Aristotle Just And Unjust Analysis

Aristotle, on the other hand, had a much more positive outlook on the applicability of his political theory. In many ways, his ideal ideology would look much like Plato’s, although with a more guided and empirical approach. Aristotle, like Plato, argued that the state was not only necessary, but essential to the happiness of its people, because the state was the only means by which the city could achieve happiness. According to Aristotle, “the best good is apparently something complete” and likewise, that “happiness more than anything else seems complete without qualification” (Nicomachean Ethics, 205) and “everyone aims at living well and at happiness” (Politics, 315). Furthermore, he argued that “happiness is an activity of the soul expressing

According to Aristotle, there are two types of constitutions: Just and Unjust. Aristotle believes that the most just constitution is a monarchy. The second most just would be aristocracy, and lastly would be polity. Each of these constitutions has an mirroring unjust constitution, which are tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy respectively. The difference between the unjust and the just is that, while a just constitution promotes the good of everyone, the unjust promotes the good of only a select few. As we have established, if the primary role of the state is to secure and maintain the most possible happiness for the people, the surely an unjust state would not be a state capable of achieving this goal. Monarchies seem the ideal constitution to Aristotle because the virtue of the monarch is not diluted by the potentially selfish desires of others. However, this is also the least stable of the

The state achieves this by implementing laws which promote justice and virtue, by educating its people so that they may make better and more informed choices toward happiness, and by overall promoting the interests of the whole rather than that of any one individual. However, the just state may be impossible according to Plato and Aristotle, but this is not to say that we should give up entirely. Rather, we should make note of the just city and continuously aspire to that ultimate state of happiness, for the city that aspires toward justice, although imperfect, is the best possible condition we are capable of