Get Original Solution – Plato’s Republic and Aristotle’s Politics differ on justice and the ideal state - EssayQuest

Classical Political Philosophy · POLS 301 / PLSC 2200 / PHI 330 · Module Paper

Justice, the Ideal State, and the Limits of Political Philosophy — 2026 Assignment Brief

Weighting30%of final grade

Academic Integrity: Submissions are processed via Turnitin. AI-generated essay content, AI-assisted paraphrasing of primary sources, and AI-produced argument outlines submitted as original student work constitute academic misconduct under institutional policy. Review the full policy on the course LMS before submitting.

1. Assignment Context and Rationale

Political philosophy’s central questions — what is justice, who should rule, and what makes a political community good — receive two of their most sustained and influential treatments in the Western tradition from Plato and Aristotle. Plato’s Republic constructs justice through an account of the soul and its rational governance of the state, culminating in the philosopher-king as the only truly legitimate ruler. Aristotle’s Politics rejects several of his teacher’s foundational assumptions and builds instead on empirical observation of existing constitutions, a naturalistic account of the political animal, and a conception of distributive justice that does not require rule by a philosophically educated elite.

The tension between these two positions generates questions that have not been resolved in two and a half millennia of commentary: Can a genuinely just state be built without rulers who possess theoretical knowledge of the Good? Is justice a matter of rational order, as Plato argues, or of proportional equality and the common good, as Aristotle insists? Does the ideal city have practical implications for political reform, or is it merely a theoretical model used to illuminate the soul?

This Module Paper asks you to take these questions seriously as philosophical problems, not as historical curiosities. The assignment is the most substantial piece of independent research in the course and is designed to test your capacity to develop an extended original argument, manage multiple primary texts and secondary sources, and evaluate competing philosophical positions on their merits. Classical political philosophy modules using this research paper format are standard at the University of Notre Dame, McGill, LSE, Durham, the University of Melbourne, Monash, and equivalent programs at NYU, Rutgers, and the University of British Columbia.

2. Learning Outcomes Assessed

Accurately reconstruct and explain Plato’s theory of justice in the Republic — including the tripartite soul, the three-class state, and the philosopher-king — with reference to specific Stephanus page numbers.
Accurately reconstruct and explain Aristotle’s political naturalism, his sixfold classification of constitutions, and his account of distributive justice and the best constitution in the Politics, with reference to specific Bekker numbers.
Critically compare the two accounts by identifying the philosophical assumptions on which they differ and evaluating the force of each position against the other.
Develop and sustain an original argument — supported by a minimum of three peer-reviewed secondary sources — across an extended written paper.
Apply Chicago 17th edition notes-bibliography citation conventions throughout, including correct footnote formatting for primary and secondary sources.

3. The Module Paper Task

Write a 2,000–2,500-word research paper in response to the following question:

Central Paper Question

“Plato and Aristotle both argue that justice is the foundation of a well-ordered political community, but they disagree fundamentally on what justice is, how it is achieved, and who has the authority to determine it. Drawing on both the Republic and the Politics, compare their accounts of justice and the ideal state, and argue for a clear, well-reasoned position on which philosopher’s political theory is better equipped to address the problem of legitimate political authority.”

The paper must argue a position. Presenting both accounts neutrally, without taking a defended stance on the central question, will not satisfy the evaluative demand of the task. Your evaluation must proceed on philosophical grounds — that is, by identifying which assumptions, arguments, or conclusions are stronger, more internally consistent, or better supported — not by asserting a personal preference.

3.1 Required Analytical Coverage

Your paper must engage substantively with all of the following. The order in which you address them should follow the logic of your argument, not this list.

