What is the best regime? Building on his discussion of happiness, virtue, and the good life in the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle answers this question elaborately in his later text, The Politics. In his elaboration, Aristotle studies many regimes, paying particular attention to the reasons that cause them to arise and what ultimately leads to their downfall. Nevertheless, Aristotle's analysis is consistent with his work in The Ethics, and therefore the highest goal remains virtue. Unfortunately, such a pure diet has never existed; instead, it has been hampered by factional conflicts among those who make up the city and the divergent visions of justice and inequality that result. Aristotle's response is therefore twofold: his immediate response points to regimes that focus above all on virtue; On a more practical level, however, he identifies the best regime as one that recognizes other priorities, such as wealth and freedom, in addition to an emphasis on virtue. The latter regime, however, remains an aspiration, and in fact Aristotle admits that it only rarely happens. To help achieve the best regime in practice, Aristotle also discusses the means by which it can come into existence, as well as the aids available to rulers to maintain its existence. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Aristotle begins his work in The Politics by examining the city, and specifically how and for what purpose it is formed. Drawing on what he sees as a natural and human impulse toward a kind of lasting and reproductive partnership, Aristotle notes that all cities, "while born for the pleasure of living, (exist) for the sake of living well" ( Lord, 37). Living well, both individually and collectively, therefore requires a life consistent with virtue since “the best way of life, either separately for each individual, or in common for cities, is that accompanied by virtue” (198). Happiness will then be the result of such a virtuous life for the city according to Aristotle, as he further argues: "If one accepts that the individual [is happy] because of virtue, he will also affirm that the The most excellent city is the one that is happiest” (199). Aristotle summarizes the importance of virtue by writing: “It is therefore obvious that virtue must be a concern for every city,” especially since living well “is the end of the city” (98, 99). Unfortunately, not all diets take care of virtue, as Aristotle points out. Instead, there are regimes that alternately care about wealth and others about freedom. Furthermore, there are correct and deviant forms of each of these regimes described by Aristotle. More generally, Aristotle describes six types of regime, three of which are correct regimes "which seek the common advantage", and three of which are their deviations, seeking instead "only the advantage of the rulers" ( 95). Aristotle then identifies kingship as the most correct regime above aristocracy and the political system since kingship is a regime ruled by one, and it becomes less likely that all will be "remarkable in virtue" when the regime is governed by the majority. Democracy, which is the deviant form of the political system, then preferably follows the political system and is followed in turn by oligarchy, which focuses on wealth, and finally by tyranny, which is the deviation from royalty . Given these possibilities, as well as their objectives, it begins to become clear which diets are best according to Aristotle. Based on his assertionaccording to which virtue must concern each city and that virtue cannot meet any upper limit in an individual, royalty and aristocracy then seem to be Aristotle's first choice, because such regimes would be led by one or a few with almost deific virtue. There are, however, arguments against the apparent excellence of these regimes - for example, that a kingship would not make governing and being ruled easier, nor would it make it easier to be ruled. participating in politics as part of their leisure time - and these end up pointing more to the aristocracy as a better regime. Aristocracy, however, has its own faults, such as the fact that the poor and the many often confuse it with oligarchy. However, it makes it possible to govern and be governed, especially if it contains a restricted group of citizens. What is becoming clearest when it comes to the theoretical best regime, however, is that there are many factors that must be considered to match a city to its best regime, and these factors are becoming increasingly visible when it comes to the best practical diet. Regimes such as royalty and aristocracy therefore, where a handful of elites – or even the single most – rule virtuously, it is almost impossible in practice. What makes this impossible, according to Aristotle, is the perpetual occurrence of factional conflicts that arise due to competing claims whose inequality will determine who rules. That is, while some claim that virtue should determine rulers, others claim that it should be wealth, and still others freedom (130). It is not surprising that such divergent demands within the same city and the same regime can be damaging and ultimately cause the downfall of the regime. Aristotle thus notes “that all those who argue about regimes speak of a part of justice,” which is in turn a debate around equality and inequality (99). Thus, while "justice is considered to be equality, and it is, but for equals and not for all, inequality is considered to be just and indeed is, but for the unequal and not for all » (97). These factional conflicts then manifest themselves as alternative claims to power, which in turn are alternative views on justice or what is equal and unequal within the regime. Common factional conflict could then result from individuals assuming that, "if they are unequal in a certain thing, such as goods, they are (also) unequal in general, while others assume that if they are equal in a certain thing, like goods, freedom, they are generally equal” (98). Thus, because "justice is seen by all as a certain equality," the resulting factions always reflect that variation in the interpretation of equality that occurs between the few and the many, or between the poor and the rich (103, emphasis added). tendency toward factional conflict, as well as other variations, such as population and climate, that distinguish each city from another, Aristotle recognizes that the best regime for one city may not be the best for all others. Noting this resulting diversity of regimes, Aristotle writes: “Thus, the variety of regimes – how many there are and in what way they are combined – must not be neglected” (119). In addition to this variety resulting from the diversity of circumstances that make each city unique, Aristotle also emphasizes that the best city is perhaps only an ideal, or "that for which one would pray above all, without external things do not constitute an obstacle” and itThere is therefore