Aristotle and Augustine Comparative Investigation of Virtue, Political Regimes, and Individual Moral Development:

 

Justice and virtue are fundamental within the understanding of how political regimes form, specifically towards how individuals within society uphold their moral standing. Aristotle and Augustine’s views on virtue and justice overlap in the manner that they both present the difficulty of our humanistic nature to sin and their perspectives on political regimes. They differ by how Aristotle forms the basis of virtue as an essential element of society and how Augustine ascribes virtue to divine grace. I will prove this through textual analysis of their works, through comparing their definitions of the “just” and “virtue” in Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics (2011), and Augustine’s City of God (2014).

Aristotle first defines justice by defining the characteristics of its opposite: injustice. He asserts, to be unjust is to be unlawful and unequal. Oppositely, to be just means to be lawful and equal. His definition of law encompasses "all things" of human actions, even beyond written law. He references three examples of lawfulness in the common man. First, the "courageous person” which is someone who fights in war, Second, the "moderate person”, who is someone that averts his temptation to commit adultery, Third, the "gentle person" someone who evades slander Nicomachean Ethics: 1129b 12-27). Thus, to be lawful is to follow social norms, to act virtuous and moral. Second, when referencing equality Aristotle brings up the idea of “reciprocity” and exchange (1132b22). He quotes Rhadamanthus who says, “If he should suffer the things he did, then justice would be straight” (1132b22). This relates to the concept of karma—good and bad. While Aristotle recognizes limitations with reciprocity, he asserts that exchange is needed for equality, which in turn, is fundamental in a just society. Only within a society with exchange and lawful citizens is happiness produced and preserved.

Drawing from his experience in natural science and biology, Aristotle approaches ethics as an efficient study of our human nature. He looks to comprehend the motivation behind our lives

and the necessary resources to accomplish eudaimonia (“having a good divine”), frequently translated as "happiness". All our human activities focus on some end, yet the most significant end is eudaimonia, which can be accomplished through the development of virtue (Nicomachean Ethics: 1095b29, 30, 33). Virtue (“arete”) is a characteristic that empowers us to act moral and leads to our flourishing as moral beings. Aristotle considers virtue fundamental of ethics. However, Aristotle recognizes two types of virtue: moral virtue and intellectual virtue.

In contrast to the virtue of thinking, which is the result of experience and education, moral virtue relates to a person’s character, which is a product of habit. Intellectual virtue includes the development of reason and practical wisdom (Sophia) (Nicomachean Ethics: 1141a2, 5). Unlike moral virtue, intellectual virtue is obtained through education and philosophical activity. Practical knowledge empowers us to make good decisions and apply moral virtues successfully in different circumstances, adding to our general moral development.

Aristotle suggests that the quest for virtue is directly connected to society. In his view, the city is the most noteworthy type of local area, and we can ultimately realize our actual capacity and accomplish eudaimonia inside a just and virtuous city (Nicomachean Ethics: 1094b5, 10). Society gives us the fundamental system for developing virtues and achieving significant moral development.

Aristotle distinguishes three political regimes: monarchy (type of government involving kings), aristocracy (the rule of few, the intellectually and morally superior), and polity (mixed constitution characterized by the rule of middle-class persons), which are distinguished by the rule of one, a few, or many individuals respectively (Nicomachean Ethics: 1160a35). He argues that a polity, a form of regime involving rule by the middle class, is the most steady and just system as it tries to adjust the interests of all residents. He makes the case that legislation ought to be based

on moral principles and work to advance the welfare of all. When laws are just and moral, they encourage us to develop good habits and perform virtuous deeds, enhancing society’s general moral character.

For Augustine virtue is defined as a gift from God and is based on love rather than the philosophers’ intellect (7.19 p82). According to Augustine, justice is best defined as honoring God by abiding to the Golden Rule, which states, "Love God and your neighbor as yourself” (14.7 p352). The definition of a just person is someone whose faith is exemplified by your love of God and neighbor.

Augustine’s 5^th century Christian philosophy book, City of God, states his belief in God’s divine providence and humanity’s fault through original sin. He presents a division of two realms, “City of Man” and the divine opposite, “City of God” (City of God: 15.4 p390; 15.17 p415). Augustine's assessment of virtue and political regimes in “City of God” presents a significant break from Aristotle's humanistic methodology. Augustine insists that we seek first The City of God that is virtuous and free from sins or any other flaws unlike Aristotle who insists that we form a just and flawless government to represent our interests.

Augustine presents a reasonable division between the earthly realm, which he alludes to as the “City of Man,” and the divine realm, the City of God (City of God: 15.4 p390; 15.17 p415). The “City of Man” addresses worldly, and imperfect social orders administered by our human institutions, while the “City of God” represents God's everlasting and ideal kingdom. This dualistic view shapes Augustine’s interpretation of virtue and its association with governance. He thinks that those living in the ‘City of Man’ might aspire to live up to the qualities of the ‘City of God’. Even if earthly governance may fall short of the heavenly deal, Augustine believes that by practicing just administration and encouraging qualities that are like those of the ‘City of God’, morality may be improved. His concept of earthly government and the function of virtues in our society is shaped by his focus on divine love, pure virtue, and the objective pursuing of God’s Kingdom.

