Augustine and Aristotle: Moderation in the City of Man.

        Augustine has a huge moral objection with man.  The objection is not with man’s soul, which is eternal and will eventually join God, but rather with the finite body—the flesh—and its desires.  Desire, for material possessions and worldly pleasures, leads to more desire (after man revels in his new possessions), which leads to excess, and so forth.  “Indeed, vice is never not present; for, as the apostle says, ‘The flesh lusteth against the Spirit.’” (Augustine, p. 920).  This chain reaction, sparked by an unconscious wanting, leads to an unrelenting absence of satisfaction and ultimately unhappiness and turmoil.  Justice, according to Augustine, is moderation and the control of bodily desire, the control of greed.  It is interesting to point out that we have come full circle and have explained Augustine’s quote about kingdoms and bands of robbers.  Again, he says, “Justice removed, then, what are kingdoms but great bands of robbers?”  What turns a “just man” into a robber?  The answer is that the just man gives in to bodily desire and begins the pattern described above—he gives up moderation.  In terms of scale, Augustine makes no distinction between a simple thief and a corrupt king:

“It was a pertinent and true answer which was made to Alexander the Great by a pirate whom he had seized.  When the king asked him what he meant by infesting the sea, the pirate defiantly replied: ‘The same as you do when you infest the whole world; but because I do it with a little ship I am called a robber, and because you do it with a great fleet you are an emperor.’” (Augustine, p. 148).  

Augustine’s justice can now be better described to be respecting God by following his laws and living a life of moderation.  “…[W]hat of virtue itself…although it occupies the highest place among human goods, what is its task in this world but to wage perpetual war against the vices?” (Augustine, p. 920).

Earlier it was asked whether Augustine’s justice could be represented in relation to Aristotle’s “good life.”  Now that justice has been defined in Augustine’s terms, the question could be asked, does Aristotle agree?  The reflex answer is no.  The differences between the two philosophers and their writings are striking—specifically, Augustine is deeply religious, while Aristotle, at least in his discussions in the Politics, is ruthlessly secular.  How could the two possible agree?  After a closer look, however, it seems that Aristotle might agree with Augustine more often than expected at first glance.  Aristotle’s definition of justice is revealed in his concept of the “good life.”  The good life is what all just men strive to live.  Among other things, it is a combination of living comfortably under a fair and sustainable constitution.  The first, and perhaps most obvious similarity is Aristotle’s reference to sustainability.  In his evaluations of the different constitutional types, he allots heavy weight to stability.  He says that although a kingship ruled by a single wise man for the common interest would be the most just governmental setup, it lacks in stability from one generation, and one king, to the next.  “If the kingship is accepted as the best form of government for cities, what is to be the position of the king’s children?  Are we to say that his descendants should also be kings?  If they turn out as some of them have done, the result will be mischievous.” (Aristotle, Politics, p. 125-126).  Instead, Aristotle chooses as the “best” government the less just but more stable polity.  He shows very clearly where his priorities lie: “It remains to treat of the methods for preserving constitutions in general.” (Aristotle, p. 200).  Aristotle’s concern for stability is intimately related to Augustine’s obsession with moderation.  Moderation in a man is a way to maintain stability and avoid descending into the downward spiral towards desire and turmoil.  It seems Aristotle would have been very satisfied with Augustine on this point.  In addition, Aristotle’s distinction between the good constitutions, which rule for the common interest, and the bad constitutions, which rule for self interest, is very closely related with Augustine’s moderation and furthermore, with his descriptions of the city of God and the city of man.  Lack of moderation, and a desire for personal pleasure, is what drives the good leaders in Aristotle’s monarchies, aristocracies, and polities, to become the bad leaders in tyrannies, oligarchies, and democracies, and rule for themselves rather than their citizens.  “[T]hose constitutions which consider the common interest are right constitutions…Those constitutions which consider only the personal interest of the rulers are all wrong constitutions, or perversions of the right forms.” (Aristotle, p. 99).  By a short stretch of the mind, Augustine’s city of God and city of man can be compared with Aristotle’s good and bad constitutions, respectfully.  The city of man is dominated by love of self (similar, if not identical to ruling for self interest), and the city of God is dominated by a love of God.  Since God cares of all, this is a love for the common interest, which corresponds to ruling for the common interest.

        The other important similarity that can be pointed out is that Aristotle’s good life is not stagnant in nature.  Aristotle makes it very clear that the good life is a life of action and that one must constantly be living the good life to achieve it.  Likewise, pursuing Augustine’s justice involves a constantly active battle to resist desire and live a life of moderation.  Neither concept, the good life nor moderation, is a possession.

        Augustine and Aristotle don’t line up one hundred percent, as to be expected.  Living Aristotle’s good life does allow for, and encourages, the acquisition of personal possessions, private property for example.  This would most likely have made Augustine a bit uneasy, and “slippery slope” arguments might be brought up.  Also, there is the very big issue of religion.  This is where the two would most likely butt heads and fail to reach a middle group, but it is interesting that they could disagree so severely on such a huge issue, but come to terms on many of the smaller issues.

        After all this discussion, the question of who is actually right naturally arises.  Of course neither actually “got it right,” that would be fairly detrimental to philosophy, but did one of them hit the nail more squarely than the other?  Contemporary opinion would favor Aristotle, and I am inclined to agree.  Aristotle’s secular, capitalist-tolerant view seems like it would jive more with today’s society than would Augustine’s deeply religious near-asceticism.  In America, we live in a world of material possessions and manage to live better than citizens of any other nation, and most would agree we are not living in a world of sin or on the edge of turmoil.  Then again, some would.  Personally, I envision justice as a combination between ambition and moderation—right down Aristotle’s alley.  In addition, I appreciate Aristotle’s optimism and faith in us mortals, optimism not as present in Augustine’s vision.