BOOK III Chapter 16 3rd Logos of Absolute Kingship

Chapter 16

I. Introduction: The Absolute King (pambasileia)

1. Transition to Absolute Kingship (pambasileia)
   • Aristotle now turns to investigate absolute kingship (pambasileia), where the king rules in all matters according to his own will.
   • He distinguishes between absolute kingship and the more law-bound kingships, such as those found in democracies or aristocracies where a permanent general may exist.
   • This chapter focuses on the key question: Is it advantageous for one person to have absolute authority?

II. The Argument Against Absolute Kingship

1. Equality Among Citizens
   • Some argue that it is unnatural for one individual to have authority over others if all the citizens are similar in nature.
   • Since people who are equal by nature should have equal claims to justice and merit, it is unjust for one person to rule over others with absolute power.
   • Just as it would be harmful for unequal people to have equal sustenance or clothing, it is unjust for equal people to have unequal political power.
2. Ruling by Turns
   • For citizens who are equal, it is just for them to rule and be ruled in turn, which is the basis of law.
   • The rule of law ensures that citizens take turns governing, avoiding the concentration of power in one person.
   • Thus, law should rule rather than any single individual, even if that individual is superior in some way.

III. The Superiority of Law Over a Single Ruler

1. Law as Impartial and Incorruptible
   • The law is superior because it is impartial and free from desires or passions, unlike human rulers who are susceptible to personal emotions.
   • Rulers, even the best men, can be corrupted by their desires or emotions (e.g., anger or favoritism), while the law is intellect without appetite.
2. Laws Can Be Adjusted by the Best Men
   • Aristotle acknowledges that laws cannot foresee every situation and may require adjustments based on the judgment of rulers.
   • However, the rulers should act as guardians of the law and should only adjust it when necessary, maintaining respect for the law's authority.

IV. Counterarguments Regarding the Role of the Best Man

1. Arguments for Ruling by One Individual
   • Supporters of absolute kingship argue that just as it is better for an artist to deviate from written rules to achieve the best outcome, a ruler may need to act beyond the law to serve the city's best interests.
   • However, Aristotle refutes this analogy, pointing out that rulers are more prone to acting out of spite or favoritism, unlike doctors or other professionals who follow reason in their work.
2. The Need for Impartial Judgment
   • Even doctors and trainers, when sick or in need of training, seek the help of others, recognizing that they cannot judge their own condition impartially.
   • This implies that even the best rulers need the guidance of laws to ensure impartiality and justice in their decisions.

V. The Authority of Laws Based on Custom

1. Customary Laws vs. Written Laws
   • Laws based on custom are more authoritative and trustworthy than written laws, as they reflect deeper cultural values and moral principles.
   • While it may be safer for a human to rule than for written laws to govern, this is not true for customary laws, which have a stronger claim to justice.
2. Limitations of a Single Ruler
   • One person cannot easily oversee all aspects of governance.
   • Even monarchs rely on multiple people (friends or advisors) to act as their "eyes, ears, and hands," meaning the work of governance is shared in practice.
   • If many people are needed to support the king's rule, it would be more sensible for those same people to be part of the ruling body from the start.

VI. The Superiority of Collective Rule

1. Two Good Men Are Better Than One
   • If it is just for the best man to rule because of his excellence, it follows that two good men would be better than one.
   • Aristotle cites Agamemnon's prayer for ten good counselors to show that even kings recognize the value of having multiple advisors.
2. The Wisdom of the Multitude
   • The multitude often judges better than a single person, as collective deliberation can account for a wider range of perspectives and prevent corruption.
   • Therefore, when it comes to matters that the law cannot determine, a group of educated citizens is often better suited to rule than a single individual.

VII. The Arguments Against Kingship Summarized

1. Monarchs and Their Advisors
   • Monarchs often surround themselves with friends who serve as co-rulers and help in governing, but if those friends are considered similar to the king, they should be allowed to rule as well.
   • This undermines the argument for absolute kingship (pambasileia) and supports the idea of shared rule among equals.
2. Impartial Rule Through Law
   • In the end, the argument for law and collective rule over absolute kingship (pambasileia) is based on the principles of impartiality, collective wisdom, and the avoidance of corruption through shared responsibility.

VIII. Conclusion: The Preference for Law and Collective Rule

1. Ruling with Laws and Shared Authority
   • Aristotle concludes that absolute kingship (pambasileia) is not the best regime. Instead, it is preferable to have laws that are respected and followed, with rulers serving as guardians of the law.
   • In cases where laws cannot provide clear guidance, collective rule by multiple individuals is more just and effective than the rule of a single king.

In this chapter, Aristotle investigates the nature of absolute kingship (pambasileia) and contrasts it with rule by law and collective governance. He argues that laws are superior to individual rule because they are impartial and free from human desires. When laws cannot provide clear direction, collective deliberation by many good citizens is preferable to the rule of a single individual. Aristotle concludes that kingship should not be absolute, and that laws and shared governance offer a more just and effective political system.