NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
In this paper I want to look closely at Aristotle's view of slavery and how does his view relates to his conception of human nature and political life? But before explaining why Aristotle justified this institution I want to say that many of issues and doctrines that Aristotle defended were morally wrong and they are not accepted in the modern political world. And I consider slavery to be one of these institutions. In the Politics Aristotle justifies slavery.
No argument is needed to conclude that Aristotle made a terrible ethical and moral error in defending slavery. Why did he justify and defend his morally wrong statement and is there and logic in his defense and how does it correspond to the rest of his work. Some scholars have claimed that Aristotle's defense of slavery is a battered shipwreck of an argument. Yet, others maintain that the argument is in fact internally consistent.
As for me I want to look at what arguments Aristotle gave in order to defend slavery. But let me say a few words about slavery of those times because it is impossible to investigate or criticize his view without this knowledge. First and foremost, slavery was ubiquitous. Furthermore, they were employed not only as household servants and stewards, but in Aristotle's Athens, they worked in the fields, the mines, as craftsman, traders, secretaries, accountants, teachers, doctors, public servants, and participated in the arts. Hence they were indispensable for satisfying the needs of Athenians of even modest affluence. Without their exploitation, the middle and upper classes good life would cease to exist.
Moreover, the Aristotelian, ideal citizen would not be free to engage in the rational activities prescribed. While Aristotle's defense of slavery can be considered morally repugnant to most, it is important to recognize that it arose in a society where slavery was part of the phenomenology of the day. The fact that slavery was a part of normal, everyday Greek life, embraced by many, likely had an effect upon Aristotle's thinking. He had a respect for commonly held beliefs and activities, believing that there was some striving towards good in mans activities.
Kraut also argues that it may have been almost impossible for him to reject an institution that was approved by so many of his contemporaries. In the Greece of Aristotle, slaves were either made or born. Under the rules of war, one could be enslaves by other Greek or non-Greek states. Thus, bad fortune could reduce someone of high position to slavery.
If you were born to a mother who was a slave, you also became the property of your mothers owner. Many if not most slaves then were captives or descendents of captives. Yet, there were those who opposed slavery. Why did not Aristotle take the moral high ground as a few others did in his time? The first and main argument is that it was a time when there was a preeminence given to rational thinking and logical arguments. Slavery, it appears, was the subject of theoretical debate, not moral debate.
Second, Aristotle rejected the thesis that slavery was unnatural and unjust by giving three main points of his belief. First, some human beings are by nature slaves. Secondly, others are by nature masters. Thirdly, and perhaps most related to his philosophy of the Mean, the relationship between a natural slave and a natural master is mutually beneficial. The keystone to the relationship between a natural master and a natural slave is the possession of superior virtue on the part of the master. In addition, it is necessary to have an individual who is deficient in reason, virtue, deliberation and forethought, that is, the slave.
Thus, in Aristotle's view, it was natural for the man superior in reason and virtue to have dominion over the one who was deficient. Furthermore, Aristotle makes the claim that such a relationship was mutually beneficial. The slave benefited from the moral instruction he received from his master, while the master benefited from the slaves activities that released him (the master) to leisure time in which to ponder the imponderables of life. Aristotle would likely argue that this occurred in part because a man who has received a benefit does indeed return goodwill for what has been done for him, for this is right and proper. Finally, Aristotle seems to present the master and slave relationship as a natural one in that the slave is part of the master. Certainly, he has indicated that the slave is an integral part of the household.
Kraut has also cited Aristotle, indicating that he believed the slave to be not just a possession of the master but a sort of part of the master, like some living part of the body, though separated from it. References Kraut, Richard 1989. Aristotle on the Human Good. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Kraut, Richard 1997. Aristotle Politics: Books VII and VIII. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Miller, Fred D. , Jr. 1995, Nature, Justice, and Rights in Aristotle's Politics.
Oxford: Clarendon Press. Ober, Josiah 1989. Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Free research essays on topics related to: mutually beneficial, princeton princeton university, morally wrong, aristotle politics, oxford clarendon
Research essay sample on Princeton Princeton University Mutually Beneficial
