Aristotle on Slavery

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/distance_arc/...

Some aspects of Aristotle's theory

of slavery
Slavery -- natural or conventional?
Aristole's theory of slavery is found in Book I, Chapters iii through vii of
the Politics. and in Book VII of the Nicomachean Ethics
Aristotle raises the question of whether slavery is natural or
conventional. He asserts that the former is the case. So, Aristotle's theory
of slavery holds that some people are naturally slaves and others 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 rather is
not all slavery a violation of nature?
There is no difficulty in answering this question, on grounds
both of reason and of fact. For that some should rule and others
be ruled is a thing not only necessary, but expedient; from the
hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others
for rule.
This suggests that anyone who is ruled must be a slave, which does not
seem at all right. Still, given that this is so he must state what
characteristics a natural slave must have -- so that he or she can be
recognized as such a being. Who is marked out for subjugation, and who
for rule? This is where the concept of "barbarian" shows up in Aristotle's
account. Aristotle says:
But among barbarians no distinction is made between women
and slaves, because there is no natural ruler among them: they
are a community of slaves, male and female. Wherefore the
poets say,
It is meet that Hellenes should rule over barbarians;
as if they thought that the barbarian and the slave were by
nature one.
1 of 4

05/05/14 21:14

Aristotle on Slavery

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/distance_arc/...

So men rule naturally over women, and Greeks over barbarians! But
what is it which makes a barbarian a slave? Here is what Aristotle says:
Where then there is such a difference as that between soul and
body, or between men and animals (as in the case of those
whose business is to use their body, and who can do nothing
better), the lower sort are by nature slaves, and it is better for
them as for all inferiors that they should be under the rule of a
master. For he who can be, and therefore is, another's and he
who participates in rational principle enough to apprehend, but
not to have, such a principle, is a slave by nature. Whereas the
lower animals cannot even apprehend a principle; they obey
their instincts. And indeed the use made of slaves and of tame
animals is not very different; for both with their bodies minister
to the needs of life. Nature would like to distinguish between the
bodies of freemen and slaves, making the one strong for servile
labor, the other upright, and although useless for such services,
useful for political life in the arts both of war and peace. But the
opposite often happens--that some have the souls and others
have the bodies of freemen. And doubtless if men differed from
one another in the mere forms of their bodies as much as the
statues of the Gods do from men, all would acknowledge that
the inferior class should be slaves of the superior. And if this is
true of the body, how much more just that a similar distinction
should exist in the soul? but the beauty of the body is seen,
whereas the beauty of the soul is not seen. It is clear, then, that
some men are by nature free, and others slaves, and that for
these latter slavery is both expedient and right.
So the theory is that natural slaves should have powerful bodies but be
unable to rule themselves. Thus, they become very much like beasts of
burden, except that unlike these beasts human slaves recognize that they
need to be ruled. The trouble with this theory, as Aristotle quite explicitly
states, is that the right kind of souls and bodies do not always go together!
So, one could have the soul of a slave and the body of a freeman, and vice
versa! Nonetheless, apparently because there are some in whom the body
and soul are appropriate to natural slavery, that is a strong body and a
weak soul, Aristotle holds that there are people who should naturally be
slaves. It also seems that men naturally rule women and that bararians
are naturally more servile than Greeks! This seems like an odd, indeed
arbitrary, way for the virtues of the soul to be distributed! Las Casas deals
2 of 4

05/05/14 21:14

Aristotle on Slavery

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/distance_arc/...

with a similar problem in regard to the native peoples of the Americas.

War and Slavery

One interesting feature of Aristotle's discussion which does not clearly
come out in the great debate has to do with slavery and war. Aristotle,
early in the Politics says:
But that those who take the opposite view [that is, who hold 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 used in two senses. There is a slave or slavery by law as well
as by nature. The law of which I speak is a sort of convention-the law by which whatever is taken in war is supposed to belong
to the victors. But this right many jurists impeach, as they would
an orator who brought forward an unconstitutional measure:
they detest the notion that, because one man has the power of
doing violence and is superior in brute strength, another shall
be his slave and subject.
So, those who hold that slavery is both conventional and legitimate hold
the doctrine that all prisoners of war can be legitimately enslaved. If you
lose the battle and are captured, that is enough. Aristotle gives reasons
for rejecting this view. One is that this means that might makes right.
Many people find this doctrine really objectionable. (Plato in The Republic
and other dialogues is one of these.) The doctrine that might makes right
means that if you have the power, and so win the battle, however unjust
your cause, the spoils are legitimately yours. In fact, contrary to most of
our intuitions, this view says that wining makes your cause just! Saint
Augustine held a view like this conventional view, but he had an answer
to Aristotle's objection. Since God decided who would win the battle,
victory in battle amounts to a divine decision! To be captured in battle
and enslaved is a divine punishment for sin!
This connection between war and slavery is of some interest in the study
of the period of the conquest of the Americas. For at this time Europeans
were beginning to develop what has come to be know as just war theory.
This theory holds that their are criteria for determining whether a war is
just. So, you can lose but we can still recognize that your cause is just. Or
you can win and we can still recognize that your cause is unjust.
Courtney Campbell's essay "Dirt, Greed and Blood: Just War and the

3 of 4

05/05/14 21:14

Aristotle on Slavery

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/distance_arc/...

Colonization of the New World" explores the beginnings of this tradition

in the Spanish writer Francisco de Vitoria. A later and important
contributor to just war theory during the period we are studying was the
Dutch Jurist Hugo Grotius.
This discussion of war and slavery in Aristotle will turn out to be quite
interesting when we come to explore John Locke's theory of slavery in
The Second Treatise of Civil Government Locke does not believe in natural
slaves or in the conventional view that all prisoners of war can be
legitimately enslaved. He is a just war theorist who explicitly rejects the
doctrine that might makes right.

4 of 4

05/05/14 21:14