PLAGIARISM FREE WRITING SERVICE
We accept
MONEY BACK GUARANTEE
100%
QUALITY

Aristotle's views on slavery

Ancient Greek contemporary society generally, and therefore classical Athens, even when it was a 'democracy', was tired in slavery, an establishment which Aristotle did not consider to be unjust and which he defends in publication I of his Politics. This article will focus on why Aristotle spent so much time on the subject of slavery. Also he promises that woman should not be treated the same as slaves, I'd like to discuss the lands where he makes this distinction. What is the difference between normal slavery and natural slavery? & most importantly what's the effect of Aristotle's discussion on normal slavery?

Aristotle's views on slavery are to the modern mind morally objectionable. Many see them badly argued and incompatible with more important tenants of his system[1]. Aristotle raises the question of whether slavery is natural or classic. In his writing he insists that the past is the situation. Is theory insists that some people are effortlessly slaves and some are naturally masters, thus he says: "But is there any one thus intended by nature to be a slave, and for whom such a condition is expedient and right, or alternatively is not absolutely all slavery a violation of characteristics?"[2]. It isn't hard to answer this question, based on reason and reality. For this is clear that it's necessary for some to rule and other be ruled from the hour with their birth, some are marked for subjection plus some to rule. However, it could seem that those who are ruled must be slaves but this isn't true whatsoever. It seems clear that in the situation between a slave and a master, the master will not treat the slave as the same, or as he wants to be cured, as nobody would willingly allow themselves to be enslaved. By implication this would mean that the relationship between 'get good at' and 'slave' is an unjust one, which violates Aristotle's important main of justice. However Aristotle areas that would only be the truth if professional and slave were indeed truly equal. In fact, however they aren't. Because not only is the slave not an Athenian citizen but additionally the grasp is the superior of the natural slave in several respects e. g. ownership of reason, knowledge, capacity for autonomous action etc. Which are characteristics that Aristotle affiliates with 'humanity', and which in his view are lacking in those who are natural slaves[3].

Aristotle says: "Where then there may be such a difference as that between heart and soul and body, or between men and pets or animals (as regarding those whose business is by using their body, and who are able to do nothing at all better), the lower sort are by nature slaves, and it is better for the kids as for all inferiors that they must be under the guideline of a professional. For he who can be, and therefore is, another's and he who participates in rational principle enough to apprehend, however, not to obtain, such a rule, is a slave by nature. Whereas the lower family pets cannot even apprehend a theory; they follow their instincts. And indeed the use made of slaves and of tame pets is not so different; for both with their bodies minister to the needs of life. Aspect would like to distinguish between your bodies of freemen and slaves, making the one strong for servile labor, the other upright, and even though inadequate for such services, great for political life in the arts both of war and peace. However the reverse often happens--that some contain the souls and others have the bodies of freemen. And doubtless if men differed in one another in the mere varieties of their bodies around the statues of the Gods do from men, all would acknowledge that the inferior category should be slaves of the superior. And if this will additionally apply to the body, how much more just that a similar distinction should exist in the heart? but the beauty of the body is seen, whereas the wonder of the soul is not seen. It really is clear, then, that some men are by nature free, as well as others slaves, and that for these latter slavery is both expedient and right. "[4]

So natural slaves should have powerful bodies however, not have the ability to rule themselves. Although the challenge with this theory as Aristotle obviously states would be that the right kind of physiques and souls do not always go together! So it is a opportunity that one can have the heart and soul of your slave and the body of any freeman, and vice versa. Despite the fact that this possibility is accessible, Aristotle boasts that because there are individuals who are appropriate to natural slavery, that is clearly a strong body and weakened soul, Aristotle contains that we now have people who should by natural means be slaves.

Who is proclaimed out for subjugation and who for guideline? That's where the idea "Barbarian" turns up in Aristotle's bill. Barbarians are by natural means more servile than Greeks! Aristotle Says: "But among barbarians no variation is manufactured between women and slaves, since there is no natural ruler among them: these are a community of slaves, male and feminine. Wherefore the poets say,

It is meet that Hellenes should rule over barbarians; as though they thought that the barbarian and the slave were by nature one. "

It is clear to understand that Aristotle also keeps that men obviously rule over girl when reading his Politics, he says a Husband's "rule over his wife is similar to that of a statesman over fellow citizens" and Women have a degree of governing capacity, i. e. for child treatment, but "without power" he also favors moderate exercise for woman and that girl should be much more youthful than their spouse.

In Aristotle's politics he points out that the term slavery or slave can be utilized in two senses. A slave is not only by nature but can be a slave for legal reasons; he says "But that those who take the opposite view [that is, who contain the view that slavery is not natural] have in a certain way right on their side, may be easily seen. For the words slavery and slave are being used in two senses. There's a slave or slavery by law as well as naturally. The law of which I speak is a sort of convention-- the law by which whatever is used war is supposed to belong to the victors. But this right many jurists impeach, as they would an orator who helped bring forward an unconstitutional strategy: they detest the idea that, because one man has the power to do violence and is also superior in brute power, another shall be his slave and subject matter. " Therefore people, who assume that classic slavery is reputable, also believe that all prisoners of conflict can be legitimately enslaved. If you lose the battle, and are captured that is enough. Aristotle accepts that some of those who are slaves are not natural slaves, but have become slaves consensual 'arrangement', because they have been vanquished by conflict, in times where the alternate would have been death. He has doubts about the legitimacy of the kind of slavery, but could hardly be reported to be a stern critic of it.

In Book I of Aristotle's politics, he mentions certain anonymous 'competitors of slavery' in historical Athens, who believed that slavery is unjust. He doesn't talk about who they are or even how they argued, however he shows that, unlike him, they presumed that all human beings are naturally equal.

[1] Malcolm Shofield, (2005) 'Ideology and School of thought in Aristotle's Theory of Slavery', Aristotle's Politics: Critical Essays. Pg 91-120.

[2] Aristotle (350 B. C. E) Politics, Greece.

[3] David Brion Davis (1966) The Problems of Slavery in American Culture, UK, Cornell School Press.

[4] Aristotle (350 B. C. E) Politics, Greece.

More than 7 000 students trust us to do their work
90% of customers place more than 5 orders with us
Special price $5 /page
PLACE AN ORDER
Check the price
for your assignment
FREE