Berry 1

E-LOGOS/2006
ISSN 1121-0442
Erin Ashley Berry
Property: Past an Present
From Plato and Aristotle to Today
Keywords:
Plato, Aristotle, private property, international, environment, The Republic, communal
property, middle-class, Machiavelli, oel Malcolm, !elen "isher, #neida, natural law,
Martha ussbaum, cosmopolitanism, The Politics, The Prince
Abstract:
Property: Past an Present From Plato and Aristotle to Today:
Plato$s Republic and Aristotle$s The Politics boast certain similarities, includin% the
description o& property in terms o& our everyday relationships' however, they di&&er in
their analysis o& these relationships( Plato is an ideolo%ical advocate &or absolute parity
within the %uardian class( )ach %uardian holds their property in common, includin%
wives, children and land *Plato, 1++,( Aristotle critici-es Plato$s communist ideal with a
more realistic view o& property( !e reasons that it is irrational to presume that e.uality
&or all people and property is achievable *Aristotle, +/,( 0n this respect, Aristotle$s
realistic description o& property is a more plausible e1planation' however, Plato$s
depiction o& communal property appears to be the more desirable &orm( Broadenin% these
classical ideas to include our current reality direct us to a discussion o& how the
international community accepts and2or chan%es the Platonic and Aristotelian conceptions
o& property( )ach individual is entitled to their share o& private property' nevertheless,
our international responsibilities are mountin% and we can no lon%er thin3 o& communal
property solely in terms o& the &amily or the political community( 0 will ar%ue that while
Aristotle$s description o& our more personal relationships between man and woman, the
household, the villa%e and the political community are still somewhat relevant today, we
have a %rowin% obli%ation to the international community which necessitates a
combination o& private and communal property( 0 will address three central .uestions in
this analysis: &irst, what is property and how is it approached in the classical literature o&
Plato and Aristotle4 5econd, how does the classical literature relate to the international
system today4 "inally, how do classical and current authors address the issue o&
moderatin% property le%islation throu%h education4
1
Berry 6
Plato$s Republic and Aristotle$s The Politics boast certain
similarities, includin% the description o& property in terms o& our
everyday relationships' however, they di&&er in their analysis o& these
relationships( Plato is an ideolo%ical advocate &or absolute parity within
the %uardian class( )ach %uardian holds their property in common,
includin% wives, children and land *Plato, 1++,( Aristotle critici-es
Plato$s communist ideal with a more realistic view o& property( !e
reasons that it is irrational to presume that e.uality &or all people and
property is achievable *Aristotle, +/,( 0n this respect, Aristotle$s realistic
description o& property is a more plausible e1planation' however, Plato$s
depiction o& communal property appears to be the more desirable &orm(
Broadenin% these classical ideas to include our current reality direct us to
a discussion o& how the international community accepts and2or chan%es
the Platonic and Aristotelian conceptions o& property( )ach individual is
entitled to their share o& private property' nevertheless, our international
responsibilities are mountin% and we can no lon%er thin3 o& communal
property solely in terms o& the &amily or the political community( 0 will
ar%ue that while Aristotle$s description o& our more personal relationships
between man and woman, the household, the villa%e and the political
community are still somewhat relevant today, we have a %rowin%
obli%ation to the international community which necessitates a
combination o& private and communal property( 0 will address three
central .uestions in this essay: &irst, what is property and how is it
approached in the classical literature o& Plato and Aristotle( 5econd, how
does the classical literature relate to the international system today4
"inally, how do classical and current authors address the issue o&
moderatin% property le%islation throu%h education4
Plato$s central concern in The Republic was the .uestion o& 7ustice(
!e wanted to 3now what 7ustice was and how it could be reali-ed( !e
as3ed, i& you too3 a 7ust man and %ave him a horrible li&e, and too3 an
un7ust man and %ave him a %reat li&e, who would be happier in the end4
Plato addresses this .uestion with three main contentions( "irstly, the
un7ust man is i%norant o& his surroundin%s since he never ac3nowled%es
that others may be more 3nowled%eable than he( The 7ust man is prudent,
since he reco%ni-es that his 3nowled%e is limited( 5econdly, even thieves
