Essay From College course: Ancient Political Thought

What, if anything, can egalitarians learn from Aristotle’s ideal regime in Books VII-VIII

Aristotle's conceptualization of an ideal regime in 'The Politics' is set against a backdrop of beliefs and social structures markedly different from those prevalent in contemporary society. In the pursuit of solutions for modern challenges, it proves insightful to revisit historical philosophies and interpret them within our current context. This approach is akin to a common method in engineering, where solutions are often sought by drawing parallels from systems operating under different conditions. This paper will argue that by reinterpreting Aristotle's ideas through a modern egalitarian framework, it becomes clear that social reforms such as implementing an AI takeover of menial work and universal basic income are necessary for a truly egalitarian society.

Aristotle’s thoughts on the differences in different occupations in facilitating self-development, when adjusted to the modern standards of equality, provide useful insight into how egalitarians could ensure equality of quality of life through proactive programs implemented on a societal level, such as widespread use of new technology to do menial work, and the institution of a universal basic income program. Aristotle’s ideal society is based on the assumption that happiness is the ultimate goal of human life and that happiness consists of the realization and perfect exercise of excellence in the rational soul (1332b). For Aristotle, the citizens of the ideal city are those who share in the political deliberation and administration, and who have leisure to pursue the good life of

intellectual and moral excellence (1278b18). He also believes, though that “the best life, both for individuals and states, is the life of excellence when excellence has adequate external equipment” and therefore there are tasks necessary for the function of a society, and therefore a society can only operate if there is a base of non-citizen slaves, who do necessary tasks like food production and construction, as “the life of the [menial labor] is very illiberal, and unbefitting any citizen of the state” (1325a) and are therefore tasks not appropriate for citizens who should be focused on living the good life. Such a society logically necessitates a class of people valued differently than citizens needed to do these tasks. He views these slaves as the means by which the citizenry who collectively make up Aristotle’s valued class of society ensure they have the resources and time to pursue the good life by subsisting on the efforts of the slaves (1255b). These views imply a differing societal valuing of the ruled and the ruling, based on supposed ‘natural differences’, with the former’s life purpose being a means to facilitate the latter’s self-development opportunities, i.e. living free of the burdens of menial work.

However, modern egalitarianism rejects the notion of natural slavery and advocates for all human beings’ equal worth and dignity, regardless of their abilities or social status. Egalitarianism also implies that no human being should be viewed as a means for another’s benefit and that everyone should have equal opportunity to the various roles in society, especially those roles designated by Aristotle as being naturally limited to his conception of a specific citizenry who are ‘masters’ by nature. If Aristotle were to hold the modern egalitarian belief that all people are of equal value and deserving

of the right to seek a virtuous and good life, he would fail to conjure up an ideal society, as he believes that “the best form of government is that in which every [person], whoever [they] is, can act best and live happily” (Aristotle, Politics, Book 4, Chapter 115), and that the tasks which provide the material necessities that let a city function are not suitable for any human being, as they do not let people live the best life, insofar as they do not lead to the development of virtue, and a life of leisure, or activities which are an end in themselves. To such a realization, he would argue that, in the ideal society of equally valued people, since all would be equally deserving of having equal freedom from menial work to have equal opportunities for the development of a virtuous, good life, there is a necessary existential trade-off between attaining the material necessities for society, and the equality of opportunity for all people. However, the rapidly developing capabilities of artificial intelligence (AI) provide an innovative solution to having a necessary labor base for a society while eliminating the role differentiation in society built into Aristotle’s ideal society. Furthermore, considering that Aristotle posited that “the good life is the life according to virtue” (1098a) and that, virtue is achieved through the appreciation of art, exercise, political activity, and philosophy, activities typically relegated to free hours of the day when one is employed in a menial job. Therefore by delegating menial tasks to AI, people who were previously employed in menial jobs as part of the necessary functioning of society would be allowed to fully dedicate their time to pursuits that Aristotle viewed as the most humane use of people's time, those which develop virtue. This paradigm shift, where AI assumes roles once considered ‘lower,’ embodies the logical application of Aristotle’s ideas on the good life within a political society

