Many philosophers have attacked Aristotle’s conception of human beings as rational and self-directed, capable of setting goals and making plans to achieve them, and driven to achieve happiness.
Aristotle (384-322 BC) presented his thoughts on human nature in his works “Eudemian Ethics,” “Nicomachean Ethics” and “Politics.” All of them were written or dictated in the years 335-321 BC after Aristotle had opened The Lyceum, his school in Athens.
The optimism in Aristotle’s work is seldom shared by later philosophers. Aristotle viewed the achievement of happiness as normal. He considered that human beings are normally able to attain their goals by means of intelligent, steady work.
John Locke (1632-1704) outlined his ideas on epistemology in his “Essay Concerning Human Understanding” published in 1690. Locke subscribed to Aristotle’s rejection of innate ideas and other Platonic delusions.
Aristotle’s thoughts on human nature compared to John Locke’s
Like Aristotle, Locked affirmed that human minds are born as a blank slate. As time goes by, experience and reflection will write on the blank slate. Both experience and reason play a key role in knowledge accumulation.
Locke also shared Aristotle’s conception of humans beings a political animals. Happiness, they argued, can be attained more easily by collaborating with other humans. Collaboration will entail trade, friendship, exchange of ideas, love, etc.
Aristotle had underlined the need of freedom to achieve the primary goal (“eudaimonia” or happiness) in life and defended a balanced system of government. Without good governance, Aristotle warned, corruptions and abuses will ensue.
Good governance, according to Aristotle, can be achieved if power is divided within society (monarchs, aristocracy, and the people) and amongst the different branches of government (the legislative, executive, and judicial).
Like Aristotle, Locke believed that humans are guided by reason. In normal circumstances, humans seek to preserve their own lives and protect their property. Even in situations where government doesn’t exist (ancient cultures), the normal human behaviour is to seek peace and cooperation, not war and theft.
Locke viewed property rights as natural rights derived from an individual’s labour. If you have the right to life and liberty, you must have the right to accumulate property through labour.
In his view of human nature, Locke emphasized individual rights and limited government. He regarded those as the best forms of social organization; governments are bound to protect the rights enshrined in the constitution, said Locke.
The essential difference between Locke and Aristotle is that Locke expected constitutions to be good enough to protect the rights of individuals. In contrast, Aristotle viewed the division of power in society as a better guarantee of individual rights.
Aristotle’s thoughts on human nature compared to Rousseau’s
In the next century, Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) did accept some of Aristotle’s views on human nature, but came up with major deviations that lead to deep pessimism. Rousseau’s deviations from Aristotle’s ideas are objectively wrong, but this has not prevented millions of people from endorsing them.
Rousseau presented his views on human nature in his works “Social Contract” (1762) and “Emile or On Education” (1762). According to Rousseau, human beings are inherently good, but become corrupted by society.
On the one hand, Rousseau shared Aristotle’s optimistic and benevolent view of human nature. On the other hand, he spoke against Aristotle’s view that humans can attain happiness more easily in society than by living in isolation.
In the opening line of “Social Contract,” Rousseau declared that “Man is born free, but everywhere, he is in chains.” In his view, human beings were happier before the advent of society and civilization.
To refer to mythical pre-societal humans, Rousseau coined the term “noble savages.” Noble savages, he says, were happy because they were all free and equal. Note that when he says “equal,” he actually means “equally poor.”
Against all historical evidence, Rousseau says that humans have grown enslaved by the development of private property and societal structures; those lead to inequality and conflict, he argues.
Aristotle had defended the opposite. He considered societal life as a contributor to human happiness. Private property is the normal result of work. Some people work a lot (manufacturing, trade, etc.) and accumulate lots of property. Others work less, and will accumulate less.
Rousseau’s attacks against property rights do not make any sense and have zero historical evidence. Even in isolated living circumstances, humans will still gather assets (food, tools, etc.) and regard them as their own property.
Similarly, Rousseau’s preference for economic equality does not have any relation to historical facts. Aristotle was far more realistic than Rousseau in his views on human nature.
Aristotle’s thoughts on human nature and the common interest
To address the alleged problems created by private property and inequality, Rousseau favoured a dictatorial government in charge of enforcing the “general will” or majority opinion that represents the common interests of the people.
The terms “general will” and “common interest” convey the false impression that majority opinions are shared by every one in society. Obviously, that’s not the case.
Rousseau is favouring a dictatorial government able to steal private property by invoking the “general will.” Aristotle didn’t endorse abuses and confiscations; he strongly condemned them and advocated a type of government that would prevent them.
Aristotle’s views on happiness are vastly more realistic than Rousseau’s. Aristotle regards positively all actions that further happiness. He speaks in favour of production, trade, property acquisition, friendship, love, achieving a good reputation, etc.
Rousseau condemns the competition for resources, ambition and the search for honours and property. Against all historical evidence, he categorized those as evil. His belief that humans can grow happy through a dictatorial government is delusional.
Aristotle’s views on human nature are widely superior to the inane theories proposed by Rousseau. It is unfortunate that the latter had become so popular and caused immeasurable havoc.
If you are interested in learning about practical wisdom in daily situations, I recommend you my book “The 10 principles of rational living.”
Related articles
Opponents to Aristotle’s theory of virtue and character development
Aristotle’s theory of virtue and character development
Modern attacks against Aristotle’s thoughts on human nature
Opponents to Aristotle’s thoughts on human nature