have a semblance o& 7ustice( They need to cooperate minimally to
survive amon%st one another( Accordin%ly, cooperation is needed to
achieve a sustainable balance within a man$s soul, thus, 7ustice is
essential( 8astly' Plato avers that happiness and virtue %o hand in hand(
6
Berry 9
)ssentially, the conclusion is that 7ustice is more natural to the human
soul than in7ustice *Plato, 96-:;,( Plato resolves that to address the
comple1 nature o& 7ustice, an ima%inary state must be constructed( !e
be%ins by &oundin% an ima%inary state and .uic3ly adds lu1uries *+9,(
"or Plato, lu1uries are problematic because they distract us &rom
pursuin% the %ood, by causin% tensional and physical con&lict within
society( The problems with lu1uries create a need &or armies that can
mediate the stru%%le over ac.uirin% land and %oods( The army, which
Plato eventually calls the %uardian class, should reco%ni-e that ac.uirin%
e1cessive wealth and happiness can actually distract them &rom &ollowin%
a virtuous path *<;-<9,( Plato reiterates this point when he describes the
three sections o& the soul' reason *3nowled%e,, spirit *bravery, and
appetite *ur%e,( Reason is attributed to the rulers' the au1iliaries are
credited with spirit and appetite is characteristic o& the cra&tspeople( The
best case scenario is &or people to restrain their appetites by usin% their
reason *chapter =00,(
Plato is a proponent o& communal property( !e ar%ues that women
should parta3e in the same activities and occupations and receive the
same education as men, thou%h it should be reco%ni-ed that women are
not o& e.ual physical stren%th *1+9-1+:,( Plato also avers that 1, to
%enerate desirable .ualities in children' they should be bred in the same
manner as domesticated animals, 6, the %uardian class should place the
community$s wellbein% above their individual &amilial interests, and 9,
cohesion within the state should be o& utmost importance *1++,( To
accomplish these three contentions, Plato su%%ests that women, children,
land, se1ual intercourse, marria%e and occupations be ti%htly controlled
and in some cases be held in common *1::-1<>,( ?onse.uently, parents
can not 3now their children and vice versa( #nly the best and bri%htest
children should remain in the %uardian community' thus, unions should
only occur when both the man and woman are at their pea3 reproductive
a%es *1<;-1<1,( Plato also insists that the %uardians will be pleased to
&i%ht &or their state i& they are compensated with honor and %lory and not
necessarily with wealth and property *1</,( Accordin%ly, the %uardians
should protect the property o& others even thou%h they themselves are not
entitled to own private property *1;>-1;@,( Plato concludes that state
cohesion and collective property will create the %reatest %ood, because
&irst, collectivity will abolish disa%reements that be%in with property
ownership and second, the %ood is only reali-ed when everyone is
wor3in% towards the same communal end *1<<-1</,( )ssentially, in
9
Berry :
Plato$s Republic, private property should not be available to the %uardian
class' the %uardians should, however, be entitled to communal property(
0n contrast with Plato$s view o& women as e.ually capable o&
accomplishin% the same tas3s and educational endeavors as men,
Aristotle believes that there is an accepted division between men, the
natural rulers and women, the naturally ruled *Aristotle, 9<,( The union
between these une.ual partners creates what Aristotle calls the
household( The household$s property includes its slaves( Aomen,
however, are not considered slaves because they are not ruled &or their
master$s advanta%e' they are controlled &or their own bene&it( To
Aristotle, the division between men and women is necessary' since, men
are by nature political animals and, thus, need to pursue activity as
citi-ens outside o& the home( Aomen are by nature, more inclined to
remain in the sphere o& the home and, there&ore, are not &ully human(
Bou are only considered &ully human when you are actively practicin%
virtue, liberality and moderation in the political community *9/,( Ahen
a number o& these households are lin3ed to%ether, they produce the
villa%e, which is a part o& a lar%er political community or polis *9<-9>,(
To achieve Aristotle$s top priority: the %ood li&e, one must be an active
member within this political community( !e believes that we come
to%ether to live, but we stay to%ether to live well *9<-9/,(
Aristotle also critici-es Plato$s ar%ument that women and children
should be held in common( !e believes that parents will discover who
their children are and love them more despite the controls placed on their
ability to rear their own o&&sprin%( The same holds true &or property -
