Why a human being is more of a political animal than is any bee or any gregarious animal
Human being naturally does nothing pointlessly and is the only animal with a rational discourse. The nature surrounding human beings and animals is far advanced for them to expect pleasure and pain and to express them from one another. A voice expresses such pains and pleasure, and so animals and human beings who are surrounded by this kind of nature have it. Rational discourse that only exists in human beings applies to distinguish what is between what is harmful and expedient and consequently what is unjust and just. This therefore contrasts human beings from other animals that they are the only ones who can distinguish between evil and good, and therefore unjust and just.
For nature, we say, does nothing pointlessly, and a human being is the only animal with rational discourse
This forms the implication that human beings, and unlike other animals rarely act with no apparent reason or goal. For a human being to act, he must be satisfied that the direction he takes is appropriate and acceptable to any normal thinker. For rationality purposes there must not exist external forces that compel a human being to make particular decisions in a particular manner.
A voice communicates pain and pleasure that result from the advanced nature of human beings as well as other animals. Therefore human beings and other animals have that voice to express such pains and pleasure to one another. So the pains and pleasure will be signified by both human beings and other animals. Rational discourse that is only evident in human beings makes it clear whether such pleasures and pains are harmful or expedient.
The rational discourse attribute of human beings make them distinct from other animals as it is the basis of determining what good or evil. It therefore translates that other animals that do not possess this attribute have no value for good or evil unlike human beings. Human beings are again able to rule between just and unjust because of rational discourse.
Every community comes into existence for the reasons of some good. This is so because such communities are constituted of people who do everything for reasons of what seems good. All these communities therefore target some good with the one that targets a good that reigns all other goods gaining all control over others and even includes those others. This community is the one called a city.
A Good City
According to Aristotle, a good city is formed from various villages. It thus acquires full degree of every aspect of self-sufficiency and rises to be, for the reason of living but continues in existence for purposes of living better. He further notes that a city is different from politics where alliances are evident. He says that, similar people do not constitute a city but they make an alliance since the alliance aims at assistance. A good city according to him is usually not unified as alleged. He says that such unity would only destroy a city rather than develop it. Politically he says that an excellent for a ruler to be excellent he must be have intelligence and be good. He further indicates that citizens do not necessarily have to be intelligent but they should know and take part in ruling and being ruled. Aristotle describes some form of rulings exercisable.
Master’s rule over slaves which is basically concerned with necessities and the leader here require the knowledge of how to use these necessities and not the knowledge of how to produce such necessities.