Again, in the interest of catching up, this shall be a short post.
Dr. Adler does a great job of showing Aristotle's logic in arguing that man is a political animal and that the state is "natural."
(1) the state arises out of human need;
(2) all men are meant to live in a state;
(3) if the state is natural, how it comes about cannot be completely due to human deliberation and rules;
(4) since the state is a natural, it has an end or purpose.
"If all communities aim at some good, the state or political community, which is the highest of all, and which embraces all the rest, aims at good in a greater degree than any other, and at the highest good." (445)
So if the state has an end or purpose, what is that purpose? I would think that if the purpose of man is to lead the good life and to be happy (as discussed in the Nichomachean Ethics), the purpose of the state is to allow all to engage in the pursuit of happiness. I am thinking about taking this theme and writing a paper on the role of the "pursuit of happiness" in the formation of public policy. It seems to me that our policy makers and business leaders are so focused on economic benefits, that we are missing out on improving the well-being of our citizens. Money, except for a minimum amount to provide for our basic needs, does not lead to greater happiness. So it certainly follows that public policy designed to help people achieve as much money as possible is not necessarily going to lead to a happier society. If it works out well, I will be able to do some research on this idea.
There is so much more to this, but I have to move on. I'm most of the way through the Plutarch reading, so I'll be blogging my thoughts on that soon.
No comments:
Post a Comment