Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Aristotle on Inequality of Wealth

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Democracy, Justice, and Equality in Ancient Greece

Part of the book series: Philosophical Studies Series ((PSSP,volume 132))

Abstract

One might think that inequality of income and wealth are a special cause for concern only nowadays. But, perhaps surprisingly, equality and inequality of resources are issues addressed by Aristotle in his Politics. I first discuss Aristotle’s suggestion that equality of resources is a way of avoiding faction (e.g., Pol. V.3 1304a38-b5). I then discuss Aristotle’s relatively neglected critique of Phaleas of Chalcedon’s proposal for equal plots of land (Pol. II.7), arguing that Aristotle actually improves on Phaleas’s ideas in his own proposal for a second-best constitution. In such a constitution, Aristotle avoids the hour-glass distribution of rich and poor that is a modern problem (Pol. IV.11). His proposal also incorporates some aspects of his famous doctrine of the mean. I then briefly discuss the question of resources in Aristotle’s ideal city of the Politics and in his ethical works, speculating on the question why distributive justice in relation to wealth is not addressed in the passages of the Politics I discuss. I conclude with some brief reflections on modern and ancient views.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    In common parlance, the amount of resources of the “middle class” is vague, just as it is in Aristotle’s own discussion. Reich defines those in the middle class not by wealth, but by the median level of income, about $75,000 for a family of four.

  2. 2.

    See, for example, Ober (2013) on paying attention to Aristotle’s views independently of such claims, and Keyt (2017) on how such exclusions are unwarranted on Aristotle’s own principles. I have also argued that these views contradict Aristotle’s own doctrine of the mean (Gottlieb 2009, p. 32).

  3. 3.

    Aristotle’s critique of Plato has been extensively discussed by others. Here I concentrate on the comparatively neglected discussion of Phaleas.

  4. 4.

    This puzzle was raised by Gerasimos Santas .

  5. 5.

    Except when otherwise noted, translations of Aristotle’s Politics are by Barker (1995), sometimes with my own modifications.

  6. 6.

    See, e.g., Peisistratus in Aristotle’s Athenian Constitution 13–17.

  7. 7.

    Compare Balot (2001, p. 35, footnote 14). Contrast, for example, Kraut (2002, pp. 348–351) and Simpson (1998, p. 103), who takes Aristotle’s discussion as a criticism of political materialism in general. On Aristotle’s method here, see Terry Penner (in conversation) on Socratic “warping,” the way in which Socrates takes an interlocutor’s view and then brings it round to ideas that he wants to develop himself.

  8. 8.

    See also Ober (1991, pp. 112–135).

  9. 9.

    On the importance of pleonexia, see Balot (2001).

  10. 10.

    In Athens, two obols were paid for various services including a benefit for disabled veterans. See, for example, Lysias 24 “On the Refusal of a Pension,” a speech defending one who was taken to court for apparently flaunting wealth he should not have (see Lysias 1930). It is not clear whether the speech was ever given. Thanks to Claire Taylor for the reference.

  11. 11.

    Here, I am departing from Barker’s translation of “moderate maximum” (1995, p. 61).

  12. 12.

    Translations below are by Robinson (1995). On the Athenian usage of plousios and penētes (rich and poor) which are often relative and not absolute terms, see Ober (1990, pp. 194–196).

  13. 13.

    On this point, see too the chapter by Christopher Rowe in this volume.

  14. 14.

    Thanks to Josh Ober for this suggestion.

  15. 15.

    On this interpretation, see Gottlieb (2009, pp. 19–37). The interpretation is controversial. For example, Howard Curzer seems to hold that the correct amount counts as moderate. For the debate between Curzer and the rival interpretation of the doctrine of the mean by Rosalind Hursthouse , see Curzer (2012, especially pp. 53–54, 79) and Hursthouse (1981, 2006). For a further critique of Curzer, see Gottlieb (2015).

  16. 16.

    Kraut (1997, pp. 114–115) argues that common meals will be free not just for the poor, but for everyone.

  17. 17.

    Compare Keyt in Robinson (1995, p. 135).

  18. 18.

    Special thanks to Gerasimos Santas and Georgios Anagnastopoulos for detailed comments and encouragement. Thanks also to the participants at the conference in San Diego for their helpful suggestions and comments: David Keyt , Deborah Modrak, Josh Ober , Terry Penner , Christof Rapp, Christopher Rowe , Claire Taylor, Nicholas Smith, Bob Wallace, and Charles Young. Thanks also to Monte Johnson, Blythe Greene, and Susan Sauvé Meyer.

References

  • Balot, R. 2001. Aristotle’s critique of Phaleas: Justice, equality and pleonexia. Hermes 129(1): 32–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barker, E. trans. 1995. Aristotle’s Politics (Rev. R.F. Stalley). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curzer, H.J. 2012. Aristotle and the virtues. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gottlieb, P. 2009. The virtue of Aristotle’s ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2015. Review of Howard J. Curzer Aristotle and the Virtues. Philosophical Review 124 (2): 258–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hursthouse, R. 1981. A false doctrine of the mean. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 81: 57–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2006. The central doctrine of the mean. In The Blackwell guide to Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, ed. R. Kraut, 96–115. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keyt, D. 1999. Aristotle Politics books V and VI. Oxford: Clarendon.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2017. Aristotle and the joy of working. In Nature and justice: Studies in the ethical and political philosophy of Plato and Aristotle, 223–239. Louvain-La-Neuve: Peters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraut, R. 1997. Aristotle Politics books VII and VIII. Oxford: Clarendon.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2002. Aristotle political philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lysias. 1930. On the refusal of a pension to an invalid. In Lysias. Trans. W.R.M. Lamb. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, F., Jr. 1995. Nature, justice, and rights in Aristotle’s Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ober, J. 1990. Mass and elite in democratic Athens: Rhetoric, ideology and the power of the people. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1991. Aristotle’s political sociology: Class, status, and order in the politics. In Essays on the foundations of Aristotelian political science, ed. C. Lord, D. K, and O’Connor, 112–135. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2013. Political animals revisited. The Good Society 22(2): 201–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reich, R. 2014. How to shrink inequality. Accessed 12 May 2014. Retrieved from http://robertreich.org/post/85532751265.

  • Robinson, R. 1995. Aristotle politics books III and IV (supplementary essay by David Keyt). Oxford: Clarendon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, P.L.P. 1998. A philosophical commentary on the Politics of Aristotle. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA

    Paula Gottlieb

Authors
  1. Paula Gottlieb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paula Gottlieb .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA

    Georgios Anagnostopoulos

  2. Department of Philosophy, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA

    Gerasimos Santas

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Gottlieb, P. (2018). Aristotle on Inequality of Wealth. In: Anagnostopoulos, G., Santas, G. (eds) Democracy, Justice, and Equality in Ancient Greece. Philosophical Studies Series, vol 132. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96313-6_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation