Page 52 - DPOL201_WESTERN_POLITICAL_THOUGHT_ENGLISH

Western Political Thought

Notes not create a product, but only helped in the business of living within the household. Since, as an
instrument, he served his master, he had no interests other than those of the master. The slave not
only was a slave of his master, but also belonged entirely to him in the same way as a possession
was spoken of not only as a part of something else, but also as belonging wholly to it. The master,
on the contrary, was a master to the slave, and did not belong to him. He distinguished between
conventional and natural slaves. The former were not slaves by nature. They had reason and were
qualified to be citizens in their own state. However, they became slaves if taken as prisoners of
war, a common practice during Aristotle’s time. Natural slaves lacked reason, hence had to be
under the permanent subordination of the master.
Aristotle believed that some persons were by nature free and others slaves. A natural slave’s chief
use was of his body. Though he possessed enough mind to control himself, he could understand
and profit by the control of a superior mind. A family slave, by serving the interests of “his”
family, got elevated. Since he served a moral purpose, he enjoyed benefits which were moral:
... anybody who by his nature is not his own man, but another’s, is by his nature a
slave; secondly, that anybody who, being a man, is an article of property, is another
man’s; and thirdly, that an article of property is an instrument intended for the purpose
of action and separable from its possessor.
Aristotle justified slavery from the point of view of the householder and the slave. A householder
gained for he was relieved of menial chores, giving him the leisure time for moral and intellectual
pursuits that would enable him to contribute to the affairs of the state and fulfil his duties as a
citizen. A slave imbibed moral and intellectual excellence from his master, which if left to himself
would have been difficult. Aristotle justified slavery on the grounds of triumph of reason and
virtue, the master representing reason and virtue, and the slave absence of reason, and non-virtue
or less virtue. For a slave, the choice was between inferior and no virtue, differing from his master
for whom it was a choice between inferior and perfect virtue. Thus, slavery was seen as being
mutually beneficial and just. Moreover, it was in conformity with the principle of ruling and
subordination that one saw in nature at large. Aristotle was categorical that the subordination of
the slave must be towards endowing the slave with virtue and not to augment wealth, otherwise
a slave would lose the one advantage that slavery brought forth, namely the guidance of his life
by one of superior virtue.
Aristotle believed that men differed from one another in their abilities and mental faculties, and
justified slavery for those lacking in these qualities. A slave could not govern himself, for he
lacked the reason to do so. Aristotle was against making the defeated foe a slave. Prisoners of war
could be made slaves only if success in war indicated superior intelligence of the victors. He also
rejected the idea of making a person a slave to one who was merely superior in power and not in
excellence. If the causes of a war were basically just, then prisoners of war could be made slaves.
The theory of slavery was based on two assumptions: first, men were divided in respect of their
capacities for virtue; and second, that it was possible to determine the category to which an
individual belonged. He recommended humane treatment for slaves, and conceded to them freedom
if they so desired. Ross defended Aristotle’s attitude towards slavery by arguing that “while to us
he seems reactionary, he may have seemed revolutionary to them”. Popper rejected this observation:
Aristotle’s views were indeed reactionary as can be best seen from the fact that he
repeatedly finds it necessary to defend them against the doctrine that no man is a
slave by nature, and further from his own testimony to the anti-slavery tendencies of
the Athenian democracy.
Furthermore, Aristotle pointed out that a master-slave relationship differed from the one between
a political ruler and the subjects. A slave, unlike a subject, was a tool of the master. Here, Aristotle

46 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY