the polis allows us to lead virtuous lives.

but were the city-states of ancient greece actually virtuous?

the evidence wasn't on aristotle's side.

before he started working on politics, aristotle collected data on the constitutions of around a hundred city-states.

only one city, athens' great rival, sparta, appeared to value virtue.

but even the spartans fell short of aristotle's standards.

sure, they cultivated military virtue and were excellent and honourable fighters, but in peacetime they were as corrupt as any other city-state.

maybe cultivating virtue wasn't the purpose of a polis after all, but aristotle refused to accept this idea.

this is the key message.

if city-states don't pursue virtue, it's because they are badly ruled.

aristotle believed that it is a principle of nature that anything consisting of multiple parts contains a ruling element and a ruled element.

musical modes, for example, are arranged around dominant notes.

when they rule, there's harmony.

when they don't, there's discord.

this principle also applies to humans, who consist of two parts.

a lower animal part, the body, and the higher rational part, the mind, or, as aristotle calls it, the soul.

when the soul rules the body, there's harmony.

reason tempers the body's appetites.

it can conceive of higher ends and satisfies the desires of the body as a means to this end.

our souls know that no one achieves wisdom on an empty stomach, but also that a person who lives only to eat good food and drink fine wine is unlikely to be wise.

crucially, to be ruled by the higher element benefits both parts.

moderate habits are good for the body's health, for example, and farmers take care of their own needs as well as those of the animals they rule.

in contrast, when the lower element has the upper hand, it becomes a tyrant.

the soul will not neglect the body, but the body will drink and eat until the mind is dulled.

cities can also be ruled by their lowest or highest elements.

if they are ruled by the former, they will be like the city-states of 4th century bce greece and exist only to pursue the lowest parts of human nature.

to break this down, we'll need to look at one of aristotle's most controversial arguments, his defence of slavery.

aristotle justified slavery on “natural” grounds.#

chapter 4 of 9 is slavery just?

today the question seems absurd.

slavery, we think, is obviously unjust.

in ancient greece, most people felt as strongly about their answer to this question as we do about ours.

from their perspective, slavery was just as obviously just.

this shouldn't surprise us.

slavery was common throughout the mediterranean and, without it, city-states like athens would have been very different places.

greek citizens had time to think about philosophy, participate in political debate, and write plays and poems because the labour required to keep a city running had been imposed upon a slave population many times larger than the population of free citizens.

it's thus unsurprising that aristotle defends slavery.

and, unfortunately, we can't simply dismiss his argument.

why not?

well, although he does offer a pretty conventional defence of slavery as it existed in ancient greece, he also uses slavery as a foil to discuss the good life.

as we'll see, this will play an important role in his later arguments.

the key message here is, aristotle justified slavery on natural grounds.

aristotle claims that people are, quote, by nature, slaves.

what does this shocking statement mean?

natural slaves, he argues, cannot reason for themselves, which means they require a master who can reason on their behalf.

think back to what we said about the body and the soul.

for aristotle, slaves have only a bodily existence.

all they are capable of is labouring with their bodies, which in turn satisfies the bodily needs of their masters.

the slave master, by comparison, has both a body and the capacity to reason.

when he rules, he looks both to his own and the slaves' good.

put differently, slaves benefit from slavery because their relationship with a master allows them to participate, albeit indirectly, in the life of reason.

but who are these natural slaves?

to his credit, aristotle takes issue with at least one aspect of slavery as it was practiced in the greek world.

many people, he says, are held in slavery because their parents were enslaved after being defeated in war, a common practice in the 4th century bce and one that aristotle thinks is unjust.

but while nature may intend for good to come from good and bad from bad, this is not always the case.

it follows that many slaves are not natural slaves and should be released.

but, as we'll see in the next chapter, this is not an argument for wholesale abolition.

in fact, slavery is too important to aristotle's argument for him to even consider such a view.

aristotle thinks that free humans have a distinctive way of reasoning.#

chapter 5 of 9 why does aristotle bother defending slavery?

remember, it was widely accepted in his age, and if aristotle wanted to make an argument against slavery, it would make sense for him to spend some time elaborating a point of view that would surprise his contemporaries.

but this isn't what he wants to do.

it may be that he is using slavery to advance a different kind of argument, because what aristotle really wants to talk about, it seems, is reason.

the key message in this chapter is, aristotle thinks that free humans have a distinctive way of reasoning.

in plato's republic, a text that is often cited in the politics, one of socrates' sparring partners argues that rational thought is simply a tool.

like our arms and legs, reason helps us satisfy bodily needs and desires.

true, it's more complex than brute force, but a protractor is more complex than a hammer, and yet we still call both tools.

aristotle rejects this line of thought.

if our only purpose in life is satisfying the needs and desires of our bodies, it becomes impossible to tell free people and enslaved people apart, since slaves are also capable of using reason as a tool.

let's break that down.

aristotle ultimately argues that non-greeks are natural slaves, since their societies, however complex, are not dedicated to a life of reason.

