Is active citizenship necessary to the achievement of eudaimonia?

AS and A Level Religious Studies & Philosophy

Ian Bishop

Aristotle describe the purpose of the state as being to secure the greatest happiness for the greatest number of its citizens. That is, the state exists for the purpose of securing the ‘good life’, or eudaimonia, for its citizenry. Such happiness is not a means to an end, as almost all other human endeavours are, but it is an end in itself. Indeed, Aristotle regards it as being the sole end at which humanity should be aimed. Aristotle articulates modes of achieving such a state of being in the Ethics, and broadly concludes that the supreme form of happiness is derived from noble and virtuous deeds. He decides that happiness is not a disposition, but an activity, because 'if it were [a disposition] it might belong to someone who was asleep throughout his life, or a plant, or to someone who was suffering the greatest misfortune.' Happiness is therefore an activity. Given this logic, it seems natural to proceed to proceed with the hypothesis that active citizenship is likely to achieve eudaimonia for the citizen.

It is easy to discover in The Politics a theme of encouragement to the active life. As Aristotle seeks to define the best form of state, he establishes that the best form of life must also be understood. Breaking down the best form of life into its constituent elements of external good, goods of the body and goods of the soul, Aristotle concludes that the state must supply its people with these determinate types of good, or at least provide an environment in which they may be gained. These goods, when possessed, create the self-sufficiency that Aristotle believes a state must represent. This autarkeia is the natural telos of the state, Aristotle argues, and it permits the citizens of a state to have leisure. It is important to note that self-sufficiency extends beyond an economic idea for Aristotle, and full self sufficiency will consist in a state enabling its citizens to achieve the range of goods necessary for eudaimonia. This is all significant for it charts Aristotle’s belief in the state as a fundamentally natural institution that exists for something more than the fulfilment of day to day wants. It is the emergence of the state after family and village structures, that permits, Aristotle believe, citizens to seek eudaimonia. This is permitted through the accomplishment of self-sufficiency by the state, something that neither family nor village units could fully provide. Thus if we take Aristotle’s famous assertion that ‘man is by nature a political animal’ and that the goal of the state, itself a natural institution, is the achievement of happiness for its citizens, then this goal must also be natural, for it is an end in itself. In Book VII, Aristotle states that ‘the Gods are happy and blessed, not by reason of any external good, but in themselves and by reason of their own nature’. If man is to realise his nature as a political animal, then the state and its goal of eudaimonia are paramount concerns of his, the former as a means to the achievement of the latter. As the state must achieve self –sufficiency to create circumstances necessary to eudaimonia, then it is clear that at least some form of active citizenship is required to gain the external goods (i.e. material possessions such as wealth, power and reputation) necessary to the autarkeia of the state.

Password

Confirm Password

I agree to the terms of service and privacy policy

This is a preview of the whole essay

This leads us to consider whether active citizenship is a means to an end, or whether it itself is intrinsic to the achievement of eudaimonia, that is that without active citizenship one cannot acquire the good life no matter what other goods one possesses. Aristotle is not very clear in this, possibly because he does not feel the need to restate his moral position voiced in the Ethics. He holds a clear view that virtuous deeds and noble actions are required to the achievement of happiness, yet he is pragmatic in his awareness that the good man is not always the good citizen. Although Aristotle clearly wishes to believe that good citizenship is identical to being a good man, his acknowledgement that differences in various states means that there is no universal notion of a good citizen, and thus good citizenship cannot automatically equate to a good life. Whether a man is a good citizen or not is shaped by the state he is living in. Aristotle points out that he who is a good citizen in a democracy, may make a very poor one in an oligarchy. With these differences in mind, active citizenship must be either merely an means to an end, or those living in states that do not encourage active citizenship cannot achieve eudaimonia. Aristotle, although condemning the perversions of natural governmental forms, does not offer a conclusive view as to whether certain states are incapable of gaining eudaimonia for their citizens. If an oligarchy holds the poor in a state of poverty, we might conclude that such a state can never achieve eudaimonia. However, those with wealth in such a state who are members of the oligarchy, are not prohibited, we might assume, from the achievement of eudaimonia. Aristotle also argues directly against the view that material good are a core part of happiness. He ‘appeals to the facts' to derive that mankind acquires external goods by excellences, and not the other way around. He states that happiness is more often to be found with those who are ‘most highly cultivated in their mind’ and have only a moderate store of external goods. Surely this criteria for happiness, highness of mind, is very exclusive indeed, as the majority of people cannot possibly have the most highly cultivated mind.

