On Property and Virtue: Modern Questions and Ancient Answers

In the history of ideas, property enjoys a mixed reputation, being sometimes associated with prosperity, liberty and virtue, sometimes with immorality, injustice and even war. There is still another disparity in mans treatment of the subject: one the one hand, idealist republics situate the abolition of private property at the center of their visions; yet on the other hand, no society of which we know has ever successfully, either forcefully or voluntarily, existed without some form of private property. The persistence of this mixed reputation suggests the continued relevance of the two disparate views on property. Thinkers, writers and statesmen who have dealt with the topic of property as a metaphysical or a practical matter have tended to align themselves, at least in broad terms, with either the realist traditionrepresented by Aristotles Politicsor the idealist traditionembodied in Platos Republic. Property, however, is of particular interest in the works of Plato and Aristotle for its relation to virtue, both in terms of the individual (citizen) and of the collective (polity). It is the purpose of this paper to examine Aristotles and Platos perspectives on property and its relation, if any, to virtue.i
While I bound off my analysis to the arguments put forth by Aristotle and Plato, it is worthwhile to note four broad aspects of the debate. In sum, we can distinguish four groups of arguments about the relative merits of property running through Plato and Aristotle, some times implicitly and other times explicitlythey are: the political, the moral, the economic and the psychological. While Aristotle and Plato tend to focus on the moral and the political, elements of the economic and psychological arguments are perceptible in their writings, although they were not very well developed or articulated until later by economics and psychology. Political arguments tend to favor private property for reasons of power; specifically, the balance and separation of power. Property that is privately held promotes stability and constrains (i.e., counterbalances) the otherwise monopolistic power of government. Conversely, political counterarguments point out that the inequality that inevitably results from private property promotes social discord, which bodes badly for the future of any society (particularly one wrought with social strife such as Athens when Plato wrote). The strongest moral argument for private property that Aristotle makes is that private property is legitimate on the basis that each is entitled to the fruits of his own labor. However, those in opposition to property like to counter that such fruits are not always legitimately gained, since many owners made no effort in acquiring their property. Indeed, Plato goes as far as to argue that private property precludes morality and fundamentally differs with Aristotle who felt that property encouraged morality. The economic argument for private property demonstrates that of all the available means, it is the most efficient means at producing wealth. Critics contend, however, that the pursuit of wealth for private gain quite often leads to wasteful and unnecessary competition. Plato would only agree and Aristotle himself seriously frowns upon wealth-seeking as an ignoble and unnatural goal (in contradistinction to household management, which Aristotle extols). Finally, the psychological argument in favor of property avers that it enhances self-esteem and sense of self identity. Aristotle did not speak in terms of identity, but he averred rather that virtues, such as generosity and moderation, are only made possible when private property is. On the other hand, property has been accused of the tendency to corrupt the personality with greed, jealousy and depression. Plato proclaims that the ruling class is forbidden to possess, lest its noble intent become
i

Definitions First we must define the word property, for it evokes different things in different minds. Since these ideological camps have had many followers over the past 2500 years, definitions and uses over the term property have varied widely. It is worth spending a moment to agree upon a definition. In my definition, property refers to the right of the owner or owners, formally acknowledged by public authority, both to develop assets to the exclusion of everyone else and to dispose of them by sale or otherwise. ii Etymologically, the English term property derives from the Latin proprius, meaning particular to, or appropriate to, a particular individual. Byzantine jurisprudence developed the term proprietas, or ownership, from the Latin proprius. What distinguishes property from mere momentary possession, wrote C.B. Macpherson, is that property is a claim that will be enforced either by society or the state, by convention or by law, i.e., by some public authority.iii

Platos Republic It is in Platos Republic that we read the earliest known theoretical assault on property through the mouth of Socrates, particularly in Books 5-7 of the Republic. The objective of Platos Republic, it will be recalled, was to devise a social order in which the ruling class (the Guardians) would not be driven by self interest but by the desire to promote the public good. Guardians attain their posts on the basis of rigorous testing. Once appointed, they are permitted no private property and are to live communally (with wives and children shared, at least in the Republic even if not later in the Laws). These attributes should encourage the creation of a selfless ruling class free of property. Since Platos society is constructed from the top down, he did not feel compelled to determine whether the Auxiliary class would be allowed property. For a virtuous polity, it was the Guardian class rather than the Auxiliaries that required virtue and it was the Guardians that could therefore not be allowed to hold property privately. Indeed, Plato seems to suggest that virtue and property are wholly incompatible: For are money and virtue like two scales of a
corrupted. While I have sided with Aristotle on most occasions, it is ultimately up to the reader to adjudicate between these competing political, moral, economic and psychological arguments by going back to the texts and reading them closely as out contemporaries continue to do. ii In the terminology of the late Middle Ages, property came to include everything that belongs to a person, including his life and his liberty (Latin: suum). iii C.B. Macpherson, ed., Property: Mainstream and Critical Positions (Oxford, 1978), p. 3