people will always pay respect to their own land be&ore they value
another$s property *++-+>,(
Cnderstandin% Aristotle$s criticism o& Plato$s inclination towards
communal property necessitates a discussion o& the middle-class(
Aristotle believes that a rule by the many is superior to rule by the &ew or
rule by one *boo3 9,( Allowin% private property provides the many or the
middle-class with the means to rule' conse.uently, private property is
considered a necessity rather than a lu1ury *Anesi, 9,( Aristotle trusts
that middle-class citi-ens are the most capable protectors o& a stable
constitution, since they are less li3ely to become corrupted than the rich
or the poor *Anesi, 1,( Aristotle allows this middle-class to ac.uire
capital and private property so that they may %ain authority in the
political community( Riches and property will eventually %enerate
:
Berry +
happiness, as people will have the means to employ their desirable
.ualities in the community *Miller, 916,(
Ahile Aristotle promotes property ownership, he also su%%ests that
what we ac.uire &rom nature should be essential and practical, but not
ine1haustible( !e maintains that there is a distinction between natural
ac.uisition, which includes usin% and e1chan%in% articles with or without
money, and unnatural ac.uisition, which is characteri-ed by a desire &or
limitless wealth( Cltimately, happiness is not &ound in the e1cessive
ac.uisition o& e1ternal material thin%s' it is established in the pursuance
o& the relationships that lead us to the %ood li&e *Aristotle, :<-:>,(
Aristotle sees a need to set limits on wealth since ac.uirin% money that is
not needed and will li3ely never be used is irrational and waste&ul(
Aristotle and Plato would li3ely a%ree that e1cessive wealth distracts us
&rom what we should be pursuin%' in Plato$s case, the %ood' in Aristotle$s
case, the %ood li&e(
Aristotle asserts that the city is constructed o& disparate peoples
with di&&erin% interests( !e states that, Dthe virtue o& all the citi-ens is
necessarily not sin%le, 7ust as that o& a head and a &ile leader in a chorus is
not sin%le(E *@;-@1,( Cnli3e Plato, Aristotle believes that diversity is
desirable since a commonwealth cannot be administered by a community
o& un-wealthy people( "urthermore, the rulers have to have someone to
rule over, so the distinction between wealthy and poor, and ruler and
ruled must be made *@:,(
Property, in this essay, will be distin%uished by two di&&erent
approaches( #n the one hand, private property constitutes property
which is owned privately and which the community has access to under
restricted conditions with the permission o& the owner( Alternatively,
communal or collective property will be de&ined as all thin%s sub7ect to
ownership which are shared by the many and the many have sta3e in the
community as a whole( Cltimately, Aristotle$s somewhat revised
ar%uments supportin% limited private property have been more broadly
accepted in developed capitalistic societies( Allowin% private property is
one o& the ways in which individuals are supplied with the means to
pursue their own interests and, there&ore, their own happiness( As the
0talian diplomat, Machiavelli warned the princes o& his time,
the princeFshould concentrate upon avoidin% those thin%s which
ma3e him hated and despisedFwhat ma3es him hated above all
else is bein% rapacious and a usurper o& the property and women o&
his sub7ectsFin most cases, so lon% as you do not deprive Gyour
+
Berry <
sub7ectsH o& either their property or their honor, the ma7ority o&
men live happily *Machiavelli, <1,(
0n addition, private property is necessary &or economic, political and
social advancement( 0ndividuals will thrive when %iven the opportunity
to capitali-e on their own sel&-reliance(
Alternatively, Plato$s ar%ument &or communal property &ails to
address the issue o& an indeterminable number o& di&&erin% abilities
within the %uardian class( !e mentions only two separate %roups
contained in the %uardian cate%ory, Dthe au1iliaries Gand theH rulersE
*Plato, 1;9,, when realistically many diver%ent interests would li3ely be
present( This problem is best represented with a statement written by
academic, oel Malcolm in his analysis o& the potential &or &ailure in the
)uropean Cnion( !e emphasi-es that tryin% to combine a number o&
states$ interests or in Plato$s case individuals$ interest$s leads to Dchildli3e
lo%icFThin3 what a beauti&ul color we can ma3e i& we mi1 all the colors
o& the paint bo1I The result, inevitably, is a muddy shade o& brownE
*Malcolm, <>,( The une1pected result in Malcolm$s paint bo1 may
parallel Plato$s %uardian society i& une.ual ability produces resentment
amon% the %uardians( Anthropolo%ist, !elen "isher in her boo3 The
