The political ruling aims primarily to govern citizens and give a listening ear to their concerns. The governance of states is founded on law and regulations whose primary goal is to enable citizens to live a quality life. All citizens in a state aspire to live safely and peacefully while utilizing opportunities intended to fulfill their basic needs. In other words, historically, a government must ensure citizens’ needs are met adequately. Thus, the concept of the common interest or interest in life has been pursued by scholars and ancient philosophers alike. While Aristotle strongly rejects Plato’s claim that there is no value in collective unity, this essay illustrates that both philosophers have a common view on moral responsibility, which often leads to the common good.
Plato and Aristotle differ regarding the role of individuals in society. Plato’s main consideration in the Republic is society’s well-being and the important role that every person can serve inside it. In Plato’s vision, society has no place for people who do not contribute to its progress or common interest. For example, he contends that if a sick individual is unable to return to work and restore his health, or “if his body isn’t up to surviving, he gets rid of his troubles by dying” (Plato & Bloom, 1968; 406e). Plato finds no value in “rehabilitating someone unable to live a regular life since such a person benefits, not himself or his society.” (Plato & Bloom, 1968; 409e). In other words, people in a community who seem to do nothing are to be destroyed, and the well-being of enslaved, even though they provide a social purpose, is disregarded.
However, Aristotle believes that every person in society has inherent values that add up to create a common interest. It does not matter whether that person is rich or poor or sick or healthy. In his vision, the absence of one group somehow paralyzes the operation of another. “When several villages are united in a single community, perfect and large enough to be nearly or quite self-sufficing, the state comes into existence… (Aristotle et al., 1920, p.28).
This quote suggests that ruling in the interest of the citizens is only possible where there is unity, which is enhanced democratically. As such, the underlying needs of the citizens can be recognized by the political rulers if there is a voice from a democratic group. Given this view, citizens and rulers form a triangle of a collective group. Thus, there can be no common interest and ultimately democracy when other members of society are ignored or eliminated.
Collectivism tends to give respective groups a chance to air out their opinions rather than having to listen to an individual. This assumes that the collective group has the same opinion and ideology, which can be misleading. Aristotle rejects this idea, noting that people belong to a common group due to a unifying social status, educational level, or religious belief does not guarantee that they share the same perspective and ideologies (Aristotle et al., 1920).
Collectivism, therefore, has biases on criteria chosen to achieve a common interest of the society. Once a group of politically affiliated individuals has different ideologies, there will be differentiated opinions to achieve a community’s interest in life (Plato & Bloom, 1968). Knowing that one problem is critical and needs immediate attention might cause chaos. According to one group, what the state might feel is of priority and needs immediate attention might be of little concern to another group. In such situations, war is justified as it is “nothing but a means towards securing peace” (Aristotle et al., 1920, p.22). Thus, Aristotle believes that dissatisfied groups might cause chaos and destabilize the peaceful atmosphere of the nation.
Plato’s collectivism provides the quickest means for accomplishing goals or citizens’ needs. This is attributable to the fact that it assumes that one voice represents that of the majority. According to Aristotle, this is wrong since a group cannot exist without the individual (Aristotle et al., 1920). Aristotle seems to be right because, by Plato’s logic, the state may allocate resources to meet the group’s needs without considering whether they benefit or disadvantage particular individuals within the group. Further, it raises several questions, such as whether it makes sense to hold a group responsible for its actions.
In this regard, Aristotle thinks that Plato’s collectivism makes it difficult to comprehend the concept of collective obligation in terms of moral obligation since it mainly focuses on the causal (Aristotle et al., 1920). In this way, it is difficult to see how collectivism leads to achieving the common interest.
The above points suggest that Plato and Aristotle’s viewpoints on moral responsibility and, in totality, the common interest share no similarities. However, this is not necessarily the case when examining Aristotle’s thought-provoking insights in his book, Politics. His major interest was how everybody came together and formed a specific political unity or understanding (Aristotle et al., 1920).
Aristotle argues that in pursuit of the common interest, people develop the need to have a uniform goal. To achieve this goal, they recognize the importance of unifying under one leader. Thus, Aristotle opined that the concept was geared towards improving livelihood by a city-state that he called a community (Aristotle et al., 1920). In other words, there was no political body without a common interest or, rather, a common interest. This collective body is similar to Plato’s conception of the collective group in the Republic.
Social status or stratification determines to what extent rulers meet citizens’ needs. In Plato’s collectivism, this implies that citizens from dominant groups or those higher up in the ladder of social stratification are more likely to have their interests met than those from a minority group or lower class. Likewise, Aristotle claims that the common interest is also affected by the type of ruler elected by the citizens (Aristotle et al., 1920).
When voting, the main agenda is to choose a leader interested in solving societal problems after an in-depth understanding of citizens’ needs. Here, Aristotle advocates for political morality, which he believes leads to democracy discipline. For example, the ability of voters to use their common sense and not personal motivations or self-interests when choosing their rulers. In this way, the citizens become crucial drivers of enabling the state to promote the common interest.
In modern democracies, Aristotle’s concept of the common interest can be compared to protection from diseases, terrorism attacks, external wars, and any external harm that might affect citizens’ fundamental rights. Aristotle believes that the state can only fulfill these mandates if it can promote pluralism (Aristotle et al., 1920). Since pluralism is based on the idea that people have to work together to achieve a specific goal, it can influence a stable democratic movement.
The presence of a uniformed democratic movement facilitates citizen unity that can push for a common interest. The Politics suggest that citizens must be actively involved in the state’s effort to promote the common interest. Citizens’ involvement through pluralism is consistent with collectivism because they both allude that the common interest is a unifying factor and a communal effort. In this way, it is somewhat similar to Plato’s collectivism in the Republic.
Relating this to the current government and political practices systems, both Aristotle and Plato had very defined intentions for their respective concepts. They were both geared towards assessing the impact that common interest has on political bodies. Government and political bodies can easily achieve common interests when they have their ideas put together, and this is easily achieved through democratic movements. Aristotle has a strong will to the achievement of an interesting life through democracy. Plato, on the other hand, gives a little or no positive mindset on the same. He stated that ideas differ from one person to another, and change can cause an opinion to be of little or no importance or even less urgency for attention by the government.
Social protection remains central to Aristotle’s concept of the common interest. Every citizen always wants to feel protected from any harm, both external and internal. Thus, unlike Plato, Aristotle does not believe that the poor and the vulnerable should be disregarded and eliminated from society. In general, Plato and Aristotle agree that the state can give citizens a food life when it bases its governance on a common interest. Politically affiliated individuals should engage fully with the philosophical works of Plato and Aristotle. In this way, they can learn important lessons on the role of the state and the citizen in promoting the common interest.
References
Aristotle, Jowett, B., & Davis, H. W. C. (1920). Aristotle’s politics. (H. W. C. David, Trans.). Oxford. At the Clarendon Press.
Plato, & Bloom, A. (1968). The republic of Plato. (2nd Ed) (A. Bloom, Trans.). New York: Basic Books.