This leads us to consider the nature of Aristotle’s view of happiness. He does not have a modern, egalitarian view of happiness, and clearly believes that many groups are excluded from the achievement of eudaimonia. Slaves and non-citizens are both groups who cannot be happy. Equally, we must consider what Aristotle means by ‘active citizenship’. A modern understanding of the phrase is of little use to us, since we associate active citizenship with democratic structures. Aristotle regarded citizens as those with a right to participate in the judicial and decision making structures of the state. Again, this excludes a great many people, and modern preconceptions of equality hinder an understanding of Aristotle’s point. Throughout The Politics Aristotle expresses his views against equality and argues for the exclusivity of citizenship. For Aristotle, the matter of how to govern well is to act in the interests of the citizens, though this may not accord with their wishes. Aristotle has no modern conceptions of representation of the popular view, and regard rulers as holding authority as a result of their collective expertise and not on their forming a majority of the citizenry. Furthermore, activity, as far as Aristotle is concerned, is not limited to physical or economic activity. His arguments in favour of cultivated mind, which would support his own obvious commitment to academic pursuits, is a good illustration of the view Aristotle takes of activity. However, Aristotle does not regard abstract thought as the sole virtue of activity, and indeed he argues in the early part of Book VII in defence of those engaged in stagecraft, the most practical and presumably natural application of mind. Aristotle is very clear in this section of The Politics and his argument is worth presenting: Aristotle sets up two views of the achievement of happiness in a state, that some renounce political power and think that the life of a freeman is different from the life of a statesman and the best of all: whilst others believe the life of a statesman to be best , as he who does nothing cannot do well, and that acting well is identical to happiness. Aristotle gives and answer to which is best by balancing the two views. He agrees that the life of a freeman is better than the life of a tyrant. Yet he points out that not all rule is despotic, and that to value inactivity above action is false as ‘happiness is activity, and the actions of the just and wise are the realisation of much that is noble’. Aristotle follows this with a further remark that grounds his argument in the practical. A recurring theme in The Politics relates to what might be done if one man is clearly superior in mind to all others in a state. This appears again in Book VII, but this time Aristotle adds the criteria that such a man must also be possessing of practical action as well as excellence of mind.

Political activity is ascribed great value by Aristotle. He states that the ‘good lawgiver should inquire how states and races of men and communities may participate in a good life, and in the happiness which is attainable by them.’. Thus, the lawgiver, an active citizen by definition, has a key role in the achievement of eudaimonia in the state. Aristotle confirms that this goal can be achieved in many different ways relating to the exact circumstances of individual states, but he believes that the goal is a universal one. It seems that as an instrument to achieving eudaimonia that active citizenship is essential. Aristotle stresses that men must participate in the good life, suggesting that this itself is an active pursuit. It may be difficult to discern from The Politics why active citizenship is necessary as an end in itself, or as an intrinsic part of eudaimonia, but it is clear that as a means to eudaimonia it is essential, if only on ground of practicality. Aristotle’s assertion that a state has as its primary goal the creation of eudaimonia may seem vacuous (particularly when viewed from a modern context), but he gives this goal a practical motive in The Politics by offering the state an incentive to pursue such happiness. The Ethics concerns itself with the former aspect of an active life, whereas The Politics is more concerned with matters of practical application and so considers the latter in relation to politics. As a matter of ethics, Aristotle clearly regards an active life as the best, as happiness is acting well. He extends this idea in The Politics with the notion that acting well is best for both individuals and the state, an expression of his belief that the best life, both for the individual and the state is the life of excellence, and that the happiness of the individual is the same as that of the state.

In conclusion, we can surmise that active citizenship is indeed necessary to the requirement of eudaimonia. However, we may do this only by properly qualifying the terms which we use. Aristotle had very specific ideas relating to the phrases he employed, and not all of these translate well leading to the danger of confusing modern values with Aristotle’s idea of the ‘good life’. The notion of eudaimonia is restrictive by its nature, and to look for a way to universally apply it was not Aristotle’s intention. Aristotle took the term to mean a form of life that wants for nothing, and he clearly knew that for many people this was impossible. Aristotle’s interest lay rather in the creation of a state which could allow the development of eudaimonia for its citizens, another term with a more specific and limited meaning in Aristotle’s day.

Within Aristotle’s definitions of citizenship, activity and eudaimonia we can say that Aristotle believes that both on ethical and practical grounds, a good life is necessary and desirable. One achieves happiness through virtuous and good deeds, and the state is built upon activity. The two points of view, ethical and practical, are easily reconciled by Aristotle, although he never gives way to naïveté in either. The naturalness of politics and the state make political activity particularly desirable, as it is to bring us closer to the gods to act in our nature. Arguably, the principal thrust of The Politics is to illustrate the naturalness of politics, and the immortal phrase ‘man is by nature a political animal’ suggests that Aristotle achieved his aim. Within this argument, it is wholly logical that through citizenship, that is, participation in the state, we can best achieve our truest happiness.

2,100