balanceas one goes up the other down? (Republic, Bk. 8, Nos. 550-551).iv The first and highest form of the State and of the government and of the law is that in which prevails most widely the ancient saying, that Friends have all things in common.as to whether this is possible or not, I say that no man, acting upon any other principle, will ever constitute a state which will be truer or better or more exalted in virtue (Dialogues of Plato, V, 121-2). It is only via the eradication of everything private, that the Guardians can truly devote themselves to the good of the entire polity (465b) and the maintenance of a virtuous polity (428). To draw out the causal logic that Plato professes: to have virtue in a city, it must be unified; to be unified, it must have total community; to have community, all things private must be abolished, for property ultimately precludes virtue (Republic, 8, 550-551).

Aristotles Politics Although Aristotle partly accepted Platos claim that wealth inequalities foster social strife, he generally regarded property as a positive and an indestructible force in society. Aristotles criticism points out a confusion in Platos level of analysis. Specifically, Aristotle contends, Plato falsely assigns control of wealth to the state rather than to the household, as Aristotle would have it assigned (Politics 1328a). Having refocused the issue of property away from the state and to the household, Aristotle makes three fundamental, and ultimately quite compelling, criticisms of Platos proposal. First, no one takes proper care of objects that do not belong to him: that which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it. (1261b33) Private property is more productive than collective property, for individuals tend to look after their own property and ensure that it is used efficiently. In the case of public property, no one feels a duty to care for it and it is likely to be neglected at best and plundered at worst. The reason is one of simple pleasure and thus of incentive: How immeasurably greater is the pleasure, Aristotle asks rhetorically, when a man feels a thing to be his own. (Politics,1263a/40). Man has an instinct for the exclusive private ownership of property since it is inextricably

iv

In Laws, Plato reconsiders his system and abandoned his insistence on abolishing the family as well as the states responsibility for educating children. While he would allow for some limited private property in Laws, he demanded state intervention in wealth redistribution (especially, land) at the highest levels to prevent the extremes of wealth and poverty.

bound up with the fundamental self-preservation of the individual. Indeed, private property has always existed and it would be foolish to change a natural custom. Second, in contradistinction to Platos social unrest argument, Aristotle avers that people who hold things in common tend to quarrel more, not less, than those who own them privately. For Aristotle, social strife arises from the desires of men, in their human nature, not in their striving for property (1263b15). That is why Aristotle avers that it is not the possessions but the desires of mankind that must be equalized (Politics, 1266b/29-30). To his mind, the solution is in didactic education not the abolition of private property. In this way, Aristotle argues the advantages of private ownership, and its relation to individual virtue: one can only practice the virtue of liberality if one owns something with which to be liberal, and one can only practice the virtue of moderation when one owns the goods with which there is a chance for immoderation. Thus, Aristotle suggests, possession enables higher ethical achievement by permitting men to be generousa highly virtuous quality to possess. Liberality lies in the use which is made of property (Politics, 1263b/13). Ideally, Aristotle would base his society on a core middle class of property owners, none of whom were too poor or too wealthy to vindicate Platos reservations. Throughout the politics, acting excellently corresponds to virtue (1325a17), from which it may be inferred that using property well is tantamount to virtue. Aristotle seems to link property and virtue directly in his discussion of citizenship. Aristotle maintains that the ruling class should be the owners of property, for they are citizenswhereas artisans or any other class which is not a producer of excellence should have no share in the state (1329a17), from which it may be inferred that since property is a prerequisite to citizenship and citizenship is a prerequisite to producing excellence (and thus being virtuous), the private ownership of property is the sine qua non of virtue. A city can be excellent only when the citizens who have a share in the government are excellent (1332a33). Thus, the virtue of a city depends upon the virtue of its members, whose virtue (such as benevolence toward others) is enabled via the proper and moderate use of property.