Plato’s theory of justice in the Republic: Explain justice as the proper ordering of the soul’s three parts (reason, spirit, appetite), its analogue in the three-class state (philosophers, auxiliaries, producers), and Plato’s argument in Books IV–V (427e–445e) that a just state requires philosopher-kings. Your analysis must reference at least one specific passage from Books I–IV (where justice is defined) and at least one from Books V–VII (where the philosopher-king is defended).
Aristotle’s critique and alternative in the Politics: Explain Aristotle’s naturalistic argument in Politics Book I.2 (1252b30–1253a38) that the polis is natural and human beings are political animals. Explain his sixfold classification of constitutions in Book III.6–7 (1278b8–1280a6) and his account of distributive justice in Book III.9 (1280a7–1281a10). Identify at least one specific passage where Aristotle explicitly criticises Plato’s Republic (Book II.1–5, 1261a10–1265b27).
The core philosophical disagreement: Identify and analyse the single most fundamental philosophical difference between the two accounts. Candidates include: the role of theoretical knowledge in political legitimacy; the relationship between justice in the individual and justice in the state; whether the ideal city is prescriptive or merely heuristic; or the question of whether justice requires harmony (Plato) or proportional equality among different kinds of contribution (Aristotle). Whichever point of disagreement you select, you must show that it is genuinely fundamental and not merely a surface-level difference in vocabulary.
Your evaluative argument: Using at least two peer-reviewed secondary sources, argue for a position on which account of justice and legitimate authority is more philosophically defensible. Acknowledge the strongest available objection to your position and respond to it.

3.2 What This Paper Does Not Ask

You are not required to trace the reception history of these texts or their influence on subsequent political thought.
You are not asked to apply their arguments to contemporary political events, parties, or governments, unless doing so directly sharpens a philosophical point about the internal coherence of one of the theories.
You are not required to address all of Aristotle’s criticisms of Plato in Politics Book II. Select the one most relevant to your argument.

4. Paper Requirements

4.1 Paper Structure

Introduction (approx. 200–250 words): Identify the problem, name both texts and the central question you are addressing. State your thesis — including the evaluative position you will defend — in the final two to three sentences of the introduction. Do not begin with a sweeping claim about “the nature of justice throughout history.”
Analytical Body (approx. 1,500–1,900 words): Develop your argument across a minimum of five body paragraphs. At least two must be directly devoted to textual analysis of primary evidence (one on Plato, one on Aristotle). At least one must present and respond to the strongest objection to your evaluative position. Secondary sources must be integrated argumentatively, not merely cited as context.
Conclusion (approx. 200–250 words): Restate your thesis in the light of the argument presented. Identify one unresolved question or limitation of your analysis — either a gap in your argument or a further problem that the comparison between Plato and Aristotle leaves open for political philosophy. Do not introduce new evidence.

4.2 Source Requirements

Both primary texts must be cited with standard reference numbers: Stephanus numbers for Plato (e.g., Plato, Republic 433b–c); Bekker numbers for Aristotle (e.g., Aristotle, Politics 1253a3–5).
A minimum of three peer-reviewed secondary sources published between 2018 and 2026 must be incorporated into the argument with footnotes. All three must appear in the bibliography.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy are acceptable secondary sources. Wikipedia, SparkNotes, general encyclopaedias, and AI-generated texts do not count.
Chicago 17th edition notes-bibliography style throughout: footnotes (not author-date in-text citations), and a full bibliography on a separate page at the end of the paper.

4.3 Formatting Requirements

Font: 12pt Times New Roman or Garamond; double-spaced; 1-inch (2.54cm) margins.
Title page: paper title, student name, course name and number, instructor name, institution, and date.
Footnotes at the bottom of each page in 10pt font (not endnotes, unless your instructor specifies).
Bibliography on a new page after the essay body, titled “Bibliography.”
Word count stated at the bottom of the final page of essay body, before the bibliography.
File named: LastName_FirstName_POLS301_ModulePaper.docx (or course code as applicable).

4.4 Guidance on Chicago Footnote Citations for Ancient Texts

Footnote citation of Plato and Aristotle in Chicago 17th follows the classical text convention. First footnote: Plato, Republic, trans. G. M. A. Grube, rev. C. D. C. Reeve (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1992), 433b–c. Subsequent footnotes: Plato, Republic, 441d. For Aristotle: Aristotle, Politics, trans. C. D. C. Reeve (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1998), 1253a3–5. Subsequent: Aristotle, Politics, 1278b8. Full details in the Chicago Manual of Style 17th edition, section 14.238. Your institution’s library guide for classical texts may provide additional guidance.

