Aristotle's claims that 'man is a political animal' and that political community 'exists for the sake of living well' have frequently been celebrated by thinkers of divergent political persuasions. The details of his political philosophy, however, have often been regarded as outmoded, contradictory, or pernicious. This book takes on the major problems that arise in attempting to understand how the central pieces of Aristotle's political thought fit together: can a conception of politics that seems fundamentally inclusive and egalitarian be reconciled (...) with a vision of justice that seems uncompromisingly hierarchical and authoritarian? Riesbeck argues that Aristotle's ideas about the distinctive nature and value of political community, political authority, and political participation are coherent and consistent with his aristocratic standards of justice. The result is a theory that, while not free of problems, remains a potentially fruitful resource for contemporary thinking about the persistent problems of political life. (shrink)

It is often thought that Aristotle restricts the scope of justice to existing communities. Against prominent treatments of this problem, this paper argues that while Aristotle does indeed restrict the scope of justice, he recognizes eudaimonic reasons to cultivate co-operative and benevolent relations and to eschew manipulative and exploitative ones. His limitation of justice to existing communities thereby avoids the unsavory implications often attributed to it.

Part of a Festschrift for Fred Miller, this essay reconsiders Miller's interpretation of Aristotle in terms of natural rights. After defending Miller against his numerous critics, I draw a somewhat different lesson from his interpretation than he himself does: Miller helps us to see that an Aristotelian theory of justice can do all the work that we would reasonably want a theory of rights to do while avoiding significant problems that the idiom and rhetoric of rights tend to generate.

In thePolitics, Aristotle maintains, contrary to his predecessors, that there is a distinctive mode of authority that husbands should exercise over their wives. He even coins a word for it: γαμιϰή, ‘the marital art’ or ‘marital rule’ (Pol. 1.3, 1253b8–10; 1.12, 1259a37–9). Marital rule is supposed to differ from the authority that fathers have over their children and from the kind of rule that citizens exercise over one another. Yet it is not clear whether there is any conceptual space between (...) political and paternal rule for marital rule to occupy. Where fathers rule and children are ruled, citizens take turns ruling and being ruled. Husbands, however, either share their rule with their wives, or they do not. If they do not, then marital rule seems indistinct from paternal rule; if they do, then it seems indistinct from political rule. To add to the confusion, Aristotle says that husbands properly rule their wives politically, but without alternating in positions of ruling and being ruled. On its face, this idea seems flatly contradictory. Political rule just is shared, reciprocal rule, and so if the husband rules permanently and his wife is merely ruled, then his rule cannot be political. So Aristotle's own description of marital rule appears inconsistent, and in any case it is difficult to see how marital rule could have the distinctive character that he insists it does. (shrink)

Journal Name: Apeiron Issue: Ahead of print.