a second range of regimes from which the city must choose (118). In this second range, it is then more practical for the city to choose the regime which “is [the best] possible” and not “only the one which is at the top and requires a lot of equipment” (119). This aspiration for the best regime, as Aristotle reminds us, is motivated by the search for the best possible life, and with the most happiness and therefore virtue. Aristotle concludes: “For it is by seeking this in a different way and by means of different things that [groups of] individuals create different ways of life and regimes” (209). At this point, the task for leaders seems insurmountable as they must both choose and implement a regime that best fits their city. Leaders, however, are not alone in this task, and in fact Aristotle lists several aids that can help them theorize and implement the best regime. These aids include law enforcement, citizen aid, the expansion of a middle element, or essentially a middle class, and finally, education. First, a ruler can use laws to thwart the passions and appetites of those who will participate in the regime. Aristotle discusses this advantage of laws, noting that it may be "bad for the authoritative element to generally be man instead of law?" if he has the passions which result [from being human] in his soul” (100). Likewise, “desire is a thing of this sort; and ardor perverts rulers and the best men. Therefore, the law is an intelligence without appetite” (114). The law can also be useful in cities where "people (are) similar by nature", and therefore equal in many respects, including matters of honor and virtue. Here, as Aristotle argues, “it is no more just [for equal persons] to govern than to be governed, and it is therefore just [that they govern and be governed] in turn. But this is already a law, because the arrangement [of governing and being governed] is the law” (113). Although law can then play a beneficial role in the task of rulers, it also has disadvantages in that specific laws cannot be written for all circumstances nor can they be enforced without human guardians. Thus Aristotle notes that individuals must be “established as guardians and servants of the law,” or essentially to serve as judges. A second aid to the ruler(s) may be a carefully defined citizenship that will include those who wish to serve the polity and exclude those who are unable to participate in government due to naturally servile characteristics or lack of free time. Primarily, as Aristotle notes, “although citizens are different, the preservation of partnership is their task, and the regime is [this] partnership” (90). Also, as with laws, “a citizen in the common sense is one who participates in government and in being governed,” since this is consistent with his virtue (106). However, a citizen is not anyone who is not a ruler, and Aristotle reinforces this distinction since farmers, for example, would be incapable of fulfilling the duties of true citizens. A notable absence in the farmer's life, then, is free time, or time "both for the creation of virtue and for political activities" (211). Nevertheless, citizens – well defined – can be a significant aid to regime leaders since they tend to govern and be governed, while also having time to cultivate their virtue and political engagement. A third aid, or perhaps strategy, that the leader can employ is to "increasethe middle element, because this dissipates the factional conflicts that result from inequality” (164). The middle element achieves this in part by reasonably mediating between the extremes of one side or the other, but also by avoiding the passions and desires of those extremes which often lead to their own demise. Thus, in deviant regimes, where the intermediary element is often neglected, it is common to see the regime invaded by its own insistence, as in a democracy for example, where "many things that are considered typically popular (ultimately) overthrow democracies” (166). The middle element also often represents the average between competing claims, such as those between the rulers and the ruled. It is therefore the middle element who knows how to govern and be governed, as well as how to avoid the tendency to "become arrogant and vile on a grand scale, (or alternatively) malicious and vile in a petty way" (134). As Aristotle concludes, “it is the greatest chance for those who are involved in politics to have an average and sufficient property” since this element will most often give “the most stable regimes” (135, 149). the leader, and perhaps the most useful for preserving the regime according to Aristotle, is education. This education had several purposes, although it was primarily intended to prepare non-workers and non-slaves for a life devoted in part to leisure. Thus, education in vulgar tasks should be avoided since such acts are those which "put the body in a worse state and wage labor, because they make the mind an abject thing and devoid of leisure" (230). Thus, since leisure is a time for cultivating virtue, among other things, education should have as its primary objective the preparation of young people for such work, “Essentially (then),” according to Aristotle, “they usually teach four things. : letters, gymnastics, music and, fourthly, expertise in drawing” (230), however, Aristotle makes an important distinction between education which is of the type I have just described and education which he describes as “relative to the regime”. As he describes it: “But being educated in relation to the regime is not doing the things that oligarchs or those who want democracy enjoy, but rather the things through which the former. will be able to lead an oligarchy and the latter to have a democratically run regime” (167). There has to be some sort of moderation. this is emphasized in education so that "the sons of rulers no longer live luxuriously, while those of the poor train and practice", since this is often what led to revolution (167). Education must then also emphasize this moderation towards the middle of two extremes. Considering these four advantages of the ruler, as well as the existence and causes of factional conflict that all regimes tend to face, Aristotle's work suggests that politics appears to be the best regime from a practical. Certainly, it is not a question of royalty – the most “correct” regime – nor even of an aristocracy which, like royalty, focuses on virtue rather than wealth or freedom. Moreover, politics is not even really its own regime, having its own unique essence; on the contrary, it is “a mixture of oligarchy and democracy” (130). Aristotle extends this definition of politics as a mixture by identifying the "three things which contend for equality in polity, liberty, wealth, and virtue", and noting that politics is a "mixture of the two – rich and poor.” (130-1). But what is the advantage of such a mixture, and therefore what makes politics a "better.