Plato and Aristotle on Individual Liberty and the Declaration of Independence
Plato and Aristotle would respond to the statement of "rights" in the Declaration of the Independence with less enthusiasm or support for the notion than one might think considering they are the classical philosophers of the city known for its democratic politics. However, these philosophers looked at the role of citizens in government not so much as "rights" that were to be given as duties that were to be fulfilled. The notion of "rights," for example, puts the individual at the forefront of the question of the State, whereas what Plato and Aristotle understood is that when discussing the State, the heart of the matter is the common good -- not the individual -- and thus it is an issue of what each person owes to the State in order to effect the common good. This is evident in the writings of Plato and Aristotle in The Republic and the Nicomachean Ethics, both of which will be used to show why the philosophers would not agree with the American Declaration of Independence, simply because of its message of individualism (which they would have perceived as contrary to the purpose of the State).
The view of both philosophers, more or less, was that the purpose of life was to be happy. For Aristotle, this meant attaining eudaimonia (happiness); for Plato, it meant attaining knowledge (which he likened to wisdom, grace, truth, virtue, and right living). Each person had a part that he or she could play in this pursuit. It was not a question of liberty, therefore -- or of individual rights, because such points did not necessarily line up with the purpose that the philosophers identified as the point of life: one could, for example, set about an individualistic course that did not lead to happiness or to right-living and neither Aristotle nor Plato would recommend it as a good idea. The fact that the Declaration makes no reference to what is meant by right-living or eudaimonia would...
This is evident in the fact that the drafters refer to the "pursuit of happiness" as an "unalienable right" rather than a duty -- and this line would have made no sense to Aristotle or Plato for they would have objected: how could one pursue happiness without guidance from a philosopher or some leader who knew right from wrong and could teach it to those within his state? For them happiness was an ideal that had to be worked towards, in purity and in truth.
Indeed, Aristotle likens happiness to a work or activity rather than to a state of being. Happiness is something one does rather than something that one pursues.[footnoteRef:1] The Declaration makes it appear, however, as though happiness is something that everyone in America is entitled to, as though they should expect to possess it from their Government, which will ensure that no one takes away their claim to happiness. Where does the happiness come from, though? The Declaration does not say. It is like giving someone a treasure map without an "x" that marks the spot and saying, "Go find the treasure, it is yours." The possessor of the map will not know where to look even if he can be convinced that the happiness that he is told is his right is there in his hands. It may seem like a fine distinction but in essence it is a total conceptual re-orientation of self and purpose that makes the philosophers' perspectives so different to that of the Founding Fathers. [1: Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 1.8 (Chicago: University of Chicago), 15.]
For Plato, the State would be divided into two groups -- guardians and craftsmen -- and it would take on the characteristics more of a commune than of a modern metropolis where every individual essentially slaves away…
