Greed, Outrage, and Civil Conflict in Aristotle’s Politics

Polis 40 (2):185-209 (2023)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Scholars generally agree that, according to Aristotle, factionalizers are motivated by a sense of injustice (the ‘first cause’) to redress imbalances in wealth and honor (the ‘second cause’). Recent discussions, however, have offered a misleading interpretation of Aristotle’s third cause, which he identifies as the origin of the factionalizers’ sense of injustice. It involves, most importantly, greed, hubris, and other factors such as fear and ‘disproportionate growth’. In conversation with a recent publication in Polis, this article restores the third cause to its proper place in Aristotle’s account. Abusive power holders, driven by greed, hubris, and overreaching, oppress their fellow citizens – following in the tradition of Homer’s Agamemnon, Hesiod’s basileis, and Solon’s aristocrats. These power holders prompt a sense of anger, indignation, and injustice in their fellow citizens, who ultimately form factions and take action on their own behalf.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 103,449

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2023-04-30

Downloads
36 (#658,719)

6 months
5 (#702,808)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Ryan Balot
University of Toronto, St. George

Citations of this work

A classification of ethical harm.Jesús Manuel Conderana Cerrillo - 2022 - Revista de Filosofía (Madrid):1-18.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references