The institution of slavery has been criticised by many and defended by few Aristotle was one of its
strong defenders. Aristotle justifies slavery, which in fact was the order of the day. He wrote in the
Politics thus: “For that some should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary, but
expedient; from the hour of their birth, same are marked out for subjection other for rule”. In fact
Aristotle justifies slavery on grounds of expediency.
While discussing the origin of the state and family, Aristotle mentions the institution of
slavery. He finds slavery essential to a household and defends it as natural and, therefore, moral.A slave is a living possession of his master and is an instrument of a action. A man cannot lead a
good life without slaves any more than he can produce good music without instruments. Men differ
from each other in their physical and intellectual fitness. Aristotle justifies slavery on the grounds
that there is a natural inequality between men.
Aristotle assumes that nature is universally ruled by the contrast of the superior and inferior: man is
superior to the animals, the male to the female, the soul to the body, reason to passion. In all these
divisions it is just that the superior rule over the inferior, and such a rule is to the advantage of both.
Among men, there are those whose business is to use their body, and who can do nothing better’
and they are by nature slaves. Slavery is not only natural it is necessary as well. If the masters do
not tyrannise over the slave, slavery is advantageous to both the master and the slave. Slavery is
essential for the master of the household because, without slaves he has to do manual work which
incapacitates him for civic duties.
Aristotle was realistic enough to see that many were slaves by law rather than nature, particularly
those who were reduced to slavery by conquest a custom widely practiced in the in the wars of
antiquity. He concedes to slaves the mental ability of apprehending the rational actions and orders
of their master but denies them the ability of acting rationally on their own initiative.
CRITICISMS
Aristotle’s defence of slavery sounds very unconvincing and unnatural. He does not give reliable
and fixed criteria for the determination of who is and who is not a natural law. Aristotle’s assertion
that some women are born to rule and others born to obey would reduce the society into two parts
arbitrarily. Thus Aristotle’s definition of slaves would reduce domestic servants and women in
backward countries to the position of slaves. Karl Popper in his work “Open Society and its
Enemies has criticized Aristotliean an doctrine of slavery when he wrote thus:” ‘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 one is a slave by nature, and further from his own
testimony to the anti slavery tendencies of the Athenian democracy”.
CITIZENSHIP
Aristotle’s conservative viewpoint is clearly expressed in his conception of citizenship. Aristotle
defined a state as a collective body of citizens. Citizenship was not to be determined by residence
since the resident aliens and slaves also shared a common residence with citizens but were not
citizens. He defines citizen as a person who has the power to take part in the deliberative or judicial
administration of any sate. Representative government was unknown to Aristotle because the
Greek city- state was governed directly by its citizens. A citizen also enjoyed constitutional rights
under the system of public law.
For Aristotle a citizen was one who shared power in polis, and unlike Plato, did not distinguish
between “an active ruling group and a politically passive community”. Aristotle stipulated that the
young and the old could not be citizens, for one was immature and the other infirm. He did not
regard women as citizens, for they lacked the deliberative faculty and the leisure to understand the
working of politics. A good citizen would have the intelligence and the ability to rule and be ruled.Aristotle prescribed a good citizen as someone who could live in harmony with the constitution and
had sufficient leisure time to devote himself to the tasks and responsibilities of citizenship. A good
citizen would possess virtue or moral goodness that would help in realising a selfless and
cooperative civic life. In the words of William Ebenstein, “Aristotle’s idea of citizenship is that of the
economically independent gentleman who has enough experience, education and leisure to devote
him to active citizenship, for citizen must not lead the life of mechanics or tradesmen, for such life is
inimical to virtue. Thus he regarded citizenship as a bond forged by the intimacy of participation in
public affairs.
Aristotle makes an important distinction between the ‘parts’ of the state and its “necessary
conditions”. Only those who actively share or have the means and leisure to share in the
government of the state are its components or integral part. All the others are merely the necessary
conditions who provide the material environment within which the active citizens freed from menial
tasks, can function .
