Did Aristotle Talk about Freedom, Justice, and Equality?

Aristotle's image comes from Wikimedia Commons

Jun 12, 2026

Introduction

Some time ago, a philosophy professor said in class that “in the early modern/modern period, the three main ideas that came up were: freedom, equality, and law/justice.” I then asked: “Didn’t Aristotle talk about these?” The philosopher answered that he did not “in this way,” and “in any case, he did not use that language.” This is factually and provably false, and this article is the proof. Aristotle talked about these three all the time and with that language; in this article I provide a (non-exhaustive) list of relevant passages. Most of them come from Politics, but few are from Nicomachean Ethics. The relevant words (freedom, equality, law, etc.) are in bold.

A Note on Translation(s)

I have not read a great translation of Aristotle in any of the languages I know well: English, French, and Modern Greek. All translations use modern terminology that is absolutely inappropriate for Aristotle (e.g., translating πολιτεία as government or ἀρχή as authority). At the same time, I do not think I have reached a level of understanding of Ancient Greek to translate his works accurately from scratch. So, unfortunately, I have to use an existing translation. The best I know (which again, is still not amazing) is the translation by Hippocrates G. Apostle, who translated all of Aristotle’s works. This is the best translation primarily because of its consistency. As much as possible, Apostle translates the same Greek word with the same English word every time, and he tries to produce a word-for-word translation. Thus, it is at least easy to know where an English word came from. Whenever I consider it important, I add notes on the translation.

You may find this glossary useful, especially the Glossary of Untranslatable Terms.

A Note on Formatting

Apostle uses the standard square brackets “[]” to indicate his own interjections in the text that are not in the original. Thus, in the translations, I use the curly brackets “{}” to indicate a piece that is not in Apostle’s translation.

The Passages

Greek text Bekker ref: 1317α.40

ὑπόθεσις μὲν οὖν τῆς δημοκρατικῆς πολιτείας ἐλευθερία (τοῦτο γὰρ λέγειν εἰώθασιν, ὡς ἐν μόνῃ τῇ πολιτείᾳ ταύτῃ μετέχοντας ἐλευθερίας: τούτου γὰρ στοχάζεσθαί φασι πᾶσαν δημοκρατίαν) ἐλευθερίας δὲ ἓν μὲν τὸ ἐν μέρει ἄρχεσθαι καὶ ἄρχειν.

Translation

The hypothesis of people’s rule is freedom; for it is usually stated that freedom is shared only in this form of government, since freedom is held to be the aim of every species of people’s rule. One [sign] of freedom is to rule and to be ruled in turn.

For some reason, Apostle translates δημοκρατία as people’s rule and not as democracy.

A little later:

Greek text Bekker ref: 1317β.12

ἓν δὲ τὸ ζῆν ὡς βούλεταί τις. τοῦτο γὰρ τῆς ἐλευθερίας ἔργον εἶναί φασιν [...] ἐντεῦθεν δ᾽ ἐλήλυθε τὸ μὴ ἄρχεσθαι, μάλιστα μὲν ὑπὸ μηθενός, εἰ δὲ μή, κατὰ μέρος, καὶ συμβάλλεται ταύτῃ πρὸς τὴν ἐλευθερίαν τὴν κατὰ τὸ ἴσον.

Translation

{A} citizen should live as he wishes; for it is asserted that this is the function of freedom {...} {F}rom this arose the idea that a citizen should be ruled primarily by none, or else, he should rule and be ruled by turns; and such opinion, too, contributes to freedom according to [numerical] equality.

Greek text Bekker ref: 1275α.8

οὐδ᾽ οἱ τῶν δικαίων μετέχοντες οὕτως ὥστε καὶ δίκην ὑπέχειν καὶ δικάζεσθαι

Translation

Nor by partaking of what is just to the extent of having the right to sue and to be sued{.}

In my opinion, this is a truly bad translation by Apostle. For some reason, he translated δίκην and δικάζεσθαι as sue and to be sued, respectively (probably because he was trying to produce a word-for-word translation and there are no English equivalents for these verbs). Here’s Rackham’s translation, which makes some more sense, although it is liberal:

Translation (H. Rackham)

{N}or are {only} those citizens who participate in a common system of justice, conferring the right to defend an action and to bring one in the law-courts{.}

You are probably curious about how Aristotle ended up defining a citizen. In 1275β.20, he tells us:

Greek text Bekker ref: 1275β.20

πολίτης δ᾽ ἁπλῶς οὐδενὶ τῶν ἄλλων ὁρίζεται μᾶλλον ἢ τῷ μετέχειν κρίσεως καὶ ἀρχῆς.

Translation

A citizen of a state is said to be a man who has the right to participate in a legislative or judicial office of that state.

Well, the translation legislative or judicial office is arguably liberal, but this is not the only problem. Aristotle did not use any equivalent of “man” here. He used the masculine πολίτης, which means male citizen. So, the translation is wrong. It should have been: “A male citizen is …”. This is important because, contrary to conventional wisdom, women could also be citizens (and the feminine was πολίτις). For example, in 1278α.27, Aristotle tells us:

Greek text Bekker ref: 1278α.27

Ὁ γὰρ ἐκ πολίτιδος ἔν τισι δημοκρατίαις πολίτης ἐστίν[.]

Translation

{I}n some popular governments {i.e., democracies} a man is a citizen if his mother is a citizen{.}

Greek text Bekker ref: 1277β.8

ἀλλ᾽ ἔστι τις ἀρχὴ καθ᾽ ἣν ἄρχει τῶν ὁμοίων τῷ γένει καὶ τῶν ἐλευθέρων.

Translation

But there is another rule according to which one rules over those who are similar by birth and free.

Greek text Bekker ref: 1279α.23

ἡ δὲ πόλις κοινωνία τῶν ἐλευθέρων ἐστίν.

Translation

A state is an association {i.e., society} of freemen.

Greek text Bekker ref: 1280α.4-5

εὐποροῦσι μὲν γὰρ ὀλίγοι, τῆς δὲ ἐλευθερίας μετέχουσι πάντες: δι᾽ ἃς αἰτίας ἀμφισβητοῦσιν ἀμφότεροι τῆς πολιτείας.

Translation

{T}hose who are prosperous are [usually] few, but sharing in freedom belongs to all, and it is because of prosperity and freedom that disputes arise between the wealthy and the free as to the form of government.