Sample Answer Content — for LMS Indexing and Student Orientation

Plato’s account of justice in the Republic rests on an analogy between the soul and the city: justice in both cases is the condition in which reason rules over spirit and appetite, with each part performing its proper function without encroaching on the others (Plato, Republic 433b–c). The philosopher-king follows directly from this account, since only those who have achieved genuine knowledge of the Form of the Good are capable of the kind of reason that can govern the city justly. Aristotle’s critique in Politics Book II is not that justice as rational order is unintelligible, but that Plato’s account makes the city too unified by absorbing individual differences into a collective, homogeneous interest (Aristotle, Politics 1261a15–22). For Aristotle, the city is by nature a plurality, and justice requires proportional distribution among genuinely different kinds of people and contributions rather than the harmony of identical parts. Kippes (2025) argues that Plato’s Republic does not in fact straightforwardly propose Kallipolis as a practical blueprint, but rather as a dialectical model whose paradoxes reveal the fundamental tension between philosophical reasoning and political necessity, a reading that substantially complicates the standard assessment of Plato as a naive utopian (Kippes, 2025, p. 7). Whether that reinterpretation rescues Plato’s theory of justice from Aristotle’s objection about the unity of the city, however, remains the central question any serious comparison of the two accounts must address.

5. Week 8 Discussion Board — Pre-Paper Preparation

Week 8 Discussion Board — Instructions

Discussion Prompt: Who Has the Right to Rule?

Before posting, re-read: Plato, Republic V, 473c–474b (the philosopher-king passage) and Aristotle, Politics III.11, 1281a39–1282a41 (the argument for collective wisdom). These two passages represent perhaps the sharpest direct contrast in the entire corpus of classical political philosophy on the question of legitimate authority.

Initial Post (due Day 3, 400–500 words): Respond to the following question:

Plato argues at Republic 473c–d that cities will not be free from evils until philosophers become kings, or kings become philosophers. Aristotle argues at Politics 1281b7–10 that the collective judgment of the many may be superior to the judgment of even the most excellent individual. Are these two positions genuinely incompatible, or can a plausible reading of either text show that they are responding to slightly different questions? Cite both passages with reference numbers in your post.

Peer Response Posts (two required, due Day 7, minimum 150 words each): Engage with the philosophical substance of your peer’s reading, not merely its conclusions. Identify the specific textual evidence on which your peer’s interpretation rests and explain what an alternative reading of that same passage would yield.

Discussion Grading Criteria

Depth of philosophical engagement with the passage comparison — 40%
Accurate use of Stephanus and Bekker references in initial post — 25%
Critical quality and specificity of peer responses — 25%
Clarity and academic register of all posts, word-count compliance — 10%

6. Marking Rubric — Module Paper (100 Points)

Grade Band Reference

A / High Distinction (90–100)B / Distinction (80–89)C / Credit (70–79)D / Pass (60–69)F / Fail (0–59)

