Di s il i o ( 2018 -05119) |1

The Idealist, and the Empiricist:

A Summary and Comparison of Plato’s and Aristotle’s State and Justice

In modern-day politics, justice is perceived as an ideal that should be strived for by all
political institutions, and is an ideal demanded by the masses—whether it is the equal distribution
of common goods to all, unequal distribution based on merit, or distribution that aims to better the
lives of the disadvantaged. The various theories on justice produced many definitions as to what
justice really is. Yet the notion of justice remains a staple in societal and political discourse today,
and even during the times of early philosophers, Plato and Aristotle. Both esteemed and renowned
philosophers have had their take on state and justice, some in affirmation to one another, and the
others in opposition.

Plato’s The Republic

In The Republic, Plato established his ideal state which he considered the only natural form
of polis. Ultimately, it takes a philosopher king/queen to lead an ideal state, and that members of
the state should judiciously and earnestly do their respective roles. He posits that rulers must be
philosophers for they have attained the highest sense of wisdom and are only deserving of heading
the state.
Plato viewed the state as an extension of man. Thus classes in the state are analogous to
the tripartite division of the soul: the craftspeople (appetite), the guardians (spirit), and the rulers
(reason). People are designated to classes according to what Plato regards as natural aptitude, or
what can be defined as an innate expertise. Their specializations are validated after a series of trials
and tests. To him, justice is achieved through the fulfillment of these functions in unison, meaning
if the classes do what they ought to do throughout their lifetime.
Hence, Plato’s ideal state also leans on the concept of the total unification and oneness of
the members of the state. The best order of the state is “…whatever binds the state together and
makes it one…,” while the worst would be anything that “…tends to render it asunder and destroy
its unity.”1 Thus there is little to no provisions regarding distribution of properties, and it was
exclusive that guardians would not own any, even a wife, to secure their loyalty and obligation to
the state.
Justice is the highest virtue that must be achieved according to Plato, and in doing so,
personal happiness, or the happiness of an individual must be compromised in exchange of the
pursuit of public welfare and fulfillment of state duties.

Aristotle’s Politics
Aristotle’s approach to state and justice opposes with that of Plato’s. The latter, as an
idealist, fit his observations into his already established theory while Aristotle, as the empiricist
observed human reality then formulated theories to explain it. As a student of Plato, Aristotle’s
conception of state and justice sprung from the propositions of The Republic, and in-depth
observations of existing political practices and types of governments.

Like Plato, Aristotle conceded with the organic view of the State as supreme over
individual citizens. He explains that the State is Nature’s way of nurturing the abilities, and helping

1. Ebenstein, William, and Alan Ebenstein, “Plato: The Republic*” in Great Political Thinkers: From Plato to
the Present 5th ed. (Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College, 1991), 69
 Di s il i o ( 2018 -05119) |2

people attain self-sufficiency, for it is impossible for a man to reach self-sufficiency if he isolated
himself from the state.2 Still agreeing with his mentor, he underscores the interdependency
between the state and its people in the overall success and welfare of the public. Both also
perpetuated the natural order of the State where it is only fitting that some are meant to rule, and
others to be ruled. Aligned with this is their shared belief that people already have a pre-determined
role or purpose that they must perform accordingly within the state.
However, their views diverge in terms of the ultimate good that must be achieved. For
Plato, it is justice; for Aristotle, it is happiness lived through virtues. Plato disregarded happiness
of any class, claiming that the welfare and harmonious functioning of all roles should be
prioritized. But for Aristotle, the state “…exists for noble actions, not for mere companionship…”3
and that the whole cannot be happy unless most are. From their shared view that states should
indeed by ruled by philosopher kings, Aristotle expounded on his State in the form of a polity
which is a mixture of both oligarchy and democracy, combined with kingship. This form maintains
the involvement of citizens in the State, for Aristotle believe that doing otherwise would only
create more enemies. While this is not entirely democratic, it is far more democratic than that of
Plato.
While this sounds egalitarian for Aristotle’s end, he still perpetuated the inequality between
sexes. He emphasized that women do not have the necessary abilities and faculties to engage in
statesmanship, as a contrast to Plato’s view that women are as capable as men, so long as both are
provided with the same training and education.
Aristotle also deviated from Plato’s view of state unification as the best order for the state,
and instead highlighted the pluralistic nature of states. People, stemming from diverse needs, ought
not to attain Plato’s brand of unity even if they could for he defines this as the “…destruction of
the state.”4 His principle of compensation posits that all should share in the government, and that
self-sufficiency is attained through a lesser degree of unity.
Still banking on the argument of necessities, Aristotle elaborated more on the ‘just’
distribution of property that would evade wars and crimes, as a natural tendency for people living
amidst scarcity. He discussed the important work of legislators in not merely distributing property,
but also regulating the amount each person could own. This, he believes, would be a fairer option
than making properties public, where boundaries of ownership are extremely vague, if not non-
existent.
From a contemporary point of view, both Plato’s and Aristotle’s notion of Utopia seem
autocratic and debunks the liberty and freedom most people are enjoying today. This renders the
relevance of early political philosophies in a questionable light. However, these legacies
influenced many a great thinkers succeeding them, and helped in the establishment of the political
states we have at present.

2. Ebenstein, William, and Alan Ebenstein, “Aristotle: Politics*” in Great Political Thinkers: From Plato to
the Present 5th ed. (Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College, 1991), 95.
3. Ebensten and Ebenstein, 113
4. Ebenstein and Ebenstein, 96-97
 Di s il i o ( 2018 -05119) |3

Bibliography

Ebenstein, William, and Alan O Ebenstein, “Plato” in Great Political Thinkers : Plato to the
Present, 31-80. 5th ed. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College, 1991.

Ebenstein, William, and Alan O Ebenstein, “Aristotle” in Great Political Thinkers : Plato to the
Present, 92-126. 5th ed. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College, 1991.