However, in Aristotle’s polis, which is governed by a system he terms “polity”, the majority of ruling body is composed of the middle class, which goes along with Aristotle’s belief in acting according to “the mean”, “That the middle constitution is best is evident, for it is the freest from faction: where the middle class is numerous, there least occur factions and divisions among citizens,” (1296a7–9 Politics IV). In general, the middle class is less apt than the rich or poor to act unjustly toward their fellow citizens (Miller). More specifically, the (“golden”) mean in short is acting between two extremes. For example, if we were to utilize the virtue of courage, we’d state that abiding by the mean would be not acting too excessively, being …show more content…
This difference is the discrepancy between a good citizen and a good person, and holistically speaking, the concept of good (virtue). In short, Plato is under the impression that there is only one, singular form for which good can result from. All citizens in Plato’s “kallipolis” and Aristotle’s polis are attempting to achieve a state of goodness, justice. However, Aristotle through the overlying theme of diversity, as explained in the aforesaid, maintains the belief that good can result from more than one methodology. Although, Plato feels that the concept of good, “being virtuous,” is a state of knowing, a perpetual thing rather than something that is achieved a number of ways by a number of different people in practice (praxís). When asked to define “justice,” Socrates talks about first identifying what a “just city” looks like because its composition mirrors that of a just individual. However, Aristotle believes such an analogy isn’t accurate because of the many differing individuals within a city-state, “human being is by nature a political animal,” (1253a1 Politics I). It’s impossible for a city-state to consist wholly of “good people,” (1276b39 Politics III), “but the virtue of a good man cannot be had by all, unless all the citizens of a good city-state are necessarily good men … a city-state …show more content…
In relation to the former, Aristotle acknowledges a good citizen would be one who advocates for and honors their city-state’s constitution. However, because there is no one good constitution, there is no one good city-state, and therefore no one good citizen. Aristotle also emphasizes the idea that it is possible to be a good person, and not be a good citizen, based purely on the fact that one’s city-state may have an unjust constitution. Plato believes if a city-state is good, it has entered a perpetual state of being, one where virtue is a consistent, undying theme. Meaning, this city’s constitution is undeniably just and its citizens who follow are similarly just. Plato’s kallipolis houses a society in which its citizens follow their rulers blindly and as stated in the latter they’re said to be acting “justly”. Blind following the ruling class does not equate to good citizenship, or a good