The history of political thought dates back to antiquity while the political history of the world and thus the history of political thinking by man stretches up through the medieval period and the Renaissance. In the Age of Enlightenment, political entities expanded from basic systems of self-governance and monarchy to the complex democratic and communist systems that exist of the Industrialized and the Modern Era. In parallel, political systems have expanded from vaguely defined frontier-type boundaries, to the definite boundaries existing today. The history of political thought has often overlapped with the history of philosophy, dating back to the ancient Greek and Roman thought. Some of the thinkers that advanced ideas of politics, justice and equality during those times include the following:
Aristotle
According to Aristotle, political justice and its relation to equality, pointing out that the former involves the latter but must carefully specify by maintaining that justice involves equality, not for everyone, but only for equals. He says that political democracy is intrinsically unjust because, by its very nature, it tries to treat un-equals as if they were equals. Justice rather requires inequality for people who are unequal. But, then, oligarchy is also intrinsically unjust insofar as it involves treating equals as unequal because of some contingent disparity, of birth, wealth, etc. Rather, those in a just political society who contribute the most to the common good will receive a larger share, because they thus exhibit more political virtue, than those who are inferior in that respect; it would be simply wrong, from the perspective of political justice, for them to receive equal shares.
Thus political justice must be viewed as a function of the common good of a community. It is the attempt to specify the equality or inequality among people, which according to Aristotle, constitutes a key problem of political philosophy. He thinks that political justice requires proportional rather than numerical equality. But inferiors have a vested interest in thinking that those who are equal in some respect should be equal in all respects, while superiors are biased, in the opposite direction, to imagine that those who are unequal in some way should be unequal in all ways. Thus, for instance, those who are equally citizens are not necessarily equal in political virtue, and those who are financially richer are not necessarily morally or mentally superior. What is relevant here is “equality according to merit,” though Aristotle cannot precisely specify what, exactly, counts as merit, for how much it must count, there is no agreement as to who should to measure it, and by what standard.
All political systems must allow for some degree of diversity, according to Aristotle. But Aristotle wants diversity among the participants in the process of political decision making, among those who wield political power. Contrary to Plato, he does not trust that the philosophical elite will consistently rule well. Aristotle’s idea of diversity means a broadening of the citizen class, a polis of ‘free and equal citizens’ who share office and shape policy, meaning that ‘some rule and others are ruled’ in turn, with ‘different sorts of persons’ assuming the responsibilities of governing. Power must be concentrated in the hands of a few but distributed because of the ‘natural equality of all the citizens.’
This kind of system would be criticized as rule by amateurs, for example, reminiscent of the failures of a democratic Athens that lost the Peloponnesian War, and executed Socrates. Aristotle’s response to such criticism would be that ‘it is true that unity is to some extent necessary, alike in a household and polis; but total unity is not. It is as if you were turning harmony into mere unison, or to reduce a theme to a single beat’. Aristotle aims for a society that is based on friendship, rights, and community. For him, friendship starts in the family, which is the source and foundation of political life. The proper practice of politics aims at friendship, and depends upon the development of a family structure conducive to that goal.
While Plato accepted slavery as a legitimate social institution but argued for equal opportunity for women, in his Politics, Aristotle accepts sexual inequality while actively defending slavery. Anyone who is inferior intellectually and morally is properly socio-politically inferior in a well-ordered polis. A human being can be naturally autonomous or not, ‘a natural slave’ being defective in rationality and morality, and thus naturally fit to belong to a superior; such a human can rightly be regarded as ‘a piece of property,’ or another person’s ‘tool for action.’ Given the natural human inequality, it would be inappropriate to think that all should rule or share in ruling. Aristotle holds that some are marked as superior and fit to rule from birth, while others are inferior and marked from birth to be ruled by others.
This supposedly applies not only to ethnic groups, but also to the genders, and he unequivocally asserts that males are ‘naturally superior’ and females ‘naturally inferior,’ the former being fit to rule and the latter to be ruled. Even though there is something attractive about Aristotle’s empirical approach to justice, it condemns him to the dubious position of needing to derive claims about how things ought to be from factual claims about the way things actually are. It also leaves Aristotle with little viable means of establishing a universal perspective that will respect the equal dignity of all humans, as such. Thus his theory, like Plato’s, fails adequately to respect all persons as free, rational agents. He was so focused on the ways in which people are unequal, that he could not appreciate any fundamental moral equality that might provide a platform for natural human rights.
Aurelius Augustine
Augustine’s conception of justice is the familiar one of ‘the virtue by which all people are given their due.’ But this is connected to something new and distinctly Christian, the distinction between the temporal law, such as the law of the state, and the eternal, divine law of God. The eternal law establishes the order of God’s divine providence. And, since all temporal or human law must be consistent with God’s eternal law, Augustine drew the striking conclusion that, strictly speaking, ‘an unjust law is no law at all.’ Thus a civil law of the state that violates God’s eternal law is not morally binding and can be legitimately disobeyed in good conscience. This was to have a profound and ongoing influence on Christian ethics.
