Book III

Aristotle argues that to understand government, one must first define 'city' (polis), since it is the object of all political action. A city is a collective body composed of many parts, fundamentally defined by the citizens that compose it.

Aristotle establishes that citizenship cannot be determined by residence, legal access, or age alone. A complete citizen is distinguished by having a share in the judicial and executive parts of government.

Aristotle argues that those who hold certain offices—even indeterminate ones like jury membership or assembly participation—count as citizens, and that citizenship varies by form of government.

Aristotle claims that the definition of citizen must be adjusted based on the form of government, since different governments distribute judicial and executive power differently.

Aristotle presents the common view that citizenship requires both parents to be citizens, but identifies a logical problem: this cannot apply to founders of states.

Aristotle resolves the problem by arguing that even illegally created citizens remain citizens if they exercise the offices of citizenship, though the justice of their creation is a separate question.

Aristotle addresses the question of when a city remains the same versus when it becomes different, arguing that a city's identity depends on its constitution or form of government, not on territory or population.

Aristotle argues that a city is identified by its constitution or form of government, not by physical location or the same population, since a change in constitution makes a city different even if people and place remain the same.

Aristotle poses the question whether the virtues that make a good citizen are the same as those that make a good man, introducing an analogy with different roles in a ship's crew.

Aristotle argues that the virtue of an excellent citizen differs from the virtue of a good man, because different governments require different actions and citizens cannot all possess the same qualifications.

Aristotle acknowledges that those who command (magistrates) may possess both the virtue of a good citizen and a good man, requiring prudence and knowledge of ruling.

Aristotle argues that while ruling and obeying require different virtues, a good citizen must master both—being able to command and to obey. Servants need not know how to command, but free citizens must.

Aristotle distinguishes between those enslaved by others and those who work for pay, arguing that in the best states, mechanics should not be citizens since mechanical work is servile and incompatible with virtue.

Aristotle contrasts political government, where free equals govern each other by turns, with despotic government. In political government, citizens learn to rule by first obeying.

Aristotle observes that virtues like courage and temperance differ between men and women, and that public knowledge is a virtue unique to rulers while others need only sound judgment.

Aristotle raises the question of whether mechanics, who are necessary to a city but not permitted to rule in the best states, should be considered citizens at all.

Aristotle argues that in well-regulated states mechanics are not citizens, but in some states necessity forces their inclusion. Different types of states handle this differently based on whether they value virtue or wealth.

Aristotle observes that cities admit non-legitimate citizens (children of slaves, foreigners) during population shortages but restrict citizenship as populations grow, showing how legal definitions shift with circumstances.

Aristotle concludes that a complete citizen is one who shares the honors of the state, and that only those capable of leading in public affairs fully embody the virtue of a good citizen.

Aristotle establishes that government is the ordering of a city's offices and power. He notes that supreme power is always held by some form of administration, and that the character of government depends on who holds this power.

Aristotle argues that humans naturally form societies for mutual advantage and to support life, and that different forms of rule exist in social life, from master-slave to political rule.

Aristotle distinguishes between despotic rule (for the master's benefit), domestic rule (for the household), and political rule (for the common good), arguing that just governments aim at the good of the governed.

Aristotle explains that in proper political governments, citizens take turns ruling and being ruled, each contributing to the common good as they expect others to do.

Aristotle argues that governments aiming at the common good are just, while those serving only the rulers are founded on wrong principles and constitute tyranny over slaves rather than rule over freemen.

Aristotle identifies three main forms: one person ruling for the common good (kingdom), a few for the common good (aristocracy), and the many for the common good (state/democracy).

Aristotle presents the corruptions of the three good forms: monarchy becomes tyranny, aristocracy becomes oligarchy, and democracy becomes mob rule—each serving only the rulers rather than the common good.

Aristotle defines tyranny as monarchy where one person rules absolutely and despotically for their own good alone, in contrast to lawful kingship.

Aristotle notes a logical problem with simple definitions: if the poor happened to be few and rich to be many, would a state with the poor ruling be a democracy or oligarchy? He resolves it by focusing on wealth as the distinguishing factor.

Aristotle explains that both democrats and oligarchs claim to pursue justice, but they disagree on what equality means—democrats focus on numerical equality, oligarchs on proportional equality based on wealth.

Aristotle argues that both democrats and oligarchs err by assuming that equality in one respect (wealth or liberty) implies equality in all respects, when justice actually requires consideration of the whole person.

Aristotle argues that a city is not founded merely for survival, mutual defense, or commerce, but for the good life and virtue of its citizens. This distinguishes it from temporary alliances.

Aristotle uses examples of Megara and Corinth to show that geographical proximity or trade agreements do not make a city; a city requires shared laws and commitment to virtue.

Aristotle defines a city as a society of families and villages united for independent and happy living, requiring shared place, intermarriage, and mutual friendship through common activities.

Aristotle argues that those who contribute most to the city's end of living well deserve greater power than equals in birth and freedom but inferior in virtue.

Aristotle poses the fundamental problem: should supreme power rest with the majority, the wealthy, the virtuous few, one good person, or a tyrant? He shows each option has difficulties.

Aristotle argues that while no individual of the many may be fit to rule alone, collectively they may be better judges than the few, as a public gathering is superior to private provision.

Aristotle presents the objection that the common people lack both virtue and property, making it dangerous to entrust them with high office.

Aristotle discusses whether non-experts can judge experts, noting that usually only professionals judge professionals, but this principle has limits in certain arts where non-experts also judge.

Aristotle resolves the expert judgment problem by noting that in some arts (like architecture), the consumer of a work is a better judge than the maker, suggesting the people can judge elections.

