The Incommensurability Thesis

       Is it possible for government to do more than collect garbage and punish criminals?  Is it possible for government to, without becoming a totalitarian nightmare, be a pervading force in our lives, the kind of partnership in all human things Aristotle advocated?   The Incommensurability Thesis is the idea that there are ends for which society exists to satisfy, but which are of different essential types.  There is no way of transferring or exchanging the different classes of goods for one another.  Economic goods are not the only goods.

       Aristotle lists three types of goods.  The first are goods of the body, which would cover things like food and clothing.  Second are external goods, which would include property and personal belongings.  Third are goods of the soul, which would include virtue, knowledge and friendship.  The essence of the Incommensurability Thesis is that all three types of good are valuable, but they are incapable of being exchanged.  Someone shipwrecked on a desert island with several trunks of gold bullion will still die of starvation.  And, of course, neither goods of the body nor external goods can be swapped for the goods of the soul.

       One objection moderns might raise to this theory is that external goods might pay for an education.  While external goods might pay your tuition, one still has to study and work to gain knowledge.  It might also be pointed out that students can earn degrees without gaining much actual knowledge.  Theories of justice where wealth inequality figures heavily argue that wealth redistribution helps people achieve their life goals.  Earning a college degree might be a necessary condition for a job, but it is not a sufficient condition for a job.  Completing law school does not mean that you will get to practice law, for example.

        Aristotle illustrates this thus

"Certainly no one will dispute the propriety of that partition of goods which separates them into three classes, viz. external goods, goods of the body, and goods of the soul, or deny that the happy man must have all three.  For no one would maintain that he is happy who has not in him a particle of courage or temperance or justice or prudence, who is afraid of every insect which flutters past him, and will commit any crime, however great, in order to gratify his lust of meat or drink, who will sacrifice his dearest friend for the sake of half a farthing, and is as feeble and false in mind as a child or a madman."  Politics Book VII, Paragraphs 3-5.

       In discussing the bases for government, Aristotle weighs claims made based on wealth, nobility and ability.

"The rich claim because they have a greater share in the land, and land is the common element of the state;  also they are generally more trustworthy in contracts.  The free claim under the same title as the noble;  for they are nearly akin.  And the noble are citizens in a truer sense than the ignoble, since good birth is always valued in a man's own home and country.  Another reason is, that those who are sprung from better ancestors are likely to be better men, for nobility is excellence of race.  Virtue, too, may be truly said to have a claim, for justice has been acknowledged by us to be a social virtue, and it implies all others."  Politics Book III, Section 12, Paragraphs 2-4.

       With regards to strength, Aristotle says,

"For those who found their claims on wealth or family have no basis of justice;  on this principle, if any one person were richer than all the rest, it is clear that he ought to be the ruler of them.  In like manner he who is very distinguished by his birth ought to have the superiority over all those who claim on the ground that they are freeborn.  In an aristocracy, or government of the best, a like difficulty occurs about virtue;  for if one citizen be better than the other members of the government, however good they may be, he too, upon the same principle of justice, should rule over them.  And if the people are to be supreme because they are stronger than the few, then if one man, or more than one, but not a majority, is stronger than the many, they ought to rule, and not the many." Politics Book III, Section 13, Paragraphs 7-8.

       Aristotle makes it clear that real justice transcends class interests when he says,

"And whereas justice implies a relation to persons as well as to things, and a just distribution, as I have already said in the Ethics, embraces alike persons and things, they acknowledge the equality of the things, but dispute about the merit of the persons, chiefly for the reason which I have just given--because they are bad judges in their own affairs;  and, secondly, because both the parties to the argument are speaking of a limited and partial justice, but imagine themselves to be speaking of absolute justice." Politics Book III, Paragraph 3.

       Skill, not wealth or birth, should be the basis of external goods.

"But, surely, if this is true, the complexion or height of a man, or any other advantage, will be a reason for his obtaining a greater share of political rights.  The error here lies upon the surface, and may be illustrated from the other arts and sciences.  When a number of flute-players are equal in their art, there is no reason why those of them who are better born should have better flutes given to them;  for they will not play any better on the flute, and the superior instrument should be reserved for him who is the superior artist.  If what I am saying is still obscure, it will be made clearer as we proceed.  For if there were a superior flute player who was far inferior in birth and beauty, although either of these may be a greater good than the art of flute playing, and persons gifted with these qualities may excel the flute-player in a greater ratio than he excels them in his art, still he ought to have the best flutes given to him, unless the advantages of wealth and birth contribute to excellence in flute-playing, which they do not.  Moreover, upon this principle any good may be compared with any other.  For if a given height, then height in general is more excellent than virtue, all things will be commensurable {which is absurd};  for if a certain magnitude is greater than some other, it is clear that some other will be equal."Politics Book III, Section 12, Paragraphs 3-6.

       Great ability is a threat to both those who impose tyranny or perfect equality, both of which systems cannot abide those who are exceptional.  Aristotle tells the story of a Corinthian tyrant to illustrate this.

"The story is that Periander, when the herald was sent to ask counsel of him, said nothing, but only cut off the tallest ears of corn till he had brought the field to a level.  The herald did not know the meaning of the action, but came and reported what he had seen to Thrasybulus, who understood that he was to cut off the principal men in the state;  and this is a policy not only expedient for tyrants or in practice confined to them, but equally necessary in oligarchies and democracies." Politics Book III, Section 1284, Paragraphs 12-18.

"Thus at Athens Peistratus led a faction against the men of the plain, and Theagenes at Megara slaughtered the cattle of the wealthy, which he found by the river side where they had put them to graze.  Dionysius, again, was thought worthy of the tyranny because he denounced Daphnaeus and the rich;  his enmity to the nobles won for him the confidence of the people.  Changes also take place from the ancient to the latest form of democracy;  for where there is a popular election of the magistrates and no property qualification, the aspirants for office get hold of the people, and continue at last even to set them above the laws.  A more or less complete cure for this state of things is for the separate tribes, and not the whole people, to elect the magistrates."Politics Book V, Section 1305, Paragraphs 9-11.

       Aristotle's theory of society is that a transcendence of interests between classes is the definition of Justice.  Justice does not mean mere survival or the prevention of injustice.
       Our good of the soul, Friendship, is the basis of society.  The end of politics is "a happy and honourable life."  For the majority to despoil the minority is a violation of justice.
       In conclusion, the problem of modern politics is assuming that the ultimate goods in society are economic.  The neglect of goods of the soul is one reason for the basic confusion of modern politics.