Aristocrcy

Natural Superiority Justifies Aristocracy

After brainstorming for a couple of days as to what to write for this paper I found myself incapable of writing about anything regarding the ancient world. Every tempting topic was either not directly related to ancient history or the time frame. When the aristocratic system in Athens came into mind I proceeded to gather the necessary information to write an organized, coherent and informative essay. The research led me to reading about Aristotle's Politic; an extensive analysis on society and the constitutions of democracy, oligarchy and his favorite, aristocracy. To my surprise the reading led me to question why he favored the former system and not a direct democracy. The answer was in one of the preceding chapters. Thus, it was through this process of questioning that I arrived to the most offensive portion of Aristotle's moral and political thought yet the root to his predilection for the upper class.

Aristotle's preference to view life from an aristocratic perspective is expressed by his fundamental belief in the existence of natural difference in equality and inherited value among men. This is extensively supported by him justifying the institution of slavery. But ultimately serves as a platform to understand his view on political rights and the upper class responsibility to govern.

In the Rhetoric, Aristotle implies that there are humans naturally superior to others or as he refers to them, they are "naturally finer beings." To Aristotle nature consist of a hierarchy from simple objects to man and God . Depending on the level one belongs, the inferior levels will be the servants and one must serve the superior levels. Furthermore, men are born within this hierarchy for a specific end or purpose and it is their duty to fulfill their natural purpose or function. Aristotle called this responsibility for the fulfillment of the role, natural motion. Yet, motion can be evil or unnatural and that is when man or any form belonging in the hierarchy does not follow the inherit role. Perhaps this notion of inherited value or "finer being" is more practical in Politics.

In Aristotle's time everyone who was not a slave considered slavery, a just institution. Almost every ancient culture had some form of slavery. There were usually two kinds of slaves, either they had been captured in war and because they were defeated meant that they were inferior and therefore had to serve, or they were the descendants of slaves, in which case their inferiority was obvious. It is important to mention that the economies of the Greek city-states depended on slavery and without slaves and women there was no one to do the labor. Otherwise, there could be no spare time for men to engage in more intellectual lifestyles. Furthermore, architecture, sculpture, and philosophy could not have been achieved without slaves. So, Aristotle justifying this institution is not only very modern for his time considering that no one was thinking of abolishing it, but instead supports his argument that natural and moral superiority exist and that there are people who are entitled to rule and others who are inferior and must submit to those who are naturally superior.

In the discussion of the household, Aristotle says that slavery serves the interest of both the master and the slave. The reason for this is that,

"those who are as different [from other men] as the soul from the body or man from beast - and they are in this state if their work is the use of the body, and if this is the best that can come from them Ð'- are slaves by natureÐ'....For he is a slave by nature who is capable of belonging to another Ð'- which is also why he belongs to another Ð'- and who participates in reason only to the extent of perceiving it, but does not have it."

He makes an emphasis on reason and speech by saying that those who are slaves by nature do not have the full ability to reason. Therefore, they are incapable of fully governing their own lives, and require other people to tell them what to do. Such people should be set to labor by the people who have the ability to reason fully and order their own lives. Aristotle refers to slaves as "living tools" . Slaves get the guidance and instructions that they must have to live, and in return they provide the master with the benefits of their physical labor and the the free time that makes it possible for the master to engage in politics and philosophy. Aristotle's argument suggests, furthermore, the idea that a life of labor is demeaning and degrading, so that those who have to work for a living are not able to be as virtuous as those who do not have to do such work. Aristotle says that when the master can do so he avoids labor. "For those to whom it is open not to be bothered with such things [managing slaves] an overseer assumes this prerogative, while they themselves engage in politics or philosophy" .

The question he raises then, is how do we know who is a "natural finer being" if he argues that although nature would like us to be able to identify who is naturally meant to be a master and who should be subordinated, this cannot be determined just by appearance. Also, he argues that not everyone who is held in slavery is in fact a slave by nature. The argument that those who are captured in war are inferior in virtue cannot be sustained but also the idea that the children of slaves are meant to be slaves is also wrong: "They claim that from the good should come someone good, just as from a human being comes from a human being and a beast from beasts. But while nature wishes to do this, it is often unable to." To this, one could say that while some people are indeed slaves by nature and that is good for them, it is extremely difficult to find out who these people are and that therefore it is not the case that slavery is automatically just either for people