Aristotle's Conception Of The Family
Aristotle’s conception of man as a political animal is more persuasive because it presents a realistic model. The family is the most basic association, which extends and is developed into a political city. Family is not an abstract variable in the polis, political philosophy is founded on the family as a natural association (King 1998: 9). Reproduction is the most natural, instinctual human behaviour, ensuring the continuation of our species. The family is necessary for the perpetuation of the city, meaning that the city must support the family (King 1998: 10). This shows Aristotle is more persuasive because politics of the city accounts for the natural family relationship.
According to Hobbes, children experience “bonds of…subjection” to …show more content…
The idea that the adult’s protection creates the child’s obligation “without any positive act on the part of the recipient” counteracts with Hobbes’s statement that obligation can only arise from our own actions (King 1998: 8). The contradiction of trust and gratitude, as laws of nature, and the selfishness of our nature becomes evident through the child-parent relation. Parental love, based on mutuality, conflicts with Hobbes’s account of an obligation reciprocate (King 1998: 10). That is to say, when you do something for a family member you are not discharged from the relationship, it is based on something more than …show more content…
Firstly, citizens are strictly Greek males, and workers, children and women are excluded from the higher life (Hittinger 2013: 15). If man is a political animal, does this mean that only those of exclusive birth, men of the correct race and class, count as people? By limiting the achievement of the telos to a small group, Aristotle undermines the claim that man is a political animal. Furthermore, his account “did not make explicit the theme of generosity and gift” (Hittinger 2013: 18) that is an important aspect of human association. So while Hobbes’s state of war completely disregards benevolence, Aristotle’s account, still lacking definitive recognition of generosity, is slightly closer to
According to Hobbes, children experience “bonds of…subjection” to …show more content…
The idea that the adult’s protection creates the child’s obligation “without any positive act on the part of the recipient” counteracts with Hobbes’s statement that obligation can only arise from our own actions (King 1998: 8). The contradiction of trust and gratitude, as laws of nature, and the selfishness of our nature becomes evident through the child-parent relation. Parental love, based on mutuality, conflicts with Hobbes’s account of an obligation reciprocate (King 1998: 10). That is to say, when you do something for a family member you are not discharged from the relationship, it is based on something more than …show more content…
Firstly, citizens are strictly Greek males, and workers, children and women are excluded from the higher life (Hittinger 2013: 15). If man is a political animal, does this mean that only those of exclusive birth, men of the correct race and class, count as people? By limiting the achievement of the telos to a small group, Aristotle undermines the claim that man is a political animal. Furthermore, his account “did not make explicit the theme of generosity and gift” (Hittinger 2013: 18) that is an important aspect of human association. So while Hobbes’s state of war completely disregards benevolence, Aristotle’s account, still lacking definitive recognition of generosity, is slightly closer to