Economic Inequality: From a Aristotelian Perspective

Economic Inequality: From a Aristotelian Perspective

Cultivating a virtuous society is one of the key foundations for maintaining a successful nation and it is also essential to provide its citizens with the freedom to pursue happiness within an equitable means. Aristotle defines happiness as the activity of the soul that is in accordance with intellectual and moral virtue. However, when the leaders of a society replace virtue with matters that are at the expense of the majority, the cultivation of a inequitable relationship between the wealthy few and general populous will begin to rise. Inequality for All offers us a glimpse of how the income gap between the middle class and the 1% have created significant economic barriers for the majority and how those barriers are creating an increase in poverty in our society. From an Aristotelian point of view, the cause and continual growth of the income gap poses a number of issues in respect to distributive justice, equality, and the role a political community.

        Although Aristotle doesn’t place emphasis on distributive wealth and opportunity when he discusses distributive justice, his notions pertaining to the role of politics would infer that these factors are presuppositions to cultivating the virtue of citizens. In the film Inequality for all, Reich argues that a system which was designed to look out for the average American citizen has placed many in serious economical disadvantages. When viewing these matters through an Aristotelian lens, the rise of productivity, expenses, and stagnant wages have placed many citizens in situations where they have to sacrifice virtue and happiness in order to satisfy the obligatory the ends of society. Furthermore, Reich mentions that the current rules of our economic system are failing to generate the prosperous society that we need to maintain a successful economy. If the rules of society are inequitable to the vast majority, how can a political society form virtuous citizens of good character when the leaders of politics lack the congruency to model those values? Inequality for All draws inference that the Telos of our system is not concerned with cultivating virtue of citizens, but rather, satisfying the monetary preferences of the elite at the cost of the middle class and increasing poverty across the country. One can also conclude that such haphazard approaches to the attaining wealth, takes precedence over matters concerning the well being of our society

For Aristotle, the goal learning to live a good life is an end does not appear to resonate with the values of our society because the economic barriers have compromised the pursuit of virtue. For example, lower wages have influenced many to improvise their pursuit for a good life as an end by going back to school. However, rising tuition costs and the diminished quality of our education has increased the difficulty of attaining happiness as an ends and social institutions such as Universities also appear to lack the Telos of helping those attain a good life. From an Aristotelian point of view, this issue may appear circular because the component of attaining happiness in accordance with virtue incorporates attaining Intellectual virtue through philosophical wisdom; this often requires societal politics’ civic responsibility to educate its members. Aristotle emphasizes the importance of philosophical wisdom as the highest virtue because it influences our ability to make sound judgments with pure reason. Reasoning is essential to intellectual virtue because facilitates our ability to think well and is important for the activities of the soul; thus, being an ingredient to happiness. Therefore, a society that is designed for the well being of its citizens as a means will naturally cultivate virtuous citizens as an end.