Anatomy of Love, describes a colony in #neida, ew Bor3 in the 1>9;$s(
John !umphrey oyes set out to create a ?hristian community where all
labor, land, women and children were shared communally *li3e Plato had
su%%ested,( Personal belon%in%s and romantic love was loo3ed down
upon( The community was a &ailure' oyes eventually rebelled a%ainst
his own rules and &athered a lar%e number o& children in the community(
Additionally, men and women &ell in love re%ardless o& oyes$ ori%inal
rules *"isher, /1,( Accordin% to "isher, Dthe human animal seems to be
psycholo%ically built to &orm a pair-bond with a sin%le mate,E */6,( Plato
was unaware o& the evolutionary aspect o& human nature at the time o&
his writin%, so he may be &or%iven &or his &ailure to reco%ni-e the human
inclination to pair-bond( !owever, Aristotle$s ar%ument receives some
validation &rom the #neida ?hristian community$s &ailure( Aristotle
believed that even i& Plato$s uni&ied ideal was achievable, the outcome
would be undesirable( !e avers that the city is di&&erent &rom the
household in the sense that the household is uni&ied and the city is a mass
o& di&&erin% peoples( Tryin% to uni&y the city as i& it were a household
would inevitably destroy the city *Aristotle, +<,( The city itsel& comes to
<
Berry /
e1ist when dissimilar people &orm it( Aristotle solidi&ies this point by
reiteratin% the importance o& the continuum o& relationships,
A household is more sel&-su&&icient than one person, and a city than a
household' and a city tends to come into bein% at the point when the
partnership &ormed by a multitude is sel&-su&&icient( 0&, there&ore, the
more sel&-su&&icient is more choiceworthy, what is less a unity is more
choiceworthy than what is more unity, *+<-+/,(
Cnity may appear to be the ideal, but it actually destroys the notion o&
harmony within the city(
#ne mi%ht ar%ue that we may now e1tend Plato$s and Aristotle$s
descriptions o& property &ar beyond the constraints o& the &amily, outside
the borders o& the state and into the realm o& the international community(
0nterestin%ly, while Aristotle$s ar%uments have been more accepted in
modern times, Plato$s ideas are perhaps more relevant to the ideal
international community( #bviously, most authors would not be so
radical to su%%est that children and wives be held in common' however,
the %eneral notion o& communal property is be%innin% to resur&ace in
proposed methods &or environmental mana%ement( Thomas J( ?ioppa o&
?olorado 5tate Cniversity mentions that state soverei%nty and state
property or territory actually undermines the commitment to
environmental protection on an international level as states will always
advocate &or their own bene&it be&ore promotin% the concerns o& the
international community *1,( 0n the same way that Plato$s %uardian class
re.uired a rela1ation o& individual interests' environmentalists demand a
lessenin% o& state interest and a stren%thened collective arran%ement(
?oppia, li3e many other literary scholars as3s the .uestion, is
collective environmental protection achievable in a world made up o&
independent states4 *6, !e responds that state soverei%nty continues to
play a dominant role in international environmental law' nonetheless, he
is hope&ul that &uture declarations will produce a more cohesive
international system, *9,( Aristotle would li3ely ar%ue that a collective
system o& environmental protection is not &easible, since locatin%
individual interests above collective concerns is a natural human
behavior( 5ome ar%ue, however, while Aristotle may have been partially
correct, there is such a thin% as natural law( atural law reasons that
universal values can be &ound in human nature by the %race o& Kod(
These principles are bindin% on all communities in the absence or
/
Berry >
presence o& positive law( atural law has been instrumental in
&orwardin% human ri%hts and has also pushed the idea that those who
in&rin%e on the ri%hts o& others should be punished( Accordin%ly, since
the environment is shared by all people, its destruction may be perceived
as in&rin%in% on others$ ri%hts and, there&ore, as an opposin% &orce to
natural law(
Plato would possibly su%%est that as lon% as people are introduced
to proper education be&ore a%e ten, it is possible to uni&y individuals
throu%h a very speci&ic didactic structure( !e proposed a very e1plicit
educational layout &or the %uardian class in which they would study math
&or ten years, dialectic &or &ive years and practical e1perience &or &i&teen
years *Plato, <<-@9,( #nce they had accomplished all o& these minor
educational tas3s, they could underta3e lar%er responsibilities *1;6-1;9,(
"or Plato, the %oal o& education was to provide students with a means o&