He said that a just war should aim at establishing a lasting and just peace and holds that one must keep faith with both one’s allies and one’s enemies, even in the heat of warfare. Augustine’s most important treatment of the just war theory is contained in his writing Against Faustus the Manichean, where he analyzes the evils of war in terms of the desire to harm others, the lust for revenge and cruelty, and the wish to dominate other people. In addition to the condition that a just war must aim at establishing a just and lasting peace, a second condition is that it must be declared by a leader or body of leaders, with the ‘authority’ to do so, after deliberating that it is justified.
While this is a very valuable application of his theory of justice, this doctrine of the just war standing the test of time to this very day, the general theory on which it is based is more problematic. The unoriginal (and uninspired) conception of justice as giving others their due had already become familiar to the point of being trite. It remains vulnerable to the serious problems of vagueness already considered: what is the relevant criterion whereby it should be determined who deserves what, and who is fit to make such a judgment? But, also, Augustine should have an advantage over the ancient Greeks in arriving at a theory of justice based on universal equality on account of the Christian doctrine (not to mention because of the influences of Cicero, the Stoics, and Plotinus) that all humans are equally children of God.
Unfortunately, his zealous Christian evangelism leads him to identify justice itself, in a divisive, intolerant, polemical way, with the Christian church’s idea of what God requires, so that only a Christian society can possibly qualify as just, as if a just political society would need to be a theocracy. Thus, while he has some sense of some moral or spiritual equality among humans, it does not issue in equal respect for all persons as free, rational agents, allowing him, for example, to accept the institution of slavery as a just punishment for sin, despite the belief that God originally created humans as naturally free, because of the idea that we have all been corrupted by original sin.
Cicero
The body of Marcus Cicero’s political philosophy is composed of three related elements, a belief in natural law, natural equality and the state as natural to man. Cicero’s true importance in the history of political thought lies in the fact that he gave to the doctrine of natural law a statement in which it was universally known throughout Western Europe from his own day down to the nineteenth century. He combined the principles of right and justice as eternal and the principle of supremacy and universality of law as it exists in nature, with the universal law of nature binding all men together. The natural law is unchangeable and it is to be found in all peoples and in all nations. This universality of natural law constitutes the foundation of world-city. Since law of nature is supreme, none can violate it.
In Cicero’s words, true law is right reason in agreement with nature. In his opinion nature is the highest manifestation of right reason. It is universally applicable, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands and averts from wrong doing by its prohibitions. Cicero brought the concept of abstract reason and natural law into immediate relation with the activity of human reason and legislation of the state. If human legislation is in conformity with reason it cannot be in inconformity with nature. When everyone conforms to the law of nature, there is justice in the state. That is, violation of natural law is violation of justice.
Cicero’s concept of equality is another aspect of his political philosophy. According to him, men are born for justice and that right is based not upon man’s opinion but upon nature. There is no difference between men in the eyes of natural law, all men are equal. So far as the learning and holding of property are concerned there is, no doubt, difference between men, but in the possession of reason, in their psychological make-up and in their attitude towards good and bad, men are all equal. Man is born to get justice and in this regard no difference between men should be drawn. All men and races of men possess the same capacity for experience and for the same kinds of experience, and all are equally capable of discriminating between right and wrong.
Cicero’s view on natural equality, according to Carlyle, is as startling in its completeness as the change from Aristotle to the notion of natural equality. Aristotle also thought of equality among the citizens. But he was not prepared to award citizenship to all people. It was confined only to selected number of persons. So Aristotle’s idea of equality was not all-embracing. Only few were equal among themselves. Cicero viewed equality in moral perspective that all men are created by God and they are born for justice. Therefore any man-made discrimination is not only unjust but also immoral. It is the duty of every political society to ensure certain amount of dignity to every individual. Cicero rejected the idea of slavery, stating that slaves are neither tool nor property, they are human beings. So they have the right to just treatment and independent personality.
Cicero designated the nature of the state as the affair or property of the people. In Cicero’s view, the state as Commonwealth is for ethical purposes and if it fails to achieve this mission it is nothing. The state is based on agreement to share common good. Another feature of Cicero’s state is people have assembled together not guided by their weakness but by their sociable nature. Men are not solitary animals, they love and like to habit with other men. This is the inborn nature of man, a rational behavior which is responsible for the foundation of the state. Hence we may call it a necessary association useful for achieving common good. The desire to share common good is so much that people overcome all enticements to pleasure and comfort. Cicero thus formulates a vision which is thoroughly political at the same time.
