Plato and Aristotle on Liberty and the Declaration of Independence

Introduction: Classical Philosophy and the Declaration's Claims

Plato and Aristotle would respond to the statement of "rights" in the Declaration of Independence with far less enthusiasm or support than one might expect from the classical philosophers of a city celebrated for its democratic politics. These philosophers viewed the role of citizens in government not so much in terms of "rights" to be granted, but in terms of duties to be fulfilled. The notion of "rights," for example, places the individual at the forefront of any question about the State, whereas both Plato and Aristotle understood that when discussing the State, the heart of the matter is the common good — not the individual. It is therefore a question of what each person owes to the State in order to effect the common good. This is evident in the writings of Plato and Aristotle in The Republic and the Nicomachean Ethics, both of which demonstrate why these philosophers would not agree with the American Declaration of Independence, principally because of its message of individualism, which they would have perceived as contrary to the very purpose of the State.

Happiness as Duty, Not Right: Aristotle and Plato on Eudaimonia

The view of both philosophers, more or less, was that the purpose of life was to be happy. For Aristotle, this meant attaining eudaimonia (happiness); for Plato, it meant attaining knowledge, which he likened to wisdom, grace, truth, virtue, and right living. Each person had a part to play in this pursuit. It was not, therefore, a question of liberty or of individual rights, because such concerns did not necessarily align with the purpose that the philosophers identified as the point of life. One could, for example, set about an individualistic course that did not lead to happiness or to right living, and neither Aristotle nor Plato would recommend it as a good idea.

The fact that the Declaration makes no reference to what is meant by right living or eudaimonia would suggest to these philosophers that its drafters were more concerned with their individual liberties than with truth, virtue, or the duty they owed to pursuing happiness — and what that duty and pursuit actually entail. This is evident in the drafters' reference to the "pursuit of happiness" as an "unalienable right" rather than a duty. This line would have made no sense to Aristotle or Plato, who would have objected: how could one pursue happiness without guidance from a philosopher or some leader who knew right from wrong and could teach it to those within his state? For them, happiness was an ideal that had to be worked toward in purity and in truth.

Indeed, Aristotle likens happiness to a work or activity rather than to a state of being. Happiness is something one does, rather than something one merely pursues.¹ The Declaration makes it appear, however, as though happiness is something to which every American is entitled — as though citizens should expect to possess it, with their Government ensuring that no one can take away their claim to it. But where does the happiness come from? The Declaration does not say. It is like giving someone a treasure map without an "X" marking the spot and saying, "Go find the treasure; it is yours." The holder of the map will not know where to look, even if convinced that the happiness proclaimed as his right is somewhere out there. This may seem like a fine distinction, but in essence it represents a total conceptual reorientation of self and purpose — one that makes the philosophers' perspectives fundamentally different from those of the Founding Fathers.

Plato's Communal State vs. the Guarantor of Rights

For Plato, the State would be divided into two groups — guardians and craftsmen — and would take on the characteristics of a commune rather than those of a modern metropolis where every individual essentially labors for himself and shares nothing with others. Plato would suggest that by failing to share with or consider the others in one's community or State, one is not truly living in a communal fashion. This is the basic tenet of the idea that there is no "I" in team: for Plato, the State is a great collective working toward fulfillment — virtue, wisdom, nearness to the Good — that sort of thing. For the Founding Fathers, by contrast, the State is a guarantor of rights. The two notions really have nothing to do with one another.

Conclusion

The guarantee offered by the Founding Fathers is, from the classical perspective, exceedingly presumptuous. As soon as virtue stops guiding men, their notion of "rights" also ceases to matter — as anyone in America can observe today, and as Washington himself recognized and noted in his own Farewell Address. For Plato and Aristotle alike, the Declaration of Independence represents not a timeless articulation of human freedom but a fundamental misunderstanding of what civic life, happiness, and the State are ultimately for.

Bibliography

Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by Robert C. Bartlett and Susan D. Collins. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011.

Plato. The Republic. Edited by G. R. F. Ferrari, translated by Tom Griffith. Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought Series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.