Sources of Legal Thought in Plato and Aristotle: A Comparative Analytical Study

Abstract

This research aims to comprehensively and extensively analyze the sources of legal thought in Plato and Aristotle through a detailed comparative analytical study of the fundamental texts in ancient Greek legal philosophy, with reliance on Arabic and foreign references translated into Arabic. The research addresses the central problem of identifying the cognitive and philosophical sources upon which the two philosophers relied in establishing their legal theories, and revealing the similarities and differences between their methodologies in understanding the nature, sources, and function of law. The researcher adopted the comprehensive comparative analytical method in processing the original texts from Plato's "Republic" and "Laws", and Aristotle's "Nicomachean Ethics" and "Politics", with reliance on contemporary academic studies. The research concluded that Plato relied on philosophical reason and knowledge of Forms as the primary source of law, supported by divine law and fixed human nature, while Aristotle combined natural justice, positive law, social custom, practical reason, and equity. The research also showed that both philosophers agreed on the necessity of linking law with justice and reason, but differed in determining the cognitive basis of this relationship and in the degree of idealism and realism in application. The research recommended the necessity of conducting deeper comparative analytical studies of the original texts, developing specialized Arabic studies in the history of Greek legal philosophy, and benefiting from the lessons learned in developing contemporary legal theories.