All associations are formed with the aim of achieving some good
. In discussing the economic relations that hold within a city-state, Aristotle defends the institution of
private property, condemns excessive capitalism, and notoriously defends the institution of slavery
Aristotle concludes that “man is a political animal”: we can only achieve the good life by living as citizens
in a state
. Constitutions are usually changed by a large, dissatisfied faction that rises up against the people in
power
One of the less attractive features of the Politics is Aristotle’s endorsement of slavery, which, not
surprisingly, rings hollow. His argument rests on the claim that everyone needs to be ruled and those who
lack the rationality to rule themselves need to be ruled by others. Aristotle opposes the enslavement of
other Greeks because he believes that all Greeks are at least somewhat rational beings and so their
enslavement would be unjust
In the master-slave relationship, with this union, the master can not exist without the slave. The slave
is there to assist the master with the maintaining of the master’s wants and needs. In the classroom setting
the teacher is the slave because he or she has the knowledge that is needed by the students. The students
would be the master because the teacher is upholding the desires and wishes of the students by teaching
them the knowledge they have. According to Aristotle The Politics, Book I Chapter 2, “The naturally ruling
and ruled, on the account of preservation. For that which can see with the thought is naturally ruling and
naturally mastering elements while that which can do with the body is naturally ruled and slave.” This is
one of the common relationships that are known in the household. The household is the partnership
established by nature for the needs of daily life. A group of households makes up a village, and a group of
villages makes up a city.
What is property? According to the Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary property is defined as a
quality or trait belonging and especially peculiar to an individual or thing. Property is also in conjunction
with the household, and the ability of managing property is also a part of managing the household; for no
man can live well, or indeed live at all, unless he is supplied with the essential items needed to survive.
When surviving, workers must have sufficient tools or instruments to accomplish their work. Instruments
come in types such as living and non-living. A possession is an instrument for preserving life. So in the
household where the master-slave relationship is considered the slave is a living possession of the master.
To take another look at this, instruments normally are instruments of production, while a possession is an
instrument of action. Action and production are dissimilar in manner, but both require instruments. The
instrument in which they provide work for must also differ in manner. Aristotle states in the Politics, “Life
is action, not production; the slave is therefore a subordinate in matters concerning action.” With
possession the master is only the master of the slave; he does not belong to him whereas the slave is not
only the slave if his master, but wholly belongs to him. So by nature if you are not your own, but you are
another’s man, you are by nature a slave and possession.
So the person that needs something is the master and the one who encompasses it is the slave. Mastery
rule is acquiring slaves but using them for their advantage. With slavery, the masters acquired slaves, and
the slaves were used for the monetary gain of the masters.
1
. On this side it shows that that everyone is not marked as slaves by nature but are marked as slaves
based up their social classes or by rank.
And so, in the arrangement of the family, a slave is a living possession, and property a number of such
instruments; and the servant is himself an instrument which takes precedence of all other instruments.
The master is only the master of the slave; he does not belong to him, whereas the slave is not only the
slave of his master, but wholly belongs to him.
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.
So again someone who has no "rational principle" - though he can recognise it - is a natural
slave. It offends us: but there are individuals with no "rational principle". We put them in institutions (or on
the streets) and hopefully look after them. We differ from Aristotle in that we do not put them to work for
others. Or do we?
Aristotle appears to be in a quandary here. He justifies slavery on the ground that the slave is a slave by
nature: but most slaves are made so just because someone else was more powerful. He has to wriggle.
If these views are thus set out separately, the other views have no force or plausibility against the view
that the superior in virtue ought to rule, or be master.
Others, clinging, as they think, simply to a principle of justice (for law and custom are a sort of justice),
assume that slavery in accordance with the custom of war is justified by law, but at the same moment
they deny this.
We see then that there is some foundation for this difference of opinion, and that all are not either slaves
by nature or freemen by nature, and also that there is in some cases a marked distinction between the
two classes, rendering it expedient and right for the one to be slaves and the others to be masters: the
one practicing obedience, the others exercising the authority and lordship which nature intended them
to have.
The abuse of this authority is injurious to both; for the interests of part and whole, of body and soul, are
the same, and the slave is a part of the master, a living but separated part of his bodily frame. Hence,
where the relation of master and slave between them is natural they are friends and have a common
interest, but where it rests merely on law and force the reverse is true.
So he is forced finally to admit that some slavery is justified "in some cases" where there is
a "marked distinction" between master and slave, and then it works to everyone's advantage; whereas in
the other cases, where the relationship "rests merely on law and force", it is not so justified - and does not
work.
This links the natural nature of a state back to its constituents, down to the natural composition of a
household.
2
A nature of an object is “the end-product of it coming into existence” (Politics 1.2 1252b33). Since the state
is self-sufficient and an end to itself, its existence, Aristotle says, must occur all by nature (1.2 1252b10-30).
These associations are natural in a sense that they all arise “with a view to some good purpose” (1.1
1252a1). He says that “every states exists by nature, as the earlier associations too were natural” (1.2
1252b30).
The master is only the master of the slave; he does not belong to him, whereas the slave is not only the
slave of his master, but wholly belongs to him. Hence we see what is the nature and office of a slave; he
who is by nature not his own but another's man, is by nature a slave; and he may be said to be another's
man who, being a human being, is also a possession. And a possession may be defined as an instrument
of action, separable from the possessor.
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.
that some men are by nature free, and others slaves, and that for these latter slavery is both
expedient and right.
We see then that there is some foundation for this difference of opinion, and that all are not either slaves
by nature or freemen by nature, and also that there is in some cases a marked distinction between the
two classes, rendering it expedient and right for the one to be slaves and the others to be masters: the
one practicing obedience, the others exercising the authority and lordship which nature intended them
to have.
. The master is not called a master because he has science, but because he is of a certain character,
3