本文聚焦於亞里斯多德在其《政治學》第七、八卷所構思的理想城邦，並且著重探究，本性能力與公民無異的技職勞動者，生活於其中將面臨的不正義處境──作為必須勞動的多數人，卻無法擁有公民身分及政治權利。關於亞里斯多德的排除，過往的詮釋認為：一方面他僅僅是依循自己那時代的常見觀點，而不假思索地將他們排除在外；一方面可能是針對技職勞動工時過長將阻礙德行的發展以及閒暇的確保，進而無法充分參與公共事務。20世紀晚期出現了社會民主式詮釋，有別於過往地主張，排除本性能力無異於公民的技職勞動者在邏輯上並不合乎亞里斯多德構建理想城邦的原則與理念，因此亞里斯多德主義式理想城邦，理應為技職勞動者擁有公民身分保持開放。然而，保守式詮釋駁斥社會民主式詮釋過度拉近亞里斯多德與現代價值觀之間的距離，亞里斯多德並無意為技職勞動者開放公民資格。本文援引Julia Annas的觀點，嘗試進一步從亞里斯多德的本性概念談起，仔細闡述單純和完整人類本性之間的區分與意涵，並且說明，亞里斯多德式教育如何使得人類單純本性達致完整本性的發展進程。

My research centers on Aristotle’s ideal city-state in Politics VII and VIII, and considers why Aristotle excludes common workers (banausoi) from the citizens in his ideal city-state. The conservative interpretation hold that it is partly due to the common views of his time, and partly because the occupation training of common workers would prevent themselves from developing virtue and enjoying leisure. The social democratic interpretation, however, argues that such an exclusion would not be compatible with Aristotle’s bedrock principles for his ideal city-state and therefore in an Aristotelian ideal city-state common workers would be granted citizenship. This paper, following Julia Annas’ view, distinguishes between the mere human nature and the full human nature, and argues, how education helps develop human nature in full scale.

一、《政治學》古希臘文原著及譯本：
1. Ross, W. D. (ed.). (1957). Aristotelis Politica. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2. Reeve, C. D. C. (trans. & ed.). (2017). Politics: a new translation. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.
3. ────. (trans. & ed.). (1998). Politics. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.
4. Kraut, Richard. (trans. & ed.). (1997). Aristotle: “Politics” Books VII and VIII. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
5. Irwin, Terence., and Gail Fine (trans. & ed.). (1995). Aristotle: selections. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.

二、《尼各馬科倫理學》英文譯本
1. Crisp, Roger. (trans. & ed.). (2000). Nicomachean Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

三、《動物的諸部分》英文譯本
1. Lennox, James G. (trans. & ed.). (2001). Aristotle On the Parts of Animals I-IV. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

四、二手文獻
1. Annas, Julia. (1996). “Aristotle on Human Nature and Political Virtue”, Metaphysics, 49(4): 731-753.
2. Mulgan, Richard G. (2000). “Was Aristotle an Aristotelian Social Democrat?”, Ethics, 111: 79-101.
3. Nussbaum, Martha C. (1988). “Nature, Function, and Capability: Aristotle on Political Distribution”, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, suppl. vol.: 145-184.
4. ────. (1990). “Aristotelian Social Democracy”, in Liberalism and the Good, (Bruce Douglass, Gerald Mara and Henry Richardson (eds.), New York and London: Routledge): 203-252.
5. ────. (2000). “Aristotle, Politics, and Human Capabilities: A Response to Antony, Arneson, Charlesworth, and Mulgan”, Ethics, 111(1): 102-140.
6. Stalley, Richard F. (2009). “Education and the State”, in A Companion to Aristotle, (Georgios Anagnostopoulos (ed.), Chichester: Blackwell): 566-576.
7. Kraut, Richard. (2009). Aristotle: Political Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
8. Miller Jr, Fred D. (1995). Nature, Justice, and Rights in Aristotle’s Politics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
9. Sunstein, Cass R. (1992). Republic.com. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
10. MacIntyre, Alasdair C. (2007). After virtue: a study in moral theory. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. 1981. Reprinted with new material 2007.
11. Taylor, C. C. W. (1995). ‘Politics’, in The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle, (Jonathan Barnes (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): 250.
12. Whitehead, David. (1975). ‘Aristotle the Metic’, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 201(1975): 94-9.
13. Laird, John. (1942-3). ‘Hobbes on Aristotle’s Politics’, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 43(1942-3): 1-20.
14. Barnes, Jonathan. (1990). “Aristotle and Political Liberty”, in Aristoteles’ “Politik”: Akten des XI Symposium Aristotelicum, (Gunther Patzig (ed.), Gottingen: Vandenhoeck ＆ Ruprecht): 249-63.
15. Charles, David. (1988). “Perfectionism in Aristotle’s Political Theory: Reply to Martha Nussbaum”, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, suppl. vol.: 185-206, 194-97.