Sean Tarjoto
Political Philosophy
Period 3–Weston
10/24/98

	Mayhew, Robert. “Aristotle on Property”. The Review of Metaphysics. Vol. 46, pp. 803-31, June ’93

ABSTRACT: Mayhew argues against the Jonathan Barnes’ claims that Aristotle’s remarks on property are too nebulous to sustain any critical discussion (803), and offers an in-depth investigation. Mayhew analyses the historical and cultural contexts of Aristotle’s writing, and cites from various Aristotelian texts, including the Nicomachaen Ethics, Politics, and Rhetoric. Mayhew also contends with contemporaries Fred Miller, Terrence Irwin, and Martha Nussbaum on their interpretations of Aristotle’s views on property, in an attempt to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the subject. Mayhew’s understanding of the Aristotelian view of property is maintained by the view that the educational experience is the enforcing ingredient in proper property management.
	Mayhew first underlies three forms in which property can exist and used by its owners in a citywide scale. According to Mayhew, Aristotle says that a city can have (1) property be private, use be common; (2) property be common, use be private; (3) and property be common, and use be common (804). Mayhew then asks why Aristotle does not consider a fourth option, where property is private, and its use is private as well. Mayhew argues that the reason Aristotle does not follow to a fourth form of capitalism is that the idea is not an option at all. A truly private form of ownership and use is too “selfish” to exist in the political society of man, and would rule out any sort of informal sharing whatsoever (i.e. this coat is mine, but I will share it with my friend when he is cold). It would rule out any sort of giving or sharing of one’s property (804). Mayhew presumes that Aristotle favors property to be private, and its use to be common.
	Next, Mayhew analyses what Aristotle discovers as impractical effects in his own ideas of communism.  Mayhew cites the Nicomachaen Ethics, where Aristotle discusses the problems of equal share and credit for varying degrees of work. It is Mayhew’s analyzation that if all citizens, in their varying jobs with degrees of difficulty, earn a similar flat amount of reward they will inevitably become discontent over this kind of injustice. Generally, Mayhew summarizes Aristotle in wherever human association exists the potential for conflict exists as well (808). Mayhew also argues that Aristotle is making a second point: that the Republic’s position on communal property is not only unworkable but in some ways unjust (807). 
	Although communism presents certain problems, it alleviates the existence of others as well. Mayhew argues that contractual dispute; bribery, theft, and other disputes of property cannot exist where all property is held equally, as in Aristotle’s communism. However, he further states that Aristotle’s presupposition of why these crimes originate in the first place is due to wickedness (mocqhriían) (809), and not the in existence of private property itself. The evidence for this theory is in the actions of people who do own private property, but desire more and commit the crimes to do so.
	Since neither communism nor private properties are the answer to these problems, Mayhew analyzes Aristotle’s criticism of Phaleas and others who view that property should be leveled in Politics 2.7 (809).  Here, Mayhew outlines three reasons why crimes are committed according to Aristotle: (1) to acquire necessities of life (i.e. food, clothing), (2) to satisfy desires beyond necessary (i.e. the drunk who wants more wine), and (3) to experience painless pleasures (i.e. tyranny or philosophy, where a tyrant could experience any pleasure with ease and without pain; Mayhew expresses confusion regarding how Aristotle specifically accounts the effect of philosophy) (809-10). 
 	The solutions to the problems of private property/common use rest not in equity of distribution, according to Mayhew, but in the shaping of a citizen/owner’s character through education. The three remedies to the aforementioned three reasons for crime are (1) minimum amount of property or work (e.g. necessities are fulfilled), (2) moderation (e.g. frugality), and (3) a philosophical disposition (e.g. a philosophical character prevents criminal intent) (810).
	Next, Mayhew analyses Aristotle’s claim on communism’s tendency to reduce productivity (810). Citing Politics 2.3, Mayhew reminds the reader of a community of persons who share things, and collectively neglect to care for them because they think others are already doing so. 
