In Aristotle’s “Politics”, there are many arguments suggesting kingship is and is not the best regime for a city. Each of the arguments will be explored in this paper. We learn kingship is truly one of the most constitutional forms of governing. However, there are many provisions that come along when the rulers cater towards their self-interests, rather than the interests of the community. We learn kingship can range from commanders to the purest and most sovereign individual in most instances. It appears kings, or one ruler is more adaptable than laws in most cases. But, it is entirely impossible for one person to deal with all the city's affairs. Moreover, a single individual is more susceptible than a larger body to the possibility of corruption.
…show more content…
The question asked states, “should one best person rule or should all rule”? One argument depicted suggests the best or the most proficient man is able to deliberate efficiently regarding many matters. While, law is strictly based on more general principles and much harder to specify each case. Also, groups of people may be more efficient than a single person at judging something correctly. And, the most persuasive argument is “corruptibility”, because a large group is much harder to corrupt. The text states, “ a large quantity is more incorruptible; like a large amount of water, so to the multitude is harder to corrupt than a few people”(3.15, p. 95). However, a multitude will essentially have factional conflict, while “a single person is immune to factions” (3.15, p.95). On the contrary, a constitution with a few good men ruling is better than a monarchy, or one-man rule because “ a city is made up of many people, and for this reason, in the same way feast consisting of contributions is more beautifully made than a simple single one, a crowd judges better on many matters than any one person” (3.15 p. 95). Kingship is popular among many cities, as it is rare to find other virtuous men that align with the current
The question asked states, “should one best person rule or should all rule”? One argument depicted suggests the best or the most proficient man is able to deliberate efficiently regarding many matters. While, law is strictly based on more general principles and much harder to specify each case. Also, groups of people may be more efficient than a single person at judging something correctly. And, the most persuasive argument is “corruptibility”, because a large group is much harder to corrupt. The text states, “ a large quantity is more incorruptible; like a large amount of water, so to the multitude is harder to corrupt than a few people”(3.15, p. 95). However, a multitude will essentially have factional conflict, while “a single person is immune to factions” (3.15, p.95). On the contrary, a constitution with a few good men ruling is better than a monarchy, or one-man rule because “ a city is made up of many people, and for this reason, in the same way feast consisting of contributions is more beautifully made than a simple single one, a crowd judges better on many matters than any one person” (3.15 p. 95). Kingship is popular among many cities, as it is rare to find other virtuous men that align with the current