Faulty Logic While Aristotle strengthened the arguments on behalf of private property, he seems to have been confused about the role of legal tender, i.e., money. Of the two types of private

property he considerswealth seeking and household managementonly the latter is virtuous; hoarding wealth is justly censured and unnatural (1258a39). Why? Aristotle does not provide a satisfactory answer. He allowed the propriety of barter trade (without money), for he felt that barter transactions were perfectly balanced and that no exploitation occurred. Aristotle seems to have overlooked the fact that, whether a voluntary transaction occurs by barter or money, both parties to a transaction feel that they will be better off after the deal or they would not have been party to the voluntary transaction in the first place. This confusion has often been overlooked by those who claim Aristotle as the forefather of private ownership, for it taints his otherwise progressive record on economic relations. Logically, and not considering social constraints, if Aristotle encouraged one, he should have encouraged the other. If it is money and not trade that he is roaring against, then a more consistent argument would have maintained that people care not only about mutual benefit but also relative gain. Economic relations are positional and not absolute. Money allows for quantifiable relative gain and that seemed to irk Aristotle above all. While Aristotle may not be faultless in his argumentation, Platos argument suffers yet more fundamental logical fallacies. Plato communalizes private property to eliminate conflicts of interest and social conflict between the rich and the poor, for these conflicts will interfere with the unity of the polity, Plato asserts. Yet, as Aristotle convincingly demonstrates, the cause of social discord is not private ownership of property but rather human nature that is hardwired for conflict rather than cooperation. While Aristotle navely believed that human nature could be altered through proper education, fortunately, this was not the only answer he provided. A strong middle class, he would later argue, will act as a buffer between the very rich and the very poor. In many societies, such a situation seems to have obtained. Aristotles argument directly challenges Platos presumed link between unity and community (in his logic chain: community > unity > virtue). Having exposed the fallacy of the link between community and unity, we can also call into question the alleged link between unity and virtue. To Glaucon, Socrates says, I suppose our cityif, that is, it has been correctly foundedis perfectly goodits wise, courageous, moderate and just. (427e). Why does Plato suppose this link? Plato provides a tautology in place of a satisfactory answer; his premise here (its a virtuous city) is also his conclusion (its a virtuous city). His argument, holistically, is that communality causes unity

and unity causes virtue. Since private property is a hindrance to communality, Plato eliminates it. When we call into question the assumed links between commonality, unity and virtue, we call into question the need to eliminate private property and Platos case becomes markedly less compelling.

Contemporary Propensities The poles of idealism and realism continue to be relevant distinctions today, 2500 years after Plato and Aristotle wrote. Although Plato and Aristotle thought in terms of citystates, homogenous in ethnicity, religion and culture, the rise of nation states and multiethnic empires did not invalidate their positions on the fundamental philosophical question of property. Despite their shortcomings, their writings on the moral, political, economic and psychological aspects of property remain germane. The past two centuries have brought a reemergence in both Plato (Marx and communism) and Aristotle (Smith and capitalism). It would be redundant to recapitulate the views on property of prominent socialists at the first half of the 19 th centurySaint-Simon, Fourier, Robert Owen and Louis Blancfor they essentially repeated the arguments already made by Helvetius and Rousseau, Morelly and Mably, Babeuf and Godwin (Gray, The Socialist Tradition, chapters vi.x.) and they, in turn, summoned Plato. All called for restrictions on private property, if not its outright elimination. It would be equally redundant to enumerate the long list of modern proponents of capitalismvon Mises, Friedman, Hayek et al.who essentially elaborated on efficiency arguments first advanced by Adam Smith, liberty arguments by Mill and Locke and practical arguments by Aristotle who all, in turn, owe an intellectual debt to Aristotles writings on private property and virtue. Judging from recent events, however, the in praise of property contingent seems to be on the rise almost everywhere and the idealist tradition of common ownership is everywhere in retreat (at the beginning of the twenty-first century, at least). It is curious how just as the benefits of private ownership became widely recognized, so too do the proponents of communal ownership become more vocal and powerful. The coexistence of these rival ideas perhaps only reflects the tension in man himself, who treats property once with disdain and again with admiration, who yearns for its abolition but has always defended the right to

some form of its existence. Nevertheless, the balance does shift and the fall of the USSR has brought communal ownership into temporary disrepute, giving Aristotle the upper hand over his teacherat least until the next philosophical offensive.