If I own one acre of land I shall most likely see to it that that one acre is cared for and is productive. But if I am one of one thousand citizens who share one thousand acres in common, each acre is likely to be less cared for. (811)
	In addition to the above problems of communism, Mayhew cites that Aristotle believes property would diminish or destroy certain kinds of pleasure. Aristotle argues that humans have a natural affection for ourselves, along with things related to it (i.e. my friends are people whom I have common interests, desires, views with). These similar things are consequently pleasant to us, and, according to Mayhew, encourage rational judgement and reaction, from persons to property (811-812). Mayhew cites Fred Miller approvingly, “True self-love is embodied in persons who act according to their own rational judgement” (812). Mayhew then correlates that if having things that are our own affect our ability to rationally judge, then communism is detrimental to the pleasures of owning private property but also undermines our autonomy (813).
	Mayhew continues further, noting that if pleasure is destroyed by the ample supply of goods from communism, our sense of generosity is as well, and in turn our sense of virtue. In communism nothing truly costs the resources of the individual, since the property they give is taken out of the pool of property from the community. One might argue that the cost of something is reflected in the individual’s relationship to the community, that the one might regard their resources as immutable from the group’s resources, and that Aristotle would agree. Indeed, Mayhew cites Terence Irwin who does argue; although only to reject his main ideas (814). Aristotle’s views of the nature of friendship, according to Irwin, are the basis for this shared sense of property and generosity. 
	Mayhew rebukes, citing Aristotle on his theory that we tend to neglect maintaining common things, and for this reason, we cannot begin to generate the shared sense of generosity geared by community. Secondly, Mayhew states that one “might regard the distribution” of a close friend’s resources as a cost to them, but that this regard is not applicable to the larger community with which one does not view with similar fondness. 
	Mayhew states that private property used in common is clearly better than communism to Aristotle. He then enters into the question of what exactly it means in detail; how private is private property, to what extent is it regulated, how should it legislated to be used properly. Mayhew states there are degrees of common use (816); that Aristotle has two different kinds of sharing in mind. Each citizen will share some of his possessions with close friends, but not with everyone, whereas some other possessions he will make available to all his fellow citizens (816). Aristotle’s example of Xenophon’s Lakedaimonian Constitution gives the account of how private property, when not in use by the owner, should be available to his fellow citizens in need or emergency (i.e. one who is sick or wishes to go somewhere quickly, and sees and takes a horse not in use promising to later restore it). 
	An important question regarding common use is whether it is voluntary, or enforced by law. Mayhew cites Martha Nussbaum (819), who claims the latter, but only to reprove. Mayhew states that one shares with a degree of exclusivity that extends from their sense of virtue, and that this certainly sounds voluntary.
	The distribution of land is an important consideration while describing the best city. Where Aristotle asks how should a city be best set up, Mayhew interprets a city's property as divided into three parts: government land, common land, and private land. Common land is further divided into common messes, crop production, and public service to the gods (822). Private land within the city and near the city frontier is given to every citizen. There is no indication how much exactly each part should be divided, however.
	Mayhew next asks how extensive the common meals are. He rationalizes them as taking place once a day every day. In footnote, he proposes the further question of whether attendance to them is mandatory or not. Mayhew does not believe Aristotle is clear enough on this issue to discuss within this article. He believes most would hope that in the best city people of character would voluntarily participate in them, for the benefits in education, community, and sustenance they offer (825).
	Private citizens have every opportunity to make any portion of their property common in use according to Mayhew (825). Mayhew asks then, what limitations with respect to amount or use should there be? Besides admonishing the obvious criminal use of property (i.e. if I say I serve pure wine, I cannot water it down) Mayhew brings to light the first two “necessary” offices (825). First, is overseeing management of the market (that contracts are legal and honored and orderliness [eüukosmia] maintained). Second is overseeing management of the city, which has three functions: (1) managing private and public property to ensure orderliness (eüukosmia), (2) maintenance of property, and (3) prevention of boundary disputes (825-6). Private property is regulated, thus, but not to any great restriction (827), according to Mayhew, as most of these laws apply to the common safety of the citizens and ensure sensible infrastructure planning. 
