If we had basic provision, leisure time, and peace, what would our society do with it? What should society do with it?
Most of our time and energy is consumed with making sure that we will have enough provision, food, clothes, housing, security, savings. This is true on an individual level, and this is true on a societal level. If we do not feel we have enough, we want to figure out how we can have enough. If we do have enough, we worry about threats that would keep us from having enough.
But what if we didn’t have to worry about that, either on a societal level or an individual level? What would we do with our lives? What is the purpose of human life beyond merely staying alive and well-fed?
That’s the question that Aristotle considers in his books on ethics and politics. He believed that the question of politics was a question of what form of state would allow the most people to realize the ideal form of life (Politics, 2.1). For, as he said, “a state exists for the sake of a good life, and not for the sake of life only . . .” (3.9). His answer was that the best form of government was one “in which every man, whoever he is, can act best and live happily” (7.2). So, politics should ask not only what is the way for people to have enough, to have mere life, but, how can they live well, how can they live the best life, and how can they live a happy life.
Aristotle notes in Politics that states often focused merely on living. In his day, this meant that they trained for war. They would develop excellence in the arts of war, but they would be mediocre in the arts of peace. This was the problem of Sparta. They knew the arts of war, but they did not know the arts of peace. So, when they won the war and gained an empire, the empire quickly fell apart (2.9). The Spartans trained for war, but they did not train for peace. “For most of these military states are safe only while they are at war, but fall when they have acquired their empire; like unused iron they lose their edge in time of peace. And for this the legislator is to blame, he never having taught them how to lead the life of peace” (7.14). When they got peace and victory, they did not know what to do with it.
So, a question worth asking is, what would our society do with the peace? What would we want to do with it, if we had it? What is the best life for an individual? For society, what are the best things for us to do together? What things are most noble? How do we cash in on peace and prosperity? This is the key: “The student who is going to make a suitable investigation of the best form of constitution must necessarily decide first of all what is the most desirable mode of life” (7.1).
Aristotle believed that having provision for life was essential for real happiness. However, this fact could often deceive people: “This makes men fancy that external goods are the cause of happiness, yet we might as well say that a brilliant performance on the lyre was to be attributed to the instrument and not to the skill of the performer” (7.13). They are a means unto happiness not happiness itself.
Similarly, war was often necessary in politics, but it was not the final goal. The goal was peace and leisure. “Since the end of individuals and of states is the same, the end of the best man and of the best constitution must also be the same; it is therefore evident that there ought to exist in both of them the excellence of leisure; for peace, as has been often repeated, is the end of war, and leisure of toil” (7.15). Leisure is the goal because living an excellent and happy life requires thought and attention.
But then what do we do with leisure? Those who have abundance have the most need of philosophy in order to teach them what to do with what they have (7.15). It is terrible “to show excellent qualities in war, and when they have peace and leisure to be no better than slaves” (7.15).
Think about American society. Most of our political discussion is about how to deal with crises. How do we deal with the climate? Or racism? Or abortion? Or crime? Or debt? Or Covid? What if all these problems were solved, what would we talk about? What would we want to do as a society?
If we cannot answer that question clearly, then we do not understand the arts of peace. If we do know the answer, then why wait? Why only focus on crisis? Why not simply begin to build the type of society you would build in a time of peace? After all, would not these activities be the best things to do anyway? Is not life more than dealing with political crisis? The goal of society is not merely to provide protection that we could not achieve on our own but to enable us to accomplish good things that we could not achieve on our own.
But what are those things? That is the question that Aristotle suggests we should think about and not merely winning on our favorite issue at the ballot box.