Reconciling Injustice and Necessity: The Statesman in the Practical City :: Essays Papers

conciliate damage and Necessity The Statesman in the Practical urban centerWhen Socrates builds up a city in speech from specimens, he allows himself the natural selection of ascendant the more distasteful features of real human cities simply by omitting them from the argument. His is a city whose primary purpose is to shed light on the individual of an individual, and its role as a metaphor allows it to contain uniform conclusions which remain wholly counter to the feasible practices of men. Aristotle permits himself no such opulence when he sets out to describe politics from the top d sustain he cannot overleap such thorny issues as slavery and imperium because they represent as significant features in the constitutions of men and must be dealt with by recountsmen, to whose inescapably Aristotle is particularly sensitive. Unlike Socrates, he cannot simply label these things partial in the abstract and remove them from the ideal city. Aristotle, in his own descripti on of an ideal constitution, is scrupulously practical, even when practicality prevents him from endorsing what would seem to be the logical conclusions of his own arguments. His intercession of empire in the Politics, like his treatment of slaveryempires small-scale cousinreflects this ability to reconcile a sentiment of haughty justice to the inevitable unjustnesss of political life.It is not immediately demonstrable what Aristotles verdict on empire is. The institution seems to simultaneously abuse several(prenominal) of his premises for a good city and promote others, and Aristotle sets up a comparison of the arguments for both sides to address this tension. On the one hand, he perceives injustice in states whose sole purpose is to conquer their neighbors, and chastises statesmen who arbitrarily subjugate others for command without regard to the decently or equipment casualty of what he is doing (VII.ii.13) . He likewise praises the poised happiness of the isolationis t state when he says, It is possible to say a caveman state which is happy in itselfIt allow plainly stomach a good constitution (VII.ii.16). However, both these lines of reasoning be partial condemnations of empire. The first implies only that the statesman is ultimately accountable to right and wrong in his actions and must consider this standard in his decision-making, not that imperialism is in itself always on the side of wrong. He sees the thorough isolationism of the solitary state as problematic as well, ending his description of it with, unless it will have no regard to war (VII.Reconciling Injustice and Necessity The Statesman in the Practical City Essays PapersReconciling Injustice and Necessity The Statesman in the Practical CityWhen Socrates builds up a city in speech from ideals, he allows himself the option of overlooking the more distasteful features of real human cities simply by omitting them from the argument. His is a city whose primary purpose is to s hed light on the soul of an individual, and its role as a metaphor allows it to contain logical conclusions which run wholly counter to the feasible practices of men. Aristotle permits himself no such luxury when he sets out to describe politics from the top down he cannot overlook such thorny issues as slavery and empire because they exist as significant features in the constitutions of men and must be dealt with by statesmen, to whose needs Aristotle is particularly sensitive. Unlike Socrates, he cannot simply label these things unjust in the abstract and remove them from the ideal city. Aristotle, in his own description of an ideal constitution, is scrupulously practical, even when practicality prevents him from endorsing what would seem to be the logical conclusions of his own arguments. His treatment of empire in the Politics, like his treatment of slaveryempires small-scale cousinreflects this ability to reconcile a concept of absolute justice to the inevitable injustices of p olitical life.It is not immediately obvious what Aristotles verdict on empire is. The institution seems to simultaneously violate several of his premises for a good city and promote others, and Aristotle sets up a comparison of the arguments for both sides to address this tension. On the one hand, he perceives injustice in states whose sole purpose is to conquer their neighbors, and chastises statesmen who arbitrarily enslave others for ruling without regard to the right or wrong of what he is doing (VII.ii.13) . He also praises the self-contained happiness of the isolationist state when he says, It is possible to imagine a solitary state which is happy in itselfIt will obviously have a good constitution (VII.ii.16). However, both these lines of reasoning are incomplete condemnations of empire. The first implies only that the statesman is ultimately accountable to right and wrong in his actions and must consider this standard in his decision-making, not that imperialism is in itself always on the side of wrong. He sees the thorough isolationism of the solitary state as problematic as well, ending his description of it with, But it will have no regard to war (VII.