according to egalitarian principles, and shows that egalitarians can learn something from Aristotle, that more needs to be done to make it so that all can have equal time and resources to enjoy the good life. Aristotle says, “The life of money-making is one undertaken under compulsion, and wealth is evidently not the good we are seeking; for it is merely useful and for the sake of something else” (1156a). A universal basic income (UBI) program, for example, could provide a minimum level of economic security for all citizens, regardless of their employment status, and allow them to pursue their activities previously stated as being those which Aristotle believes to lead to happy and virtuous living.

Commonly, the widespread adoption of AI in performing menial tasks is viewed as a possible social problem, as it could negatively affect individuals who find fulfillment in such work. In our modern society, tasks that in an Aristotelian framework would be seen as menial, are utilized as crucial sources of purpose and happiness for certain segments of the population. The automation of these tasks by AI could thus be seen as limiting these individuals’ ability to live a fulfilling life, potentially hindering their pursuit of happiness as envisioned in an Aristotelian framework. In modern society, many individuals feel a necessity to turn to tasks that in the Aristotelian sense, are ‘menial’ as their main source of personal fulfillment and happiness, even if they had the institutional and societal opportunities to do otherwise, as they have limiting intellectual disabilities, a different set of capabilities to those which Aristotle would imagine a citizen to have. For example, some people with disabilities may choose to work in menial jobs, such as food service or

cleaning, as these are jobs allow them to participate equally in our modern work-based society, offering a sense of dignity, independence, and social interaction skill development, personal growth, and community involvement, which can enhance one’s self-esteem and well-being. Aristotle himself considered this human reality, but in his consideration he drew conclusions antithetical to egalitarian principles, arguing that some people are naturally more suited for intellectual activities, while others are more suited for practical or productive activities, and that the ideal city should assign different roles to different types of people according to their natural capacities and virtues; as we have seen this line of reasoning is then used as a basis for natural slavery as he placed more moral societal importance on those who are suited to intellectual opportunities (1328b40-1330a40).

However, this counterargument can be challenged if we take a higher-level look at Aristotle’s idea for the structure of the ideal society. For him belonging to the virtuous actions of the citizenry was not belonging to an economically productive class, a main lens we use to analyze modern society, and the origin of the societal need to create job opportunities for those with intellectual disabilities, but was rather based on the enjoyment of leisure and self-development both in the realms of personal growth, and social growth. Aristotle argued that leisure, which he distinguished from mere relaxation or amusement, is the time for cultivating the mind, spirit, and character, and for engaging in activities that are done for their own sake and are worthy of devotion. While we can concede that Aristotle considered philosophic contemplation to be the highest, and

therefore most valuable form of leisure(1177a15-1178b20), it would be wrong to conclude that a society that utilized Aristotle’s conception of leisure as the primary mechanism through which people derive spiritual and psychological fulfillment would leave out those who have less capacities for philosophical activities. Aristotle’s ideal society would not exclude those who have less capacities for philosophical activities but rather provide them with various forms of leisure that can enhance their well-being and contribute to the common good. Music, gymnastics, and emotional learning are accessible across the IQ bell curve and are forms of leisure that Aristotle saw as closely following philosophy in the development of virtue and happiness. For example, he argued that music has the power to influence the character of the soul, and therefore was not merely a source of amusement or relaxation, but also a tool akin to philosophy that could be employed in the development of virtue, stating that “Music is a thing that is most akin to the soul and to its movements, and this is why the poets say that the soul is ‘harmonized’ by music” (1340a14-16). If such thinking holds, then it follows that even if philosophizing was not a viable option for an intellectually disabled citizen of the egalitarianistic version of Aristotle’s ideal society proposed in the second paragraph, such a citizen could still utilize one of the non-intellectual forms of leisure to lead a virtuous and fulfilling life without employment.