In Book III of the Politics, Aristotle identifies, evaluates, and ranks the different kinds of rule by which a city and its citizens' lives can be definitively formed and ordered. Although Aristotle clearly shows an aristocratic predilection in the presentation of his arguments, I contend that the arguments themselves - when thought through, compared, and put together - lend more support to the claims made by democrats and the demos for the justice of majority rule and the principle of equal freedom on which it rests. I make my case for this position by examining three standards of adjudication to which Aristotle appeals in the discussion of Book III. First, I consider the question strictly in terms of aptitude and ability, as Aristotle initially frames it in the first seven chapters of Book III and tries to answer it in Chapter Eleven; by identifying the most qualified, competent segment of the city's population. I then look to his discussion in Chapters Eight through Ten on the different contending factions' claims to rule in terms of distributive justice, according to what each of them fairly deserves. Finally, I focus on Aristotle's appeals to the common good of the entire city as the most authoritative measure of justice, especially in the final seven chapters of Book III where the question of which part of the city should rule the whole is answered in reference to the effectual outcome for the whole city, in light of all of its purposes and needs. I conclude with a surmisal of Aristotle's political and philosophical motives and intent.
Read
