Aristotle was an ardent proponent of slavery. One thing that is worth noting is that the topic of slavery remains controversial both exponents and defenders of slavery fail to agree whether slavery is unjust or not. In contemporary times, slavery would be viewed as a breach to human rights which is well stipulated in the universal rights spelt out in international treaties and conventions. However, in the ancient times slavery was viewed by a reasonably large proportion of society as being just. This paper seeks to critically analyze aspect of slavery in politics.
First of all, Aristotle maintained that there are people who are naturally slaves and those who are not. In the case of Aristotle, he supported the presence of natural slaves. According Aristotle, natural slaves are the people who do not have the ability to deliberate for their freedom. Aristotle argues that these people are better enslaved then being left free. In this case, Aristotle’s theory of slavery maintains the position that masters have the right to enslave such people. Though Aristotle supports slavery in this regard, he is vehemently opposed to the enslavement of people who can deliberate for their freedom. In Aristotle’s theory of natural slavery he is categorical that if a person has the ability of deliberate for his or her freedom that should not be considered as being natural slavery. Aristotle also explains that it does not matter whether the deliberation process benefits or hurts the victim of slavery. Provided the individual involved has the ability to deliberate then that is not natural slavery. Though Aristotle seems to be opposed to the enslavement of slaves that are natural slaves, the fact remains that Aristotle was theorizing in a situation characterized by a status quo. This means that in his theorizing process Aristotle does not recommend a remedy towards changing the system. He sees the system as deterministic and he therefore has no power to able to change to status quo. One thing to realize is that though Aristotle tries to create a stable theory that seeks to oppose one strand of slavery, the fact remains that his theory is formulated on a hierarchical societal framework. Hierarchies tend to be unstable because the dominant paradigm within the society lies with the occupant of the apex of this prevailing hierarchy.
The hierarchical structure of ancient Greece and Athens which was characterized by slave masters, who were the dominant force with society, and slaves who occupied the bottom of the hierarchy makes Aristotle’s process of knowledge formation highly subject to social and political forces from the upper class of his time. This in part accounts for reason why Aristotle would not wholesomely oppose the practice of slavery. In his opinion, there was a strand of slavery that still remained to be just. Aristotle’s unapologetic stance in reference to status quo brings out the idea that he is supportive of the idea that there are people who are naturally masters. In his book, Aristotle and the Virtues, Howard Cutzer writes that Aristotle upholds the idea that“victors must be superior to the vanquished in some respect; otherwise they would not be victorious” (Curzer 378). This demonstrates that Aristotle though not entirely supportive of absolute slavery supports the societal structure that embraces the presence of a status quo.
Works Cited
Curzer, Howard J. Aristotle and the Virtues. New York: Oxford University Press,
2012. Print.