this looks like an odd claim.

as we've seen, natural slaves are, according to aristotle, people who can't reason independently.

and yet he must have been aware of the intellectual achievements of non-greeks like xerxes, the archaemenid emperor who masterminded the invasion of greece.

in other works, aristotle also credits the egyptians with the invention of mathematics and admits that babylonians are excellent astronomers.

but there are, aristotle says, different kinds of reason.

natural slaves can build houses, organise armies and observe the stars, but this is technical reasoning.

it tells us how to do something, but not why we should do it.

practical reasoning is different.

it's concerned with the ultimate end or higher good we're trying to achieve by pursuing any action.

for aristotle, the highest end is the good life, living virtuously.

as we've seen, this is the kind of life the polis makes possible.

but we now also know who will participate in it.

free humans who are capable of practical reasoning.

like the soul ruling the body, aristotle believes these people will look to the common good of the city.

there are three correct regimes and three deviant regimes.#

chapter 6 of 9 who should rule the city?

aristotle's answer is simple.

the virtuous.

people who have already mastered practical wisdom, he believes, will look to the common good of all citizens and past laws that promote virtue.

ok, so we'll put the virtuous in charge.

but what kind of regime should the polis adopt?

aristotle lists three possibilities.

if the city possesses one person who is more virtuous than the rest put together, that person should rule.

if there's a small group of exceptionally virtuous people, government should be entrusted to them.

but if all citizens acting together are more virtuous than any group, then all citizens should rule.

this last option, he argues, is the best kind of regime.

this is the key message.

there are three correct regimes and three deviant regimes.

when one person rules, aristotle calls the regime a monarchy.

rule by a small group is called aristocracy and rule by all citizens a polity.

note, though, that all three regimes promote the common interest and virtue even though they adopt different means to pursue this goal.

aristotle claims that there are also three deviant regimes.

these mirror the correct regimes.

sometimes one person rules, sometimes a group, and sometimes the majority.

these are called tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy.

all different in organization, but they share one trait.

they pursue their own appetites and desires rather than the common good.

a tyrant, for example, looks only to his own interests and tramples his subjects.

similarly, oligarchs use their power to line their own pockets and neglect poorer citizens' interests.

aristotle's inclusion of democracy on the side of deviant regimes might surprise us, but he is using the term in a very specific way.

democracy, for him, refers to the rule of the majority that uses power to plunder the city and ride roughshod over the rights of minorities.

which regime should we choose?

aristotle is an elitist at heart and says that monarchy is the best form of government, but he's also pretty pragmatic.

in reality, he admits a person who possessed more virtue than the whole city would be closer to a god than a human, and it's extremely unlikely that we'll find such an individual among us.

and monarchy easily degrades into tyranny, the worst of the deviant regimes.

small groups of supremely wise and benevolent people are also rare, which rules out aristocracy.

that leaves polity, the most practical of the three correct regimes.

as we'll see, the first issue polities have to address is class conflict.

class conflict undermines democracies.#

aristotle provides a couple of compelling arguments in favour of democratic rule.

individually, he begins, citizens may not be particularly virtuous.

collectively, though, they can become like a single human being with many hands and feet and a greater character.

he likens this to a potluck dinner.

no individual cook may be better than the most talented chef, but many cooks contributing dishes can provide a greater feast than the best chef could on his own.

it is also true, aristotle thinks, that a crowd is often more virtuous than an individual.

it is easier, after all, to bribe a single judge than it is to sway a crowd.

this suggests that democracies are capable of virtue, so why does aristotle regard them as deviant regimes?

well, despite their theoretical merits, democracies are often highly unstable.

the key message in this chapter is, class conflict undermines democracies.

earlier on, we discussed aristotle's idea that citizens can come to share a moral language based on common ideas of what is just and what is unjust.

in democratic city-states like athens, however, the question of justice didn't unite citizens.

it divided them.

two things stood out in aristotle's athens.

first, all citizens held the same right to participate in the political process.

in this respect, they were equals.

secondly, a small number of citizens were much wealthier than the poor majority.

in this respect, they were unequal.

now, justice for aristotle is based on the idea that people receive rewards or punishments according to their merit or worth.

athenians found it easy, for example, to agree that citizens and slaves were unequal and that the latter should therefore not have the same rights as the former.

but the dispute between the rich and the poor was harder to settle.

the poor argued that since citizens were equal in some respects, they should be equal in all things, including wealth.

the rich said the opposite.

since athenians were unequal in wealth, they should be unequal in all things, including rights.

political power, in other words, should belong to the economic elite.

this argument spilled over into open conflict.

popular leaders rose to power promising to level the playing field and tax or even plunder the rich.

in response, the rich abandoned democracy and sought to install themselves as exclusive rulers, which further inflamed the poor majority's sense of injustice.

so how do you end this vicious cycle?

aristotle proposed two solutions.

