The following is the introduction to my term paper from this past semester. The class was Major Works in Political Philosophy and the paper is a comparison of Aristotle and Locke’s views regarding human nature, its impact on economic inequality, and the resultant effects on political society. By way of disclaimer, I do not share this as a dogmatic articulation of personal beliefs, but merely as a way to share what I’ve been studying and thinking on, and to invite broader dialog.
“Economic inequality” is a phrase so commonly used now; it has become a part of the conventional wisdom: Inequality exists, that’s unjust, and so something must be done about it. The “something that must be done” is often understood to be some form of wealth redistribution.
However, starting one’s analysis at the point of policy formation begs a question of presupposition: What makes income inequality unjust? Is it’s opposite, economic equality, even attainable, and by what methods should it be attained?
More pertinent to the American context, should economic inequality exist in a political society that values human equality? These are questions of political philosophy that consider the ontological makeup of humanity, its conditions for living together in a civil society, and the purpose of that society.
The familiar problems of political philosophy.
While expanding economic inequality may appear to some to be a current phenomenon, its causes and effects have been a focus of concerned thought for millennia. Aristotle and John Locke give considerable attention to it in their writings. They agree that internal conflict, which can be caused by economic inequality, destroys societies and must therefore be guarded against. They differ, however, on how that is best accomplished.
Aristotle accepts a natural inequality among human beings, which enables him to argue against radical economic equality and affirm such institutions as slavery.
Locke, however, substantively disagrees with such a characterization of humanity, and argues that in a state of nature humans are free and equal, with equal access to the “common stock” – the resources of nature. However, Locke doesn’t argue for economic equality either.
In fact, both men saw economic inequality as being a natural part of human society.
If economic inequality is natural, should it be accepted? Maybe not.
Aristotle’s economic inequality grows out of the natural conditions of the different classes of humanity and the role of some to be rulers and others the ruled. Layered on to this basic starting point is the introduction of money that allows for acquiring property beyond ones need. Money, and its use in property acquisition, is thus isolated by Aristotle as a source of class conflict. However, Aristotle could not get past the fact that currency was present in human society, and so accepts its presence even as he deplores its effects. Because of it’s permanence, Locke seeks to turn this money and property acquisition to the public good.
Locke argues that labor, invested into the common stock, creates claims of private ownership over otherwise worthless natural resources. Industrious, rational labor thus adds value to the common stock; therefore private property adds values to society.
Reasoning that political equality is realized in a social contract that first affirms the value of labor and its legitimacy as the basis of one’s right to private property, Locke argues this is the best way to preserve the public good, and is thus a civic virtue. Yet, similar to Aristotle, Locke acknowledges that hoarding goods and property can promote conflict between those with plenty, and those without.
Political philosophy is still relevant because questions remain.
So how does economic inequality trigger class conflict? Is it the natural inequality of humans exacerbated by money as Aristotle proposes, or is it the hoarding and withholding of goods from one’s equals as Locke suggests?
This essay seeks to analyze the roots of conflict from economic inequality through a comparative analysis of Aristotle and Locke. It will first consider the usefulness of such a comparison; then consider how the philosophers’ views on the natural state of humanity effects perspectives on property and money, which in turn influences their ultimate prescriptions for a stable political society.
If you care to answer any of the questions in the final section, please do so (tastefully) in the comments below. If you’d like to read the rest of the paper, tell me whether I should post the other parts, or make it available as a downloadable file.