His idea of state and citizenship is in striking resemblance with that of Aristotle, which, according to Sabine, is a corporate body. Naturally, all its members look after the advantages and disadvantages of each other. Since the state is a corporate body its authority is collective and is derived from the people. When the political power is properly and legally executed, it is regarded as the power of the people. The state and its law both are subject to God. In Cicero’s ideal state, force does not occupy a very important place, and can only be used proportionately and for the sake of justice.
Cicero suggested three types of government; royalty, aristocracy and democracy. But in each form of government there is the germ of corruption and instability and this leads to the fall of government. Only a mixed form of government is the proper guarantee of stability and corruption-free society. Cicero preferred a republican form of government as the perfect example of checks and balances for the stability and good of the political system.
John Locke
John Locke is one of the founders of ‘liberal’ political philosophy, the philosophy of individual justice, rights and Government, governance. Locke uses natural law to ground his philosophy. But there are many different interpretations of the natural law, from the Ciceronian to Augustinian. Some writers argue that Locke’s political philosophy is not based on natural law at all, but instead on natural rights. Natural law theories hold that human beings are subject to a moral law. Morality is fundamentally about duty, the duty each individual has to abide by the natural law. Locke speaks of a state of nature where men are free, equal, and independent. He champions the social contract and government by consent, arguing that government must respect the rights of individuals.
For John Locke, the individual is an autonomous unit, and enters into associations such as the family and civil society on a contractual basis, for limited purposes and with limited obligations. He agrees with Aristotle on natural rights, but he focuses them more on private property. This requires a basic right of individual freedom. Locke’s defense of diversity is connected to his idea of liberty. He fears, as much as Aristotle, concentration of power in the hands of a few, stating that ‘This freedom from absolute, arbitrary power is so necessary to and closely joined with a man’s preservation that he cannot part with it but by what forfeits his preservation and life together.’
Locke’s claim is that individuals have a duty to respect the rights of others, even in the state of nature according to natural law. Locke says individuals have a duty to respect the property (and lives and liberties) of others, since natural law and natural rights coexist, although natural law is primary, commanding respect for the rights of others. Locke’s view is the view shared by most people, that ‘it’s my right to swing my fist’ but that my right ‘ends where your nose begins.’ Locke typically thinks of individual rights as being coupled with a responsibility to respect the rights of others. Locke initially seemed to claim that the state of nature is a place of peace and harmony. Later, however, he made it clear that the state of nature was actually very insecure, with people’s rights under continual threat, adding that such conditions ‘drive’ men to form a social contract for their protection.
Locke believes in the politics that guarantees what he claims to be basic and natural given rights for its citizens. These being the right to life, liberty, and property. Essentially Locke claims that the ideal government will encompass the preservations of these three rights for every single one of its citizens. It will provide these rights, and protect them from tyranny and abuse, giving the power of the government to the people. However, Locke not only influenced modern democracy, but opened this idea of rights for all, freedom for all. So, not only did Locke influence the foundation of modern democracy heavily, but his thought seem to also connect to the social activism promoted in democracy. Locke acknowledges that we all have differences, and he believes that those differences do not grant certain people less freedom.
Locke’s views on tolerance were way ahead of his time, with some authors suggesting that Locke’s his thoughts fit our current state of democracy where we strive to make sure that everyone has a say in the government and everyone has a chance at a good life. Regardless of race, gender, or social standing, it was made clear not only that the government should provide rights to everyone through the social contract, which is an agreement between members of a country to live within a shared system of laws. Specific forms of government are the result of the decisions made by these persons acting in their collective capacity. Government is instituted to make laws that protect these three natural rights. If a government does not properly protect these rights, it does not have legitimacy to rule over the people.
References
- Aristotle, On Rhetoric, trans. George A. Kennedy (called “Rhetoric”). New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.
- Aristotle, Politics, trans. C. D. C. Reeve (called “Politics”). Indianapolis: Hackett, 1998.
- Augustine, Of True Religion, trans. J. H. S. Burleigh (called “Religion”). Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1959.
- Augustine, On Free Choice of the Will, trans. Thomas Williams (called “Choice”). Indianapolis: Hackett, 1993.
- David Miller, Principles of Social Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999.
- Grant, Ruth W, John Locke’s Liberalism (University of Chicago Press, 1987). Another interpretation of Locke as natural law thinker.
- Klosko, George, ed. Oxford Handbook of the History of Political Philosophy (2012)
- Korab-Karpowicz, W. Julian. On the History of Political Philosophy: Great Political Thinkers from Thucydides to Locke (Routledge, 2015)
- James P. Sterba, ed., Justice: Alternative Political Perspectives, Fourth Edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson, 2003.
- John Locke: Inequality is inevitable and necessary”. Department of Philosophy the University of Hong Kong. Archived from the original (MS PowerPoint) on 9 May 2009.
- Louis P. Pojman, Global Political Philosophy. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2003.
- Michael Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars, Third Edition. New York: Basic Books, 2000.