The term philosophy has its origins in the  political philosophies which is entail freedom, legal code enforcement by authority, rights, liberty and law with respect to what constitutes the legitimacy of a government, freedoms and rights to be protected and the reason for protecting them and the duties owed by citizens to a government which is legitimate. Political philosophy finds its origins in ancient Greek period whilst nations were experimenting with several types of political systems including tyranny, democracy, oligarchy, aristocracy and monarchy. In one of his works Republic Plato defines what he calls as justice (Sayers, 1999). The republic refers to a philosophical conversation on the nature of justice including the character and order of a just individuals and a just city-state. Socrates concurs with Polemarchus on the fact that justice constitutes helping others and he indicates that a person who is just can never harm anybody. By saying so, Thrasymachus is strongly convinced that Socrates has been injustice to the present men and this leads him to attacking his reputation and character in public because he thinks Socrates does not understand that harming an opponent is unjust. According to Thrasymachus justice refers to that which is good as perceived by those in power or the stronger ones- the people who govern the city. Socrates however finds this meaning unclear and starts questioning Thrasymachus.

According to Thrasymachus justice comes from those governing a city or state hence their laws are fair as per his definition because they ratify the laws for their own benefits. Socrates then goes a head to inquire whether a leader, who makes a regulation that deems to lessen him, remains a leader with respect to Thrasymachus definition. But in response Thrasymachus agrees to the fact that no true leader would commit such a crime of lessening the laws. However, according to Aristotle, a ruler is a politician and a law giver who is entitled to providing a frame work of an appropriate constitution for the nation. This constitutes enduring institutions, laws and customs for the people (Rosen, 2005).

Having developed the constitution the, the ruler needs to maintain it, introduce reforms when necessary as well as stop developments which may sabotage the political system. Aristotle states that a lawgiver and politician is fully occupied with the nation and a constitution helps in organizing the citizens hence helping in protecting the (Nilstun, 1981) nations freedom. He indicates that because citizens are different from other people like slaves and resident aliens even seniors and children fit not to be citizens. He goes ahead to define a citizen as some one who has a right to partake in deliberative orand judicial office. For instance in Athens, citizens were entitled to attend the council, the assembly as well as sit on jurisdiction. This system was different from modern democracy because citizens took part in governing. Despite the fact that full citizenship was restrictive in Greek nations with foreigners, slaves and women- citizens were highly enfranchised as opposed to current democracies since they took part directly in governing the nation. This implies that to protect the nations freedom those people who are being governed must directly be involved in ruling.

The nature of individuals demands that they act co operatively towards discursive animals. Hence aggression to those not within another persons poll is forbidden with respect to justice, as opposed to aggression against a fellow citizen. People who are not citizen may also posses rights against the citizens of a nation (Mulgan, 1970). Aristotle refers to this as justice that is each time a common association occurs, a certain degree of justice would result. Polls are the most complete indication of an ideal hence justice can appear to be at its peak only through polls. On the other hand, Miller understands Aristotles passages of justice as rights he resists agreeing to the reality of rights prior to politics in the moral universe of Aristotle. He states that since natural justice is politically inherent it can not natural rights prior to politics held by persons in a nation that is pre-political in nature. Rights prior to politics are those rights which are enjoyed by individuals in a pre-political nation. Prepolitical rights in this case only refer to priority of rights. Miller fails to agree with Aristotle because he asserts that these are rights which are commonly universal as well as inhering in individuals from political or social relations. This seems to have much ambiguity because any theory on rights is it modern liberals or Aristotle theory can only be analyzed with respect to more than one person. If miller perceives that Aristotle believes that rights come from social contexts which are organized is very unconvincing. According to Aristotle Murder and theft are by no means justified, and he insists that people should possess a feeling of friendship to all people because friendship comes with justice obligation that is directly proportional to friendship.

 In considering Liberty evaluation by Aristotle, Miller differentiates Locke with Aristotle. According to Locke freedom defines the condition of human being.  Miller refers to liberty as an external good. Aristotle has divided all the goods in to three categories external good, goods for the soul and goods for the body. An individual freedom consists mainly in environmental facts as opposed to the body and soul (Nilstun, 1981). Miller on the hand uses external good to imply a good out side the well being of an individual, that which is not a constitutive element. It is critical that we consider the manuscripts in defining an external good which means that which is out side to the soul and body. Aristotle refers to an external good as that which is outside the well being of an agent and which bears an instrumental value. Aristotle finally defines freedom as that is state of being free outside slavery. There lacks a reason to believe that liberty from slavery overrides Aristotles instrumental good. In politics, slavery is incompatible with self-sufficient (Mulgan, 1970). The state of living for the sake of another person is what is called freedom. In addition to this liberty is important in the political theory of Aristotle. The importance of liberty according to Aristotle lies not in the tiny slavery chattel, he holds that political regimes amounts to slavery also called despotic rule which deprives a nation of its freedomliberty. Constitutions which are deviant are also despotic because they confine their subjects to slavery. This can be seen in Aristotles understanding of a citizen. Aristotle also defines a nation as a group of citizens that is enough for a life that is self-sufficient. In defining the constitution, he states that it is a means of organizing the nations offices especially the sovereign office. In this case a constitution becomes a governing organ that is in a democratic government it refers to the people. A polis refers to a nation which is free. Hence legitimate rule can be differentiated from despotic rule in the fact rulers in legitimate rule lead according to the communitys interest where as despotic rulers lead with their personal interests. The distinction between a person who is free and a slave is that one lives for the sake of his life where as another lives for the sake of the life of another.

