THE APPROPRIATION OF ARISTOTLE IN THE LIBERAL-COMMUNITARIAN DEBATE Eleni Leontsini A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Arts, University of Glasgow based upon research conducted in the Department of Philosophy. February 2002 ProQuest Number: 13818810 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a com plete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uest ProQuest 13818810 Published by ProQuest LLC(2018). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States C ode Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346 115 %5 con' Abstract In the last twenty years or so a key issue in political philosophy has been the debate between so-called communitarian philosophers such as MacIntyre, Sandel, Walzer and Taylor, and those who support forms of liberal individualism such as that found in Rawls'sTheory of Justice. In this debate reference has quite often been made to Aristotle. This is particularly so in the case of MacIntyre who is frequently seen as presenting a neo-Aristotelian view. But writers from the liberal-individualist camp, such as Miller, have also invoked Aristotle's authority. The purpose of this thesis is to examine the appropriation of Aristotle in this debate. I analyse six key concepts: community, teleology, happiness, justice, friendship and liberty. These concepts play a leading role in both communitarian and liberal political philosophy but they are of course also central to Aristotle's account. In choosing these concepts I do not mean to suggest that there are not other issues which are also important, but these are both characteristic of Aristotle's thought and of obvious relevance to the liberal-communitarian debate. I argue that neither the communitarian nor the liberal appropriations do justice to Aristotle's political theory. Both seem to attribute their own aspirations to the Aristotelian text and to rely on Aristotle's authority in order to substantiate their arguments. I conclude that Aristotle's political theory, when carefully examined within the debate, comes out as neither liberal nor communitarian. Aristotelian political philosophy is consistent neither with a liberal-individualist nor with a communitarian view that gives such a prominent role to the concept of community. Neither of the two parties to the debate therefore seems entitled to cite Aristotle in support of their position. Acknowledgements In the period in which this thesis has been written, I have received a great deal of help and support. Financial support has come from the Greek Public Benefit Foundation 'Alexander S. Onassis', the A.G. Leventis Foundation, and the Maria Stai Foundation of the University of Athens who awarded me grants and scholarships for which I am grateful. A large number of people have influenced this thesis in some way. Glasgow has been a great place to be a postgraduate student, and the Philosophy Department as a whole has given me both support and stimulation throughout these years. My primary debt is to my supervisor, Richard Stalley. Alexander the Great once said that he owed to his teacher, Aristotle, the good life (eu Cqv), and I owe Richard at least that; for believing in me and for his invaluable advice, inexhaustible patience and constant encouragement throughout these years in Glasgow. Richard is even (jnXrotrog tfjg dXr)0eiag. I would also like to thank Pat Shaw, who has been the soul of Glasgow graduate life for all these years, for his comments and support during this period. I am also indebted to Bob Hale, James Harris, Gary Kemp, Dudley Knowles, Christopher Martin, Andrew McGonigal, David Rose, and Elizabeth Telfer for their comments on my thesis during the yearly departmental reviews and various seminars. Also, I would like to thank Frances Daw, Susan Shaw, and Anne Southall for their secretarial assistance and patience. From the University of Athens, I would like to thank Konstantinos Boudouris, Dimitrios Koutras, Evangelos Moutsopoulos, and Theo Pelegrinis for their academic support and for what they taught me as an undergraduate student. Special thanks are owed to Jimmy Lenman, Angus McKay, and Adam Rieger for their comments, advice and support during the writing of this thesis, but also for teaching me most—if not all—of what I know about the first kind of Aristotelian philia, mirror friendship, and all other kinds of friendship. In particular, I would like to thank Adam Rieger for always being a best (JuXog although sometimes too virtuous for me, and Angus John McKay for being the dearest KCCT07 TTpov s a u r o u and the most unique individual I have ever met. Alexander also said that he owed his life (tqv) to his parents. However, the truth is that I owe everything to my parents, Athanassia Glycofrydi- Leontsini and George Leontsinis; for always being there for me and for their constant love and encouragement. To my wee sister, Maritina, I owe the constant reminder that I have to keep going for her sake, and much more. Last, but not least, I would like to thank my external and internal examiners, Peter Nicolson and Dudley Knowles, for helpful comments and an interesting discussion. CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................1 1. 1 Aristotle and the liberal-communitarian debate.....................................1 1. 2 The liberal-communitarian debate.............................................................6 1. 2.1 Sketching the debate........................................................................... ....6 1. 2. 2 Denouncing the communitarian title..................................................16 1. 3 Aristotelianism as a tradition......................................................................21 2. COMMUNITY.........................................................................................................38 2. 1 Introduction.....................................................................................................38 2. 2 Conceptions of community......................................................................... 40 2. 3 The communitarian notion of a community...........................................43 2. 4 The liberal notion of a community.............................................................51 2. 5 The polis as an association............................................................................ 54 2. 6 Conclusion.......................................................................................................65 3. TELEOLOGY AND HUMAN NATURE...........................................................66 3. 1 Introduction.....................................................................................................66 3. 2 Aristotle and the naturalness claim...........................................................73 3. 3 Teleology and communitarianism.............................................................80 3. 4 Conclusion......................................................................................................83 4. THE CITY AND THE GOOD LIFE .......................................................................86 4. 1 Introduction.....................................................................................................86 4. 2 The good life in Aristotle's Ethics...............................................................88 4. 3 The good life in Aristotle's Politics............................................................99 4. 3.1 The good life in the ideal city.............................................................107 4. 3. 2 Aristotle's criticism of the Platonic ideal state...............................116 4. 3. 3 The good life in the city........................................................................119 4. 4 The good life and the liberal-communitarian debate.............................121 4.5 Conclusion.......................................................................................................129 5. JUSTICE .................................................................................................................... 132 5. 1 Introduction.....................................................................................................132 5. 2 Aristotle's account of justice........................................................................134 5. 2. 1 Nicomachean Ethics............................................................................... 134 5.2.2 Politics ......................................................................................................137 5. 3 Communitarian accounts of Aristotelian justice.................................. 142 5. 3. 1 MacIntyre's account of justice............................................................142 5. 3. 2 MacIntyre's appropriation of Aristotelian justice.......................... 150 5. 4 Justice and moderation.................................................................................152 5. 5 Conclusion.......................................................................................................155 6. FRIENDSHIP IN THE CITY..................................................................................159