Aristotle argues that while the assembly and council have great power, they exercise it collectively through many individuals, so the whole community's property exceeds that of individual magistrates.

Aristotle concludes that supreme power should rest with duly made laws, with magistrates deciding only matters that general laws cannot address.

Aristotle establishes that justice consists of giving equal things to equals and unequal things to unequals in proportion. The difficulty lies in determining what constitutes relevant equality.

Aristotle argues against basing political office on arbitrary advantages (family, beauty, size) that have no relation to governing. Only relevant excellences should justify claims to power.

Aristotle uses the example of distributing flutes to show that the best instrument should go to the best musician, not the best-born person, illustrating that office should match relevant merit.

Aristotle argues that claims to office based on irrelevant qualities (strength, size) over relevant ones (virtue) are absurd, and that all qualities cannot be directly compared.

Aristotle argues that a state requires people of different ranks: wealthy to provide resources, just to maintain order, and brave to ensure security.

Aristotle clarifies that those equal in one quality are not necessarily equal in all, and vice versa. Governments based on false assumptions of complete equality or inequality are erroneous.

Aristotle examines claims to office by the wealthy, the free, the noble, and the virtuous, acknowledging that each has some justice but none has absolute claim.

Aristotle notes that the many, taken collectively, may be stronger, richer, and better than the few, giving them a claim to power.

Aristotle poses the difficulty: if the virtuous, rich, noble, and many all inhabited the same city, who has the greater claim to govern?

Aristotle asks whether very few virtuous people should govern a city if the many lack virtue, and begins to suggest that if they are numerous enough, they might constitute the best government.

Aristotle argues that no single principle (fortune, family, numbers) provides a secure foundation for claims to office, since these can exist in varying proportions.

Aristotle argues that a legislator should design laws not for the better part alone but for the whole, since equality is the foundation of a just state.

Aristotle defines the best citizen as one who can both choose and practice virtue in public and private life, requiring conditions where citizens are roughly equal.

Aristotle argues that those of uncommon virtue, either one person or very few, should not be treated as ordinary citizens since laws are for equals. Such persons are themselves law.

Aristotle explains ostracism as the removal of those too powerful for equality, using the example of Periander's advice to Thrasybulus to cut down tall grain, which represented removing prominent men.

Aristotle draws parallels to the arts, showing that painters, shipwrights, and musicians all maintain proper proportion, so states should too.

Aristotle argues that if free states can act to remove excessive power for the common good, a monarch can similarly act for his community's benefit.

Aristotle argues that ostracism is partly just when based on excessive power from wealth or connections, but not when based on superior virtue, which should rule perpetually.

Aristotle concludes that those of exceptional virtue should not be rotated from power but should rule perpetually, since it is natural that the highest should always be highest.

Aristotle turns to examine monarchy specifically, noting that it exists in many different forms, each with different powers and constraints, requiring particular analysis.

Aristotle describes the Spartan kingship as primarily a lifelong general's office regulated by law, with limited civil power but supreme authority in military matters.

Aristotle describes barbarian monarchies as combining tyrannical power with lawfulness and custom. They persist because barbarians are naturally prone to slavery and accept such government peacefully.

Aristotle identifies aesumnetic government as an elected tyranny, where someone is given extraordinary powers for a specific purpose, as when Mitylene elected Pittacus against the exiles.

Aristotle describes the heroic monarchy as rule by benefactors of mankind who became kings by consent, acting as generals, judges, and priests under customary law.

Aristotle notes that ancient kings had extensive powers, but over time relinquished many to the people, until some kept only priestly duties or military command.

Aristotle summarizes the four main types: heroic (limited office over free people), barbarian (hereditary despotism by law), aesumnetic (elected tyranny), and Lacedaemonian (hereditary generalship).

Aristotle identifies a fifth form where one person has supreme power over all things, like a householder over his family, but not legally accountable.

Aristotle argues that the five forms can be reduced to two extreme types, with others in between: the absolute monarchy and the Lacedaemonian (limited) model.

Aristotle poses the fundamental question of political philosophy: whether it is better to be governed by a virtuous person or by good laws.

Aristotle presents the argument that a wise person can adapt to particulars better than written laws, just as physicians adjust treatment after a certain day.

Aristotle argues that law is superior because it is reason without passion, whereas human rulers are subject to anger and favor, making them less reliable than written law.

Aristotle argues that the analogy between medical practice and political rule is imperfect, since physicians work for payment and are trusted, whereas politicians may act from hatred or favor.

Aristotle argues that law represents the mean, the goal of all justice, and is therefore superior to any individual judgment, though it may be less flexible.

Aristotle argues that practically, one person cannot manage all state affairs alone, so multiple magistrates are necessary, undermining the case for sole rule.

Aristotle argues that many magistrates together see and hear more than one person, and that absolute monarchs rely on friends and subordinates anyway, making collective rule more practical.

Aristotle notes that when a monarch entrusts power to friends, those friends are his equals and should therefore govern themselves—undermining the case for one-person rule.

Aristotle argues that different peoples are naturally suited to different forms of government: some to monarchy, some to aristocracy, some to democracy.

Aristotle specifies that monarchy is appropriate for a people accustomed by nature to submit to one eminent family, just as aristocracy suits those who love freedom and virtue.

Aristotle concludes that if an entire family or one individual exceeds all others in virtue, they rightfully hold perpetual kingship, consistent with principles of justice.

Aristotle concludes that the best form of government is administered by the best men, whether one, a few, or a number of persons, and that virtue of citizen and good man are the same in the best state.

Aristotle emphasizes that education and moral development are nearly all that matters in creating both good citizens and good rulers in well-established governments.