understandin% the Dharmonious order,E *>@, o& the world( #nce this ideal
is reached, it is possible to move closer to the %ood, which lies beyond
our world( To Aristotle, education was not a means o& &indin% somethin%
outside o& reality' the %oal was to ensure that men had the instruments
needed to reach a balance o& virtue, liberality and moderation( Aristotle
would add that education may limit the desire &or property, but
parado1ically, properly educated people would not desire irrational
amounts o& private property renderin% property le%islation unnecessary
1
(
Martha ussbaum, a cosmopolitan scholar, a%rees with Aristotle$s
method o& teachin%( 5he su%%ests that educatin% people to see li&e and
humanity as a continuum o& relationships, similar to Aristotle$s
continuum, may be the 3ey to creatin% cohesion in today$s international
system( ussbaum uses the 5toic$s e1ample o& concentric circles to
solidi&y her ar%ument,
Ae thin3 o& ourselves not as devoid o& local a&&iliations, but as
surrounded by a series o& concentric circles( The &irst one encircles the
sel&, the ne1t ta3es in the immediate &amily, then &ollows the e1tended
&amily, then, in order' nei%hbors or local %roups, &ellow city-dwellers,
and &ellow countrymenF#utside these circles is the lar%est one,
humanity as a whole, *ussbaum, @,(
This type o& education, which ussbaum calls Dcosmopolitan education,E
*11, encoura%es a combination o& local a&&iliation or identi&ication and
reco%nition o& humanity as a whole, *19,( Aristotle never comes to
1
This ar%ument is ta3en &rom the class notes #ctober 1>, 6;;:
>
Berry @
include humanity as a whole in his structure o& relationships' but, he
would li3ely a%ree with the 5toics that in order to &ind and maintain the
%ood li&e, e1pandin% relationships &urther would aid his process o&
discoverin% the %ood li&e( )1tendin% liberality into the international
system would e1pectedly be welcomed by Aristotle(
Today$s world re.uires a combination o& Plato$s theory o&
communal property, and Aristotle$s notion o& private property( Ae must
continue to permit private property ownership, as it is the only means o&
&urtherin% productive individuals and dynamic societies( Ae must,
however, reco%ni-e that international obli%ations may call &or collective
action and, thus, some conception o& collective property is necessary(
These obli%ations are only &unctional when we limit our desire &or private
property and ac3nowled%e environmental and human ri%hts issues(
Plato$s Republic and Aristotle$s The Politics provide a very si%ni&icant
primary blueprint in which to base &uture assumptions' nonetheless, it is
important that we not con&ine ourselves to any one conception o&
property as there are circumstances under which property may possess a
chameleon li3e character L it trans&orms as its surroundin%s chan%e( 0&
we are &orced to choose which type o& property *collective or private,
should be the end sou%ht, then it may be su%%ested that communal
property holds the most desirable outcome, whether it is realistic or not,
since it is only throu%h collectivity that we may truly embrace humanity
as a whole( 0n the &amous words o& John Monne,
o man is an island, entire o& itsel&' every man is a piece o& the
continent, a part o& the mainFAny man$s death diminishes me,
because 0 am involved in man3ind and there&ore never send to
3now &or whom the bell tolls' it tolls &or theeF*Meditation 1/,
!or"s #ite
Anesi, Keor%e( http:22home(uchica%o(edu2Nanesi2aristotle(html
Aristotle( The Politics( )d( and Trans( ?arnes 8ord( ?hica%o: The
Cniversity o& ?hica%o Press, 1@>+(
@
Berry 1;
?ioppa, Thomas J( DThe 5overei%n-5tate 5ystem, 0nternational 8aw and
0nstitutions, and )nvironmental Protection: Present 0ncompatibilities and
"uture Possibilities(E Cniversity o& ?olorado 5tate, 1@@@(
Monne, John( DMeditation 1/(E orton Antholo%y o& )n%lish 8iterature
1(11;/ *1@<6,(
"isher, !elen( Anatomy o& 8ove( ew Bor3: The Random !ouse
Publishin% Kroup, 1@@6(
Machiavelli, iccolO( The Prince( )d( and Trans( Peter Bondanella and
Mar3 Musa( ew Bor3: #1&ord Cniversity Press, 1@@>(
Malcolm, oel( DThe ?ase a%ainst P)urope$(E "orei%n A&&airs( March
1@@+: +6-<>(
Miller, "red M(, Jr( http:22>; -www
(o1&ordscholarship(com(e-pro1y(lib(ucal%ary(ca:6;:>2oso2private2content2philosophy2
;1@>69/6<=2p;>;(htmlQacpro&-;1@>69/6<=-chapter-@
Mino%ue, Kenneth( D0dentity, 5el&, and ation(E 0n Joshua ?ohen *ed(,,
"or 8ove o& ?ountry: Mebatin% the 8imits o& Patriotism ( Boston:
Beacon Press, 1@@<(
ussbaum, Martha( DPatriotism and ?osmopolitanism(E 0n Joshua
?ohen *ed(,, "or 8ove o& ?ountry: Mebatin% the 8imits o& Patriotism(
Boston: Beacon Press, 1@@<(
Plato( The Republic o& Plato( )d( and Trans( "rancis MacMonald
?orn&ord( 8ondon: #1&ord Cniversity Press, 1@:+(
1;