Aristotle’s theory of state has been criticised for subsuming individual and all other associations under the state. His state is seen as a totalitarian state. In the vision of Aristotle, there is hardly any scope for the individual to think in his own way and to do something independently.
According to Aristotle, the state is all-embracing and it leaves no room for the individual’s freedom. The morality, ethics and idealism of the state and that of the individual are inseparable and same. Since the state is the highest association, it is quite capable of accepting the responsibility of helping and enriching the moral and ideal values to which the individual aspires. So the individual must be subordinate to the state and not vice versa. If the reverse is accepted then the authority of the state as the supreme organisation will be challenged and the nonexistence of the state will suggest the non-fulfilment of the goals. Again, this is unacceptable. Hence, the subordination of the individual to the state is a must.
This type of subordination of individual to the state—which may also be described as totalitarian, authoritarian or paternalistic—is undoubtedly recommended by Aristotle. He thinks that people want to be happy and their happiness is required to be maximum. This is possible only if the state takes steps in making legislation and regulating the entire educational system. That means, the state-controlled education and state-sponsored laws are the only weapons of attaining happiness. The state is the only authority of all the enterprises and the individual has no choice. There is no alternative but subordination.
His concept of organic theory of state is also a powerful hint of totalitarianism. In an animal body the parts have no importance away from the whole. Although this is true, yet the same cannot hold good for the relationship between the individual and the state. The state is essential for the individual no doubt, but it cannot claim to embrace all the aspects of his life. The state can fulfil a part of human demands but not all the demands. For complete satisfaction and happiness, the individual seeks the membership of different organizations. Aristotelian state cannot tolerate this. It is absolutely unintelligible how a political association can make all its inhabitants moral, ethical and ideal single-handedly. It is both physically impossible and morally unjustifiable. No person or organization can take the absolute guardianship of all individuals. Aristotle’s polis is a community and not an association, because men value it for its own sake and not just as a means to the fulfilment of separate individual ends. If this is the nature of Aristotle’s polis, the individual finds no honourable position in the state. Any form of defiance to the state is seen as irrationality on the part of individuals. Rationality of the individual is equated with unconditional surrender to the state.
Subcribe on Youtube - IGNOU SERVICE
For PDF copy of Solved Assignment
WhatsApp Us - 9113311883(Paid)
0 Comments
Please do not enter any Spam link in the comment box