Twisted Titan
12th July 2010, 03:04 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/slavery/ethics/philosophers_1.shtml
Philosophers justifying slavery
Throughout history there have been people who attempted to justify slavery. Many of them did so purely out of self-interest, in order to continue a barbaric trade, but some historical philosophers sought to justify slavery from the best intentions.
Aristotle
The great Greek philosopher, Aristotle, was one of the first. He thought that slavery was a natural thing and that human beings came in two types - slaves and non-slaves.
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...
Aristotle, Politics
Some people, he said, were born natural slaves and ought to be slaves under any circumstances. Other people were born to rule these slaves, could use these slaves as they pleased and could treat them as property.
Natural slaves were slaves because their souls weren't complete - they lacked certain qualities, such as the ability to think properly, and so they needed to have masters to tell them what to do.
It's clear that Aristotle thinks that slavery was good for those who were born natural slaves, as without masters they wouldn't have known how to run their lives.
In fact Aristotle seems to have thought that slaves were 'living tools' rather like domestic animals, fit only for physical labour.
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.
Aristotle, Politics
Slaves were not totally incapable of thought, but they only needed minimal amount of rational ability; just enough to understand and carry out their duties.
Similarly, slaves were not devoid of 'virtue', but once again, they only needed just enough to carry out their duties. But that 'virtue' was enough for them to be treated as human beings.
Aristotle doesn't provide any sensible practical method of recognising natural slaves, and without that it's inevitable that some people will be made slaves who should not be.
Aristotle also had a category of 'legal slaves'; they weren't natural slaves but through bad luck - perhaps being taken prisoner in war - they just happened to be slaves at a particular time.
Aristotle argued that if the world was just, the legal slaves would be freed, and if any natural slaves were by chance free, they should be made slaves.
Plato
The Greek philosopher Plato thought similarly that it was right for the 'better' to rule over the 'inferior'.
...nature herself intimates that it is just for the better to have more than the worse, the more powerful than the weaker; and in many ways she shows, among men as well as among animals, and indeed among whole cities and races, that justice consists in the superior ruling over and having more than the inferior.
Plato, Gorgias
Homer
Homer seems to have thