In a world saturated with data and algorithms, deliberately using classical philosophy in the design of urban policy is a radical act of rebellion. It’s undeniable that data offers a tempting immediacy — and in many cases, a necessary one. However, revisiting thinkers like Aristotle or Kant allows for a more reflective approach to public policy design without falling into stagnation. Reengaging with these ideas helps to distance policymaking from partisan or ideological stances. Such stances often present themselves as valuable contributions to public debate but are in fact opportunistic, overly flexible, or reveal their own contradictions.

In an era marked by climate urgency, territorial inequality, and institutional fatigue, rethinking the city means going beyond data. While data is essential for addressing people's everyday needs, it is rarely sufficient — from an ethical perspective — to answer the deeper question of why a particular policy is the most appropriate.

Far from being abstract or outdated, classical philosophical ideas provide a transformative lens through which to examine today’s urban challenges. They also offer a useful framework for fostering a collective conversation about the present and future of our cities. It’s important to remember that every redesigned street, every mobility regulation, every public service is not just a project or a work of infrastructure: it is a concrete expression of ideas that transcend the raw information offered by data. Two examples help illustrate these reflections and offer insight into how a classical lens can contribute to building more innovative and inclusive cities.

Aristotle and the Good Life

What is the purpose of human life? Aristotle answers this profound question in Nicomachean Ethics with simplicity and depth: every human being, by nature, seeks Eudaimonia — the good life — understood as the full realization of one's capabilities. And what should someone involved in politics do when faced with the dilemma of satisfying the legitimate interest of an individual versus that of a community striving for the good life? Aristotle is categorical: “To attain the good for a single individual is commendable, but to attain it for a nation or city state is a nobler and more godlike achievement.”

How can this pursuit of the “nobler and more godlike” good be put into practice? Through two central Aristotelian notions that today face real challenges. First, that “human beings are political animals,” meaning we require the polis — shared civic space — to flourish. However, individual interests, even when seemingly legitimate, often override the common good, weakening the ethical core of urban policy: the collective. Second, “politics is not about knowledge but action” — yet today, data, one of our main tools for understanding cities, often accumulates without being translated into decisions aimed at collective well-being. From this perspective, Aristotle reinforces something that may sound obvious but is not always practiced: what matters is transforming urban knowledge into policies and projects that deliver shared benefits.

It’s impossible to speak of Aristotle without addressing his idea of the golden mean, which is not simplistic geometric compromise, but the active pursuit of virtue by avoiding extremes. In urban terms, this translates into the active pursuit of collective well-being. Aristotle also emphasizes that some extremes admit no middle ground and must be rejected outright. Accepting ongoing air pollution, non-inclusive public spaces, or spatial segregation contradicts the ultimate purpose of cities: the good life. We cannot accept “just a little bit of constant air pollution”: urban policy must aim to eliminate it. Cities cannot be “a little” spatially segregated: they must strive not to be. Parks should not be “a little” unsafe: they must be safe for everyone. These problems don’t call for mitigation — they demand to be addressed as deep contradictions of the city’s ethical purpose.

Applying these Aristotelian ideas can enrich debates such as urban mobility. The current car-dominated model has serious negative consequences for physical and mental health — two pillars of Eudaimonia. However, after decades of car dominance, introducing the bicycle as an alternative often sparks intense debate, usually reduced to a false binary: “cars only” versus “bikes only.” Against these extremes, Aristotelian virtue would see the bicycle as a middle path: offering individual benefits — like exercise and stress reduction — and collective ones — such as quieter, less polluted cities. Achieving this balance also requires policies that mitigate economic impacts, such as those affecting freight delivery or intermodal transport systems, without undermining the central goal of making the bicycle a real alternative for urban mobility.

Recovering Aristotle’s golden mean reminds us that virtue is not passive balance but balanced action. This idea pairs well with Kantian freedom, understood not as absolute liberty, but as freedom within a framework of individual and collective responsibility.

Kant and the Urban Categorical Imperative

Among the many ideas proposed by Immanuel Kant is his concept of freedom of action: “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” This is essentially an invitation to ask ourselves whether our decisions would be acceptable if everyone acted the same way.

In the context of urban management, this principle takes on special relevance in areas such as potable water governance in the era of climate change. Rainfall patterns are shifting dramatically: some regions are facing prolonged droughts, while others are suffering increasingly severe floods. What would happen if towns along a river basin chose to heavily exploit their forests, citing economic opportunity? Or if individuals normalized widespread private pool use on the basis that they have the freedom to modify their homes?

Both questions deal with a kind of freedom subordinated to individual interests but not universalizable — something very different from Kant’s ideal. Here, freedom is guided by economic motives or local comfort, with no regard for the collective consequences of making such behaviors universal. Kantian freedom, in this context, offers a clear framework: it’s not about doing whatever one wants, but about ensuring that freedom is guided by duty and mindful of its impacts on the community and environment.

In contrast to ideologies that defend absolute freedom in large-scale urban decisions — not only in water but also in tourism management or housing development — Kant proposes a responsible freedom, capable of responding to local needs while accounting for global impacts. Kant’s concept of freedom might not differ much from the idea of sustainability, but it offers a more robust and ethical lens for examining the environmental and economic consequences of our liberties in urban life.

Kantian ethics, then, invites us to move beyond individualistic calculations and reflect from the perspective of collective responsibility in this new climate reality. For those in positions of political power, this reflection is key: are water policies being designed from principles that could be valid across an entire territory? Or are isolated decisions being allowed that, if generalized, could overwhelm the urban water supply system?

In summary, Kant invites us to see rules not just as instruments of social control, but as tangible expressions of shared ethical principles. When properly designed, these rules enable true freedom. In the case of water policy, Kant would likely advocate for prioritizing the public duty to guarantee access to potable water for the entire population — including future generations — over offering that access based on individual liberty. True freedom, then, lies in acting according to duty — what should be — rather than simply exercising what can be. Of course, this Kantian freedom must still contend with the territorial complexities of each specific context.

Think Again Before Planning Again

Reintroducing classical philosophy into urban thinking is not a nostalgic exercise, but a way to find a compass that helps us navigate the complexity of our times. In an urban landscape marked by deep socioeconomic imbalances and unprecedented interdependence and interconnectedness, it is essential to design policies grounded in Aristotelian virtue and Kantian freedom. Not only these two philosophers, but philosophy in general offers practical arguments for addressing today’s complex challenges.

It’s clear that philosophy doesn’t give direct answers about whether to build a bike lane or adopt a certain water management model, but it does provide frameworks to guide such decisions based on ethical values and rational principles. Revisiting Aristotle or Kant doesn’t mean looking backward; quite the opposite — it means focusing on the future from a position that helps us understand the turbulent times our cities are living through.

Bringing philosophy into urban thinking doesn’t slow down decision-making; it makes it more thoughtful, recognizing that many policies today — often presented as neutral or technical — actually reflect unspoken ethical positions. In the end, using philosophy in urban policy isn’t about adding complexity — it’s about understanding that complexity and asking the questions that allow for the best possible decisions. Ultimately, philosophy doesn’t paralyze action — it can give it meaning and depth. ●