In his work, Augustine acknowledges the difficultly in striving for virtue and moral development in the “City of Man,’ as it is a place full of sin and temptation. While virtues such as love and justice can exist, they are challenging to achieve due to our intrinsic malice (City of God:

1.9 p13). For Augustine, virtue isn't something that can be accomplished through our endeavors alone. Only through divine intervention of God to forgive one’s Original Sin can one achieve real virtue and moral development. (City of God: 24.27 p385).

Augustine recognizes the practicality of earthly governments in maintaining civil order. Yet, he doesn't believe secular means alone are sufficient to develop virtue in us (City of God:

19.26 p651-652), Augustine's emphasis on divine grace directs us to focus on the ‘City of God,’ looking for virtue through a life devoted to God's orders and the quest for everlasting redemption. He calls for humility, recognizing our limitations, and acknowledging our dependence on God’s grace (City of God: 14.13 p367-368). Augustine understands virtue as a gift from God that moves us to rise above the material and temporary worries of the “City of Man” to look for the everlasting and divine virtues of the “City of God.”

Aristotle and Augustine's ideas on the quest for virtue both feature the difficulty of our humanistic nature to sin which we must face in our moral development. While Aristotle considers rationality and habituation vital to developing virtues (Nicomachean Ethics: 1098b). Again, Augustine highlights the fallen nature of our humanity due to original sin, underscoring the requirement for divine grace to achieve real virtue (City of God: 20.1 p655).

One overlap between the two philosophers is their perspectives on political regimes. Aristotle argues that the likelihood of having a just and virtuous political society is dictated by the best polity (Nicomachean Ethics: 103b). He contends that the middle-class people, in the polity, have the most apparent opportunity to establish a decent and stable administration. On the other hand, Augustine's perspective on earthly political regimes is negative, underscoring our innate sinfulness and the undermining impact of our evil (City of God: 10.22 p213). Augustine focuses on directing us toward the “City of God,” where certifiable virtue and everlasting redemption can be achieved instead of putting hope in earthly governments.

Nonetheless, Aristotle and Augustine's points of view veer from each other. Aristotle forms the basis of virtue as an essential element of our societies and underlines the potential for self- development, which enables us to shape our personality through education and moral practice (Nicomachean Ethics: 1104b10). Conversely, Augustine ascribes virtue to divine grace, declaring that our work alone is insufficient in actual moral development (City of God: 24.27 p385). For Augustine, the quest for virtue is inseparable from our relationship with God and an important objective towards accomplishing everlasting redemption from God.

A major difference in comparing the two is when talking about just and unjust societies Aristotle says that unjust things can happen in unjust places, but it does not necessarily mean that every individual within that society is unjust. For society to be just as a whole it needs a political system and that can be a person who enforces laws to create justice. With that said, that person in power gets a salary and if that salary is not enough and they want more which is the scale of excess then they are a “tyrant” by his definition (Nicomachean Ethics: 1134b 1-9). Augustine is separate from this idea because he believes that we cannot create a just society on our own. We need interference from God to achieve Divine Providence for a just and virtuous society.

Most importantly, the meaning of these differences lies in their investigation of the human condition. Aristotle puts great emphasis on the potential for our improvement through reason and habituation (Nicomachean Ethics: 1095b). He sees us as equipped to mold our personality through virtuous activities, empowering personal obligation, and our commitment to the quest for a just society. Augustine's theological viewpoint highlights the fallen nature of our humanity due to original sin, presenting our limitations to accomplishing virtue without divine grace (City of God:

16.27 p470). This theological understanding of our susceptibility calls for humility and acknowledging the requirement for divine mediation in moral development.

These differences suggest how we understand the correlation between politics and ethics. Aristotle's belief in the significance of the polis as the ideal society where virtue can prosper presents the relationship between our personal moral development and the prosperity of the state and the growth of our government structures (Nicomachean Ethics: 1094b5). His vision of a just political system, exemplified in the polity, tries to find harmony between the interests of the entire polity.

Augustine's distrust of earthly political regimes' acceptability highlights our human institutions' limitations in encouraging virtue. His emphasis on the “City of God” as a source of virtue moves us to focus on our relationship with the divine over temporal earthly worries, concerns, and troubles (City of God: 1.8 p10). This point of view has critical ramifications for political life, as it requires an acknowledgment of the defects of human administration and a more profound reflection on the higher rules that rise above earthly institutions.

In conclusion, the two philosophers perceive the significance of justice as a fundamental virtue for personal moral development and the working of just political networks. Yet, their establishments for virtue and administration vary. The meaning of these variances reaches out past

theoretical talk, forming how we and social orders approach moral development and political administration. Aristotle's idealism in our human explanation and practical wisdom supports personal obligation and dynamic commitment to the quest for virtuous lives. Then again, Augustine's accentuation of divine grace and humility requires acknowledging human limits and a more profound reflection on the higher standards directing moral activities.