Aristotle's Politics

Aristotle's Book Three of the Politics emphasizes what takes for a man to be a good citizen and what distinguishes a good citizen from a good man. The issue whether a good man can be a good citizen in the same time is controversial, as being a citizen sometimes implies doing bad for the sake of the community. According to Aristotle, the choice of being a good man is up to the good citizen and up to the state that he resides in. The main distinction between a good citizen and a good man resides in the fact that the good citizen will always fight for the well-being of the state first with no regards to the effects his actions would have on others, whereas the good man would consider the consequences that his actions would have on everybody and everything.

According to Aristotle, whether or not the good citizen can be a good man depends on the situation that exists in the particular state. "As to the question whether the virtue of the good man is the same as that of the good citizen, the considerations already adduced prove that in some states the good man and the good citizen are the same, and in others different."(Politics, 6)

The term citizenship refers to a person being a member of a certain community which he or she supports. But the question whether or not one is or isn't a member or a community is divisive as one normally has to participate in the community activities or to earn his or hers membership in the group through other means.

The community produced by people with citizenships is called a state and it as a rule has a leader or a group of leaders that look after its comfort. However, Aristotle's book does not give an accurate definition of a state, nor does it attempt to give an exact example of a state form.

"What is a state?' At present this is a disputed question. Some say that the state has done a certain act; others, no, not the state, but the oligarchy or the tyrant. And the legislator or statesman is concerned entirely with the state; a constitution or government being an arrangement of the inhabitants of a state." (Politics,1) an important clue when trying to understand the concept of "state" would be to follow Aristotle's judgment that the state is composed of citizens.

Again we are acquainted with a new term, that of "citizen," which, as the former terms, is also divisive. It owes its divisiveness to the fact that one who is a citizen in certain circumstances might not be a citizen in different conditions: "He who is a citizen in a democracy will often not be a citizen in an oligarchy."(Politics, 1)

It would take more than for one to reside in a community to make him or her part of the respective community. Aristotle's citizen would have to be one without any faults whatsoever in order for him or her to become a citizen in the first place. The ancient philosopher's idea of a citizen is that a typical citizen would be one that would contribute to the community's well-being and one that would share in an "indefinite office"(Politics,1)

In ancient times people would come up with all sorts of policies to differentiate a citizen from a normal being. Aristotle's theory that the citizen would have to have his or her share in the government would be the most truthful one, since most other theories were contentious. In reality, it did not matter whether or not a citizen deserved his or hers position, for as long as he or she held the title it meant that he or she had been worthy of being called a citizen.

Furthermore, Aristotle highlights the fact that one's citizenship depends on time also, as with the changing of a government some might not desire to continue their contribution to the political world.

The citizens in a state depend on the city that they inhabit, which in its turn depends on its residents. Thus, according to Aristotle, a state can be constantly altered by its citizens regardless of the fact that its citizens have been changed or not.

Despite the fact that all the citizens in a community bring their unique share to the state, they all have one common goal, which is to look after the benefit of the state. "The community is the constitution" (Politics, 4), hence all good citizens must obey each individual constitution that they have. Yet, because there are more than one forms of government, a good citizen could not possibly posses a "perfect virtue" (Politics, 4) and this would bring proof that the good citizen does not necessarily need to be a good man. From this we observe that the citizens in a good state will not be good men, "unless we assume that in the good state all the citizens must be good." (Politics, 4)

The citizens within the states however, are not equal and they all have different virtues with some citizens more advantaged than others. A good citizen can also be a good man, as in the case of leaders are good men and most of them are trained from a young age in the art of being good.

A good leader can poses the assets of a good man only if he or she had been trained to do so since his or her childhood. It is believed that a leader does not need to learn unskilled tasks that he does not perform, but in actual fact an honorable citizen should learn both how to obey and how to rule.

Aristotle states that all the equal men in a society that want to become good citizens should be familiar with the term of subordinate in order to learn the affairs of being a master. (Politics, 5) Thus, a good leader needs to learn how to lead successfully by analyzing the state of affairs from an assistant position in the first place.

True citizens of the state cannot be identified only from having a share in the office because the low-skilled people that have no connection to the office would remain with no position in the state as "they are not resident aliens, and they are not foreigners." (Politics, 5) Finally, we may accept all the inhabitants of a state to have citizenship, but each of the citizens would have a citizenship status which would determine the exact social position that the individual would have.

The status of citizenship depends on the form of government also, as one that in an aristocracy is a laborer or any other type of low-skilled worker cannot possibly be a citizen, neither can he or she aspire to high merits in the state. In an oligarchy things are different as in spite of the fact that a laborer can never obtain citizenship, a mechanic could easily be a citizen due to the fact that mechanics are wealthy. In a state where democracy is the form of government citizenship is based on the number of inhabitants that the state has, with a lot of citizen titles being given when there are little people in the state.

The government is based on the constitution, as the latter it formed as to be obeyed by all inhabitants of the state. Men have created politics in order for them to contribute for the security of the state and to form a safe system. The leaders have to act for the good of the entire population because it, in its turn, gives them a reason to exist. Normally, politics have been created so that every citizen would have the chance to lead or to take part in the state affairs. Despite the fact that the system has been created for everyone, most people that become leaders tend to attend their own interests in favor of those of the state.