Criterion	Pts	A / High Distinction (90–100%)	B / Distinction (80–89%)	C / Credit (70–79%)	D / Pass (60–69%)	F / Fail (Below 60%)
Thesis and Evaluative Argument	25	Original, debatable thesis that takes a clear and well-reasoned evaluative position. The argument is sustained across the full paper with no unsupported inferential jumps. Objection is addressed substantively and the response advances the thesis.	Clear thesis present; evaluative position taken and mostly sustained. Objection addressed but response could be stronger.	Thesis identifiable; evaluative position present but not fully developed. Objection addressed superficially or not clearly connected to the thesis.	Thesis vague; the paper leans heavily on comparison without reaching a defended evaluative conclusion. Objection absent or perfunctory.	No arguable thesis. Paper is a sequential description of the two texts with no comparative analysis and no evaluative argument.
Textual Accuracy and Primary Source Use	20	Both Plato and Aristotle are represented accurately and with terminological precision. All required passages addressed. Stephanus and Bekker references used correctly throughout. No conflation of the two thinkers’ vocabularies.	Both thinkers represented accurately; required passages addressed; Stephanus/Bekker references used with 1–2 minor errors.	Both thinkers covered but with occasional imprecision. One required passage missing or only partially addressed. Reference numbers used inconsistently.	One thinker underdeveloped or significantly misrepresented. Stephanus/Bekker numbers absent or used incorrectly throughout.	Fundamental misrepresentation of one or both thinkers. Primary text references absent or fabricated.
Philosophical Analysis and Depth	20	The core philosophical disagreement is correctly identified and developed at the level of underlying assumptions. The paper engages with the philosophy, not just the surface content. Comparison is genuinely analytical.	Core disagreement identified and developed; analysis is mostly philosophical rather than merely descriptive. A few moments of surface-level comparison.	Disagreement identified but often described rather than analysed. Comparison juxtaposes positions without fully examining the assumptions that make them different.	Comparison is primarily descriptive: “Plato says X, Aristotle says Y” without analysis of why they disagree or what follows from the disagreement.	No genuine philosophical analysis. Paper restates the content of the texts without comparison or argumentation.
Integration of Secondary Sources	20	Three peer-reviewed sources integrated argumentatively; all are directly relevant to specific claims. Sources are used to advance the argument rather than as introductory context. All correctly cited in Chicago footnotes with full bibliography entries.	Three peer-reviewed sources present; integration is mostly argumentative. Chicago footnotes correct with 1–2 minor errors.	Three sources present; one or two used only as background context. Chicago citation mostly correct with 3–5 errors.	Sources barely meet minimum; one may not be peer-reviewed. Chicago citation substantially incorrect or inconsistent. Bibliography present but incomplete.	Fewer than three sources, or sources do not meet scholarly standard. No footnotes. No bibliography.
Structure, Writing, and Academic Register	10	Introduction and conclusion fully functional. Body paragraphs logically sequenced, clearly topic-sentenced, and cohesively linked. Prose is precise, authoritative, and consistently at the level appropriate for an upper-division research paper.	Structure sound; writing clear and consistently academic. Minor transitional weaknesses.	Structure mostly clear; some paragraphs lack focus or transitions. Writing readable but occasionally imprecise or informal.	Structure inconsistent. Paragraphs conflate multiple claims. Writing unclear or below upper-division standard in places.	Essay lacks coherent structure. Prose impedes comprehension. Introduction or conclusion absent.
Chicago Citation and Formatting	5	Chicago 17th (notes-bibliography) applied correctly and consistently: title page, footnotes, bibliography, Stephanus/Bekker in footnotes. File named and submitted correctly.	Chicago applied with 1–2 minor errors. Bibliography present and mostly correct.	Chicago applied with 3–5 errors. Bibliography present but inconsistent. Footnotes/endnotes confused or partially absent.	Chicago attempted with multiple errors across footnotes and bibliography. Formatting significantly incorrect.	Chicago not applied. Bibliography absent. Primary texts not cited with standard reference numbers.
Total	100	Grade conversions follow institutional policy. Extension, late submission, and special consideration provisions: see the course information guide on the LMS.

7. Required Primary Texts and Recommended Editions

Plato. Republic. Translated by G. M. A. Grube, revised by C. D. C. Reeve. 2nd ed. Hackett Publishing, 1992. Required reading: Books I (327a–354c, on justice and the challenge of Thrasymachus); Books II–IV (357a–445e, the construction of the just city and the definition of justice); Books V, 473c–480a (philosopher-kings); Books VIII–IX (543a–592b, the degenerate constitutions and the tyrannical soul).
Aristotle. Politics. Translated by C. D. C. Reeve. Hackett Publishing, 1998. Required reading: Book I, Chapters 1–2 (1252a1–1253a38, the naturalness of the polis); Book II, Chapters 1–5 (1261a10–1265b27, critique of Plato’s Republic); Book III, Chapters 6–9 (1278b8–1281a10, classification of constitutions and distributive justice); Books VII–VIII (1323a14–1342b34, the ideal city).

8. Bibliography — Recommended Peer-Reviewed Secondary Sources (Harvard Format for Instructor Reference)

Kippes, R. A. (2025) ‘Utopianism and Plato’s Republic’, Theoria: A Journal of Social and Political Theory, e12600. doi: 10.1111/theo.12600
Reiner, P. A. and Biondi, C. A. (2024) ‘Aristotle’s Social and Political Philosophy’, in G. Gaus, F. D’Agostino and R. Muldoon (eds) The Routledge Companion to Social and Political Philosophy, 2nd ed. Routledge, pp. 1–30. Available at: https://philarchive.org/archive/REIASA-7
Schofield, M. (2023) ‘Plato’s Ethics and Politics in the Republic’, in E. N. Zalta and U. Nodelman (eds), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-ethics-politics/
Keyt, D. and Miller, F. D. (2022) ‘Aristotle’s Political Theory’, in E. N. Zalta (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, revised ed. Stanford University. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-politics/
Lorenz, H. (2022) ‘Plato on the Soul’, in E. N. Zalta (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, revised ed. Stanford University. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-soul/