Introduction Over recent times, many debates have been made regarding thoughts expressed by philosophers like Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates on issues such as justice, ethics, morality, and governance. This is based on the fact that the philosophical ideas expressed by these scholars have proven to be greatly important in offering guidance to various facets of life-like cultural, social, political, and economic endeavors In this paper, the central focus is going to be on critiquing the statement that man is a political animal —a popular viewpoint proposed by Aristotle and supported by several other philosophers. In doing so, a comparison will be made between this Aristotelian thought and the Christian notion of governance and obedience—with a special spotlight being on the thoughts of St. Augustine. Implications of the Statement by Aristotle Preliminarily, it is inherent to state that Aristotle was a follower of Plato and, therefore, most of his viewpoints were more-or-less similar to those of Plato. Nonetheless, Aristotle was more radical in his views and that is the reason his arguments and beliefs received a lot of criticisms and praise alike from various scholars. Saying that man is a political animal has several implications both on a surface and deeper level. In most of his teachings, Aristotle, just like most classical Roman and Greek cynics, emphasized the importance of relative obedience to the people in power as a means of achieving happiness. Nonetheless, going against the leadership and governing systems in Greek society was considered a great offense thus severely punishable. Therefore, in this sense, being a political animal meant that people should strive to conform to the intricacies of the politics of governance since this is the only way they could achieve happiness. On another level, Aristotle asserted that the word “political, in this context, referred to public entities that are entailed in a given society. In addition, he stated that human beings, just like animals, are a product of their surrounding environment and society. Consequently, being a political animal meant that in order to satiate basic needs such as food and shelter; human beings were obligated to do almost anything. It is at this point that his opinions on virtuosity and happiness come in handy. According to Aristotle, human beings could be virtuous by doing the right thing. Nonetheless, he opined that there are some instances that might require people to do some ‘wrong” things, but still be virtuous. To him, the guiding factor for virtuosity was happiness, whether it was achieved by doing a right or morally acceptable “wrong” thing. As will be succinctly detailed in the course of this paper, the above viewpoint was hugely criticized by St. Augustine and a good number of Christians who were of the opinion that there are no morally acceptable “wrong” things. Instead, only absolutes applied when it came to choosing between right and wrong. In this view, Augustine and his Christian followers—mostly Catholics—argued that one was either right or wrong and not anything “in-between” the two moral extremes. Finally, Aristotle argued that human beings were entitled to free will. However, just like animals, there were some predisposing factors in