Pros And Cons Of Aristotle Anarchy

Anarchy refers to absence of government; while anarchy is often associated with

extremists, it is a necessary tool for checking the excesses of society’s political leadership. Even

with the constantly disappointing and corrupt leaders, human beings still vote for new leaders

because they have been socialized to believe that governments are necessary for a peaceful

society. On the other hand, anarchists argue that anarchy is the most obvious course of action as

it will give human beings a chance to create a society they want instead of a society dictated by

rules created by the minority rulers. Opponents of anarchy argue that the society will be thrown

into chaos in case of anarchy. From analyzing Aristotle and Hobbes’ perspectives

Aristotle’s Politics shows Aristotle’s perspective towards anarchy. Though, the Aristotle

does not explicitly suggest that anarchy is conflictual, his ideology implies that he is against

anarchy. Aristotle notoriously defended slavery when he said, “there must be a union of natural

rule and a subject, that both may be preserved. For he who can foresee with his mind is by nature

intended to be the lord and the master, and he who can work with his body is a subject”

(Aristotle 26). In the above statement, Aristotle is arguing that a society can only be operational

Surname 2

when there is a ruler and subjects that work towards attainment of their ‘similar’ goals. Aristotle

asserts that the rulers have the capacity to come up with good plans, whereas the subjects are in

charge of implementation, hence they can both work together towards achieving their mutual

goals.

Aristotle asserts that anarchy is conflictual when he uses the most cited reason that

governance is necessary for the greater good of all (Aristotle 28). He argues that the state is a

creation of nature, and human beings are naturally political in nature and they cannot exist

without a state as they would be, “tribeless, lawless and hearthless one (Aristotle 28).” He