laws are impartial, and so we should allow them to decide as many matters as possible.#

according to aristotle, neither the poor nor the wealthy act in the city's interests.

why is this?

think back to what we said about the body and the soul.

the body is a poor ruler because it neglects the soul.

the soul, by contrast, acts on reason and looks to the common good of the body and the soul.

for aristotle, both the rich and the poor are governed by their appetites rather than by reason.

this means they look to their own interests and neglect the common good of the city.

the wealthy, for example, are instilled with what aristotle calls a love of ruling and desire to rule, and they seek to satisfy this desire even at the risk of throwing the city into turmoil.

the poor, meanwhile, attempt to use government to enrich themselves, which also creates conflict.

it's easy to see, then, why the rich should dread the poor coming to power and vice versa.

but there is a way to solve this problem.

here's the key message.

laws are impartial, and so we should allow them to decide as many matters as possible.

desire corrupts rulers.

the rich desire to rule for its own sake, and the poor desire power to advance their material interests.

in both cases, they neglect the common good of the city and treat others unjustly.

for both groups, government becomes a means of bestowing favours and distributing spoils to their allies.

can we prevent people misusing government in this manner?

aristotle thinks we can if we delegate as many decisions as possible to the law.

the law, he says, is wisdom without appetite.

what he means is that laws are fixed in advance.

a judge can be swayed, but laws are impartial.

they can only be implemented or ignored.

admittedly, this can be a bad thing.

aristotle notes, for example, that a city-state in today's turkey had an ancient law that allowed accusers to call their own relatives as witnesses when seeking to prove that a defendant was guilty of murder.

luckily, these kinds of laws are exceptions to the rule.

in most cases, the laws of our ancestors follow principles we continue to believe are just.

the rule of law, then, provides a neutral way of settling disputes that both parties can agree upon.

this in turn diffuses political conflict.

if we know that our opponents will have their hands tied by the law when they come to power, we are more likely to accept their rule, since our rights cannot be arbitrarily denied or violated.

the middle class is more likely to safeguard the interests of the polis than the rich or the poor.#

as we've seen, aristotle classifies democracy as a flawed regime.

we've also explored how the rule of law can stabilise democracies.

but is this really the best we can do?

in a word, no.

there is a better regime.

the polis.

let's remind ourselves of the difference between a democracy and a polis.

in the latter, citizens exercise power to advance the common good rather than their own interests.

why, though, would the mob of a democracy suddenly behave virtuously?

the key message in this chapter is, the middle class is more likely to safeguard the interests of the polis than the rich or the poor.

the problem plaguing democratic city-states like athens in aristotle's time was as easy to describe as it was hard to solve.

extreme economic inequality eroded the polis' foundations.

a city, after all, is an association of free people who decide to share their lives and dedicate themselves to the good life.

for aristotle, this can only be a relationship among equals who treat each other with affection and respect.

class conflict destroys such bonds.

instead of seeing fellow citizens, the rich see inferiors who deserve nothing but contempt.

the poor, meanwhile, are consumed by envy.

put differently, the wealthy are too arrogant and the impoverished are too malicious to be virtuous citizens.

so to whom should the polis turn?

when he talks about ethics, aristotle always praises the middle path between extremes.

a coward, for example, is of no use during a battle, but a soldier who is too bold and recklessly gets himself killed charging the enemy by himself isn't very helpful either.

the virtue of courage, aristotle concludes, lies between these extremes.

he also thinks that the virtue of citizenship is a middle path.

the best citizens will be found among the middle classes.

why is this?

well, first off, they're neither arrogant like the rich nor envious like the poor.

secondly, they're content with their lot in life.

they don't resent those who are wealthier than they are, and they're not wealthy enough for the poor to bother plotting against them.

most importantly, though, their interests align with those of the city as a whole.

they thrive when the city thrives, which is why they seek to preserve its institutions.

in practice, they side with the poor against the rich and the rich against the poor when one group grows too powerful.

when the middle classes make up the majority of citizens, aristotle concludes, the best regime becomes possible, the polis.

you've just listened to our chapters to politics by aristotle.

final summary#

Conclusion

the key message in these chapters is that aristotle lived in a world of city-states.

these were flawed political communities in his time, but he was convinced that a well-ruled polis could answer humans' deepest needs.

this is because humans are political animals.

we reach our potential by living with others and collectively figuring out the best way to live, which is what political deliberation in a city-state is all about.

of course, citizens can only spend their days talking about the good life if someone else does the work, which is why aristotle, like most ancient greeks, also defends slavery.

while these arguments clearly belong to a bygone age, much of aristotle's political advice is strikingly modern.

the best political community, he concludes, will be based on the rule of law and empower the middle class.

both ideas remain central to democracies in our own time.

do you have some feedback for us?

because if you do, then we would love to hear what you think about our content.

so just drop us an email to rememberatsummarybook.org with politics as the subject line and share your thoughts with us.

Discover more book summaries in the same category or by the same author.

Macbeth

History20 min read