	Mayhew next discusses wealth, and the ceiling which Aristotle has placed on what he thought were harmful disparities of wealth and poverty (828). The acquisition of wealth did not mean, however, confiscation by government of anything below the limit of wealth, and Aristotle vehemently opposes such redistribution, deeming it unjust (828). For the welfare of the needy should already be handled by the generosity of the common messes. However, if the funds needed to operate the city properly were inadequate, wealthy citizens would need to give some of their wealth to meet these ends.
	Finally, Mayhew enters Aristotle’s views on the fundamental importance of coercive education of the young. Mayhew argues that it is better to limit freedom in this one important area of a person’s life, and instill an independence and responsibility that will serve to better their futures. Moreover, it is better to have a city of good, responsible, high-character citizens who use property properly than to elect many laws which ostensibly try to restrict their use. Mayhew notes this is anti-Platonic of Aristotle, in that Platonic civic unity is achieved through laws that force humans to behave in a certain manner, while Aristotelian unity is achieved primarily through character, philosophy, and legislation (831).

RESPONSE: Mayhew does a good job of summarizing Aristotelian theory on the principles of property management the problems/advantages of communism. I disagree with Mayhew's analysis of why Aristotle has produced these theories; why crime and peculiarities of the citizens within his best city exist. In addition, Mayhew’s citation from contemporary authors (Irwin and Nussbaum) only to reprove them is distracting. This misleading use of persuasive structure is confusing at first, and not helpful to his investigation, It only serves to alert the reader of published antithetical views which might better be left to direct responses and not in this article. 
	Firstly, Mayhew expresses confusion regarding the painless pleasures one might find from being “philosophically criminal”, in the third of three reasons humans commit crime (809-10). Indeed, this is a strange assumption by Aristotle, since the rectifying correlation to this statement is a (different?) form of philosophical disposition as well (810). Fighting fire with fire seems volatile in this case. Without a clear definition of the (a) corrupt philosophical disposition, the (b) good philosophical disposition cannot fully be applied to Mayhew's interpretation of the principle, and no (b) remedy for (a) crime is made. 
	Mayhew takes Aristotle’s theory that the rational judgement and pleasure we derive from possessing material objects is damaged by communism, and argues that if this is true, then our autonomy as independent humans would be undercut too. Mayhew has cited Fred Miller to his own benefit, departing from the usual antithetical citations of other authors and his reproves. Is either Miller or Mayhew correct in their Marxist-like assumption that economy has a significant relation to human impulse? A perceived nation of depressed, illogical citizens whose liveliness depends on the existence of capitalism is interesting since recent historical example in the former Soviet Union follows the interpretation. If autonomy of communist citizens was diminished by the economy of their state, how is revolution possible? The answer, as real life politics has said, is that the idea is either false, or the combination of external/internal modern politics has ruled it obsolete.
	What is more interesting about Aristotle’s theories of self-love is the extension that to be truly happy, persons must only associate with what is similar to them. Do elements of diversity, competition, or furthermore, global unity fit into this psychological context? There seems little room for such lofty concepts, and so the Aristotelian state might find itself constantly at odds with foreigners.
	Lastly, Mayhew should have investigated the natures of common meals more. In regards to voluntary or mandatory attendance, there are unfortunate consequences of instating voluntary meals. Those who neglect to attend them may be distancing themselves from the bulk of the community’s collective center, turn them into outsiders, and retard valuable social skills that may be necessary in the communist environment. Yet, mandatory meals are a possible extension of the Aristotle's theory favoring coercion in the name of favorable results; that is, the ends justify the means. Mayhew suggests (in footnote) that the common meal does not exist simply to feed the populace, but to ensure their civic unity, and primary education. The lack of a more in-depth discussion is testimony to the fact that Jonathan Barnes is correct and that too little from the Aristotelian corpus exists to derive a full meaning of its views on property.