This criterion which is based on the interest used in differentiating between despotism and freedom is often in the company of criterion that is based on the consent. Aristotle repeatedly suggests that governments which are legitimate possess the consent of those being governed as opposed to despotic governments which rule against the will of the people (Kallen et al,1969). This is a reply to the arguments of Plato concerning politicus. In the dialogue Plato earlier on treats absence or presence of consent with respect to the citizens as that which differentiates despotic government from a legitimate government. Following further reflection, Plato discards consent-based criterion stating that governing is similar to a profession like medicine the test of proper medical practice does not base on the consent of the client but rather on if or if not the correct medication can be prescribed by the physician. Plato concludes by saying that the truth does not lie in the person who rules by force but on that person who rules basing on wisdom. Aristotle agues against Plato are thinking on the physicians analogue. Doctors do not force treatment on patients instead they seek their consent. He insists that ruling against the will of those being ruled is similar to violation of justice and law. Aristotle considers being governed against someones will is denying that person nation freedom and deems it as being unjust.

To protect the nations freedom, Aristotle uses two distinct criteria to differentiate freedom from despotism the citizens interest and the citizens consent. This is very surprising. However, to a thinker who possesses a view of subjectivity on the well- being it may not seem surprising, because the interests of those who are being governed and the desires of the citizens may be required to meet at a given point (Knight,2007). Never the less, Aristotle believes that individuals are in most cases mistaken with respect to their personal interests, they are biased in judgement. There lack a guarantee on the fact that that which will benefit the citizens will tally with their consent. Then why should he use consent based criterion This is because being ruled against an individual will constitute an element of well-being. Liberty in the sense of consent-based is not enough for achieving the good but it is important constitutively. For instance someone being dragged, screaming and kicking towards a better life via benevolent government does not interact with others on the basis of cooperation but does so unwilling fully hence being deprived of his freedom. This is because he or she is being deprived of whole human life. An important part in the life of politics is cooperating with others on voluntary basis, and such a voluntary cooperation is what constitutes justice not something that can be forced down the throat of individuals. Basing on consent-based criterion, freedom is in the mind of any person who is not a slave. Thus, according to Aristotle freedom based on interest-based criterion constitutes consent-based criterion freedom. Therefore the approval of those being governed constitutes the first condition in a legitimate constitution hence justice being exercised (Nilstun, 1981).

The approval of those being governed can also just mean a majority. Miller agues convincingly that Aristotle is biased on what is he terms the common good where the polls seems to be a mutual advantage and an overall benefit. That means the polls should enhance the good of each citizen in a given nation. If liberty based on consent- based criterion is an important well-being element then for the polls to be just they must have unanimous consent. Aristotle recognizes himself when he approves unanimous consent as a sense of government legitimacy. An issue comes in if consent is preconditioned for well-being (Roderick). If this happens then, every paternalistic law must defeat itself, hence any measure intended to enhance the citizens well being will sabotage the end via depriving the people of their freedom critical to the well being. Aristotle is renowned for not supporting paternalistic laws. In addition to this, he indicates that the decision of the government will not base on ethical suasion alone in securing compliance with the decisions it makes, he stresses that the governments effectiveness is based on its ownership of coercive power which is organized. If a nation imposes its will on citizens forcefully it will deprive its citizens of its freedom. Consent is important in a legitimate nation because the citizen will have a sense of belonging hence protecting their freedom. If the inhabitants of the nation are adamant to exercise what they feel then they will not do so on voluntary basis. In such a case the governors may be force to choose between evils. Where each citizen of a nation enjoys maximum freedom punishment will not constitute an ideal poll. For Aristotle freedom is critical matter of consent as pertains to the constitution more than the individual statutes and edicts ratified under the same constitution (Knight, 2007). Democrats are not mistaken for embracing freedom instead he indicates that they have a false impression of liberty by stating that being subjective to the law is not compatible with freedom. Aristotle maintains that is compatible as long as people do what they do according to their will.

In conclusion a nations freedom can only be protected under justice. This can be found when the people being governed taking part in governing themselves that is the government needs to consent them on each and every thing it does.


Post a Comment