Aristotle's Argument That Many People Working Together

In Aristotle’s Politics, Aristotle presents the argument that many people working together culminates in a greater payoff than a singular person attempting to create the same, or a similar, outcome. Aristotle writes, “For the many, who are not as individuals excellent men, nevertheless can, when they have come together, be better than the few best people, not individually but collectively, just as feasts to which many contribute are better than feasts provided at one person’s expense” (Aristotle 1281b). By using the metaphor of the feast, Aristotle explains that individuals can be more useful to society as a whole, when they work together as a unit, than when they work in their own self-interest. He goes on to apply this point to the political …show more content…
“Moreover a constitution is itself a certain organization of the inhabitants of a city-state. But since a city-state is a composite, one that is a whole and, like any other whole, constituted out of many parts, it is clear that we must first inquire into citizens” (Aristotle 1274b37). Due to the fact that citizens are what make up a city-state, it is natural that the people are the one’s who contribute to the ruling body. Aristotle does take into consideration that different city-states will require different constitutions because their citizens and circumstances are different. “For the sort of person who is a citizen in a democracy is often not one in an oligarchy” (Aristotle 12755a2). Moving to defend this way of thinking, Aristotle goes through many of the most common regimes, ruling some as correct and others as incorrect upon the criteria that, “those constitutions that look to the common benefit turn out…to be correct, whereas those which look only to the benefit of the rulers are mistaken and are deviations from the correct constitutions. For they are like rule by a master, whereas a city-state is a community of free people” (Aristotle 1279a16). The city-state should be run by those who hold the best interests of the people at the pinnacle of their political agenda. Aristotle’s conclusion is that the …show more content…
Socrates’ support of Aristotle’s ideals begins and ends with the notion of specialization. Like Aristotle, Socrates believes that each citizen has a part to play in the city-state, yet he does not believe that this part is equal. While Aristotle describes his ideal constitution as adaptable depending upon the needs of a city-state, and, by extension, the citizens of that city-state, Socrates opposes this idea and brings about the notion of a singular way in which there would be a perfect city-state. Socrates does this through the Noble Lie. The premise of the Noble Lie is that all people are of the earth and are born with metal in their souls, and each metal designates a certain caste. The three castes are the ruling class with gold souls (guardians), those with silver souls (auxiliaries), and those with iron or bronze souls (craftsmen or common people) (Plato 415). The guardians would be told “that they always have gold and silver of a divine sort in their souls as a gift from the gods and so have no further need of human gold” (Plato 416e3). This lie takes away from the motivation to attempt to climb the caste system because the metal in one’s soul is a divine right; in addition, it deters the acquisition of wealth. The Noble Lie completely contradicts Aristotle’s justification of rule by the many, by only giving the power to rule to the elite class of those with gold souls chosen by philosophers like Socrates