Introduction
Aristotle asserts that all political associations are in existent to achieve some good for the humankind. The different types of relationships that exist give rise to the diverse types of associations. He notes that the fundamental part of an association is the household that is comprised of three different kinds of relationships: master to slave, husband to wife, and parents to their children. Aristotle’s comments on the subject of slavery is recorded in chapters three to six of Book I of the Politics and in Book VII of the Nicomachean Ethics. He gives credit to slavery as the basic means by which the master gets his or her source of revenue. By Aristotle’s own definition of slavery, and the standards by which one should or should not be classified as a slave, are self-contradictory, or are illogical.
Main body
At the end of chapter 3, Aristotle sparks the debate by raising the question of slavery being natural or conventional. He claims that the former is applicable. In this respect, his slave theory asserts that some people are by nature born slaves while others are masters by nature. This gives the impression that everybody who is ruled has no otherwise but to be a slave, which does not look as if it is right. What natural characteristics must human being posses to be regarded as a slave? Who is singled out for subjugation and who for ruling?
In chapter 4, Aristotle deals with the principle of acquisition of property. He draws a line between the so-called instruments of production, and possessions as instruments of action. Since production and action are different, use different instruments, while life is an action and not a production, this means that the slave is a minister of action. Thus there is no difference between a slave and an inanimate tool for both are possessions and serve as instruments. This argument is flawed as it develops a natural inferiority for the slaves. Slaves reason with their masters, slaves provide a means of livelihood for the community, and if natural slavery were present, achieving a state of well being and the worthiness of life would have been separated from each other.
Did Aristotle consider slaves as his fellow humans? The Politics has an answer to this question. He describes slaves as possessions, instruments of action. Thus, he pictures a slave as lacking any faculty of reason, the same thing that guarantees his or her humanity. Therefore, the slave is deemed as sub-human animal. Are Aristotle’s contradictory views allowable in any society? Are slaves real animals, or is it simply a comparison to the degree of animals? Can they sit down and reason? After making all these claims about slaves being a tool for sustenance, dehumanized to the extent of an animal, Aristotle makes an amazing acknowledgement. He puts forward that anyone who participates in rational principle that is sufficient to pick up, but not to posses, such a norm, is deemed as a slave by nature. In other words, he is saying that slaves need to understand rational principles in communicating with their masters. The fault in this logic is that it is impossible for anyone to comprehend rational principles without possessing an internal rational principle.
Chapter 5, in relation to the scheme from chapter 3, addresses the question of the existence of any natural slaves. He makes the difference between the soul and the body in forming a human, the soul is the seat of the human’s rational function and the seat of the passionate element is the body. He then puts master and slaves in these distinguishing categories of soul and body that exists due to natural law. He likens the master to the responsibility of the soul while the slave to the responsibilities of the body. He even goes ahead to match up slaves to the animalist accomplishment of bodily desires. In this regard, Aristotle makes a comparison between slaves and animals that depend totally on instincts and bodily appetites, therefore slaves are not able to accomplish their functions as humans in the rational chase of wellbeing. If we stop analyzing this argument here, he seems to be justified since there are things that fail to accomplish their functions. An example is a rice plant cannot grow to maturity to become a full-grown tree. If there is a lack of fulfillment in a human not using moral reasoning in the hunt of ethical action, slavery in this case, justifies the action taken. However, if we continue to review Aristotle’s notion of the slave, we will realize that his thought of slavery contravenes the chase for a contented state of happiness.
Aristotle’s view that at birth some are marked for subjection and others for rule suggests that nature intends some people to be slaves. This view is self-contradictory as he says that the whole universe is aiming in the direction of a teleological end. If the elements of nature themselves calls for a deficiency of fulfillment for some of its entities, then how can the entire universe be said to aim in the direction of a teleological end?
In chapter 6, Aristotle seems to be in a state of quandary between war and slavery. On one point, he justifies slavery on the basis that it is natural, while on the other hand he claims that most slaves are made so because of acts of war when they are overpowered and someone makes them prisoners of war. Aristotle at last is forced to make a clean breast that in some sort of instances, slavery is justified. It becomes justifiable when both the master and the slave benefits, but when law and force has been used to enact it, it becomes unjustifiable.
Conclusion
In summary, Aristotle’s position on the issue of natural slavery and his contentions for that position are not fraudulent or ironical. The circumstances that give rise to natural slaves should not be permanent as some of the natural slaves can be empowered through education to come out of their state. Nowhere in his accounts does he say that it is not right to set free, or to avoid enslaving, natural slaves. What he says is that it is not right to put under slavery the people who are not natural slaves. The latter and the former are not the same. His views on slavery can be concluded that the natural masters are essentially the virtuous, or the one who have been perfected in their advancement, while the natural slaves are essentially the vicious, or the ones who have been in one way or the other, harmed or corrupted in their advancement.