So this is all about it
strong defenders. Aristotle justifies slavery, which in fact was the order of the day. He wrote in the
Politics thus: “For that some should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary, but
expedient; from the hour of their birth, same are marked out for subjection other for rule”. In fact
Aristotle justifies slavery on grounds of expediency.
While discussing the origin of the state and family, Aristotle mentions the institution of
slavery. He finds slavery essential to a household and defends it as natural and, therefore, moral.A slave is a living possession of his master and is an instrument of a action. A man cannot lead a
good life without slaves any more than he can produce good music without instruments. Men differ
from each other in their physical and intellectual fitness. Aristotle justifies slavery on the grounds
that there is a natural inequality between men.
Aristotle assumes that nature is universally ruled by the contrast of the superior and inferior: man is
superior to the animals, the male to the female, the soul to the body, reason to passion. In all these
divisions it is just that the superior rule over the inferior, and such a rule is to the advantage of both.
Among men, there are those whose business is to use their body, and who can do nothing better’
and they are by nature slaves. Slavery is not only natural it is necessary as well. If the masters do
not tyrannise over the slave, slavery is advantageous to both the master and the slave. Slavery is
essential for the master of the household because, without slaves he has to do manual work which
incapacitates him for civic duties.
Aristotle was realistic enough to see that many were slaves by law rather than nature, particularly
those who were reduced to slavery by conquest a custom widely practiced in the in the wars of
antiquity. He concedes to slaves the mental ability of apprehending the rational actions and orders
of their master but denies them the ability of acting rationally on their own initiative.
CRITICISMS
Aristotle’s defence of slavery sounds very unconvincing and unnatural. He does not give reliable
and fixed criteria for the determination of who is and who is not a natural law. Aristotle’s assertion
that some women are born to rule and others born to obey would reduce the society into two parts
arbitrarily. Thus Aristotle’s definition of slaves would reduce domestic servants and women in
backward countries to the position of slaves. Karl Popper in his work “Open Society and its
Enemies has criticized Aristotliean an doctrine of slavery when he wrote thus:” ‘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 one is a slave by nature, and further from his own
testimony to the anti slavery tendencies of the Athenian democracy”.
CITIZENSHIP
Aristotle’s conservative viewpoint is clearly expressed in his conception of citizenship. Aristotle
defined a state as a collective body of citizens. Citizenship was not to be determined by residence
since the resident aliens and slaves also shared a common residence with citizens but were not
citizens. He defines citizen as a person who has the power to take part in the deliberative or judicial
administration of any sate. Representative government was unknown to Aristotle because the
Greek city- state was governed directly by its citizens. A citizen also enjoyed constitutional rights
under the system of public law.
For Aristotle a citizen was one who shared power in polis, and unlike Plato, did not distinguish
between “an active ruling group and a politically passive community”. Aristotle stipulated that the
young and the old could not be citizens, for one was immature and the other infirm. He did not
regard women as citizens, for they lacked the deliberative faculty and the leisure to understand the
working of politics. A good citizen would have the intelligence and the ability to rule and be ruled.Aristotle prescribed a good citizen as someone who could live in harmony with the constitution and
had sufficient leisure time to devote himself to the tasks and responsibilities of citizenship. A good
citizen would possess virtue or moral goodness that would help in realising a selfless and
cooperative civic life. In the words of William Ebenstein, “Aristotle’s idea of citizenship is that of the
economically independent gentleman who has enough experience, education and leisure to devote
him to active citizenship, for citizen must not lead the life of mechanics or tradesmen, for such life is
inimical to virtue. Thus he regarded citizenship as a bond forged by the intimacy of participation in
public affairs.
Aristotle makes an important distinction between the ‘parts’ of the state and its “necessary
conditions”. Only those who actively share or have the means and leisure to share in the
government of the state are its components or integral part. All the others are merely the necessary
conditions who provide the material environment within which the active citizens freed from menial
tasks, can function .
So this is all about it
No comments:
Post a Comment