“…but we do say that a city has concord when men have the same opinion about what is to their interest, and choose the same actions, and do what they have resolved in common.”
“…for if people do not watch it carefully the common good is soon destroyed. The result is that they are in a state of faction, putting compulsion on each other but unwilling themselves to do what is just.”
Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics
As of this writing the highly contested presidential election is still undecided. One way or the other, this election has put a fine point on the declining state of our body politic. At what point do differences and fault lines run too deep to be integrated into one people, one nation? I do not know the answer to this question. It seems we all must reckon with the real possibility of the disintegration of our polis into progressively more systemic chaos.
But at the same time, there is always a path of integrity that opens before me–a path that will make a real difference.
According to Aristotle, ‘concord’ among citizens is a great good, indeed it is the key to the health of political society. Concord, which means a certain unity of judgment and choices about important matters, is in fact a kind of friendship. It is interesting to think in terms of such ‘friendship,’ which is widespread in a healthy political society.
One side winning an election and holding certain levers of power—as significant as that might be—is in itself far from addressing the critical wound in the body politic. This body cannot endure, much less thrive, in the absence of a greater convergence of worldview and life practice. In other words, without concord.
It becomes more and more clear that a shared understanding of the good human life will need to be thicker than classical liberalism has suggested. We can’t just push forward as though a thin notion of ‘freedom’ and ‘rights’ bolstered by economic prosperity is enough to constitute concord among a people.
So what are we to do? I might suggest two things that must be kept in proper balance with one another.
1. Treat fellow citizens as fellow travelers with whom our lot is cast, and so as persons with whom we seek concord, to the extent possible.
2. Pursue justice and the common good, recognizing that certain commonly held views are simply incompatible with justice and must be rejected and fought. This especially applies in defense of the defenseless.
I do not intend the first point to indicate a naïve assumption we can ‘all be friends.’ Aristotle is clear—both in his treatment of normal friendship and of friendship among citizens—that a rejection of the true human good in notion and in practice makes people incapable of real concord.
At the same time, our concern for the common good should lead us to be serious and intentional about doing what we reasonably can to change hearts and minds of our fellow citizens. In a rush for ‘victory’ over them at the ballot box, we do well to remember that we remain in some sense one body.
Perhaps they will not change. The most important ‘success’ I know I can achieve is not electoral victory or in changing a particular number of hearts, but in acting with greater courage and integrity in always putting the true common good first in my life, and in working to move others to do so too.
Aristotle (384-322 B.C.), student of Plato, tutor of Alexander the Great, has been considered by many to be the greatest ancient philosopher. The Nicomachean Ethics is his major ethical work.
Husband, father, and professor of Philosophy. LifeCraft springs from one conviction: there is an ancient wisdom about how to live the good life in our homes, with our families; and it is worth our time to hearken to it. Let’s rediscover it together. Learn more.
“It becomes more and more clear that a shared understanding of the good human life will need to be thicker than classical liberalism has suggested. We can’t just push forward as though a thin notion of ‘freedom’ and ‘rights’ bolstered by economic prosperity is enough to constitute concord among a people.“
Is it possible to have a thicker notion of the common good on a state or local level, but to maintain a thinner political conception of liberty at the level of the Republic?
Karen, You ask a great question. I think not only is it possible, but there is also much to recommend it. But of course the hitch is that it would call for having more power at the state and local level. Our republic certainly functioned more this way in the early years of our nation. But it is unclear what can be done once we have such a powerful, centralized government.
At the same time I think we have to be realistic about the challenge that this arrangement could still pose. Just how much difference could there be between states? And ultimately unto what end would they be united in this somewhat loose federation, and what would keep them so united?
These are some of the challenging questions of the very important discipline of political philosophy. Thanks for your great question!
What is it about the doctor of Αλέξανδρος ο Μέγας that doesn’t suggest he ought to be consulted about the nature of amicability were one to assume the particular perspective of יהודה המכבי?
You will have to explain this question.
My apologies. I’ve been known for esotericism bordering on obfuscation all too often.
Rephrased:
What reason would Judas Maccabeus have to consider the teacher of Alexander the Great to be a reliable authority on the topic of political amicability?
Let me further my purpose for asking to see if a response could be forthcoming.
On this anniversary of Armistice Day, I must suggest that I am aware of how Sun Tzu might respond to this question as to the importance of Judas Maccabeus knowing the mind of Aristotle as regards those whose understandings flowed from his instruction.
How might one encourage a zealous contemporary bent on immediate gratification–whose concerns for self-governance are like those historical dilemmas shared by Judas Maccabeus–that studying Aristotle might be of assistance in challenging the decisions of their imperial oppressors?
I’m going to invite you to share your thoughts on your own question.
Thank you for the invitation.
I look forward to recommending a copy of the forthcoming title to you.
Dear Dr. Cuddeback,
I have been reading your weekly reflections for a couple of years now. They always seem to me to be very timely, but this one is particularly so. I think this is certainly one of your finest. Thank you for your much needed perspective. May God continue to bless your work!
Dear Joseph, I sincerely thank you for your kind words and encouragement. May God bless you too.