Politics and Justice: Aristotle, Rawls, and the Case for Realism in Political Theory

ABSTRACT

Aristotle's analysis of stasis in Book V of the Politics offers a striking example of “distinctively political thought,” as advocated by Bernard Williams's political realism, and in contrast to the moralist approach exemplified by John Rawls. Aristotle identifies disputes over justice, driven by partial and conflicting conceptions of equality, as a principal cause of civil conflict, advocating institutional measures to manage such disagreements rather than relying on citizens converging on a correct understanding. This focus on stability as the first function of politics, aimed at preventing constitutional breakdown, parallels Williams's “first political question” and emphasizes the pragmatic safeguarding of order to avert catastrophe. By contrast, Rawls treats politics primarily as a means to realizing justice, positing that stability depends on an overlapping consensus. The paper critiques Rawls's neglect of the historical‐institutional foundations of liberalism, his underestimation of the durability of modi vivendi, and his ideal‐theoretic abstraction from the circumstances of politics. Aristotle's realist alternative provides a more plausible framework for understanding the relationship between justice and politics—a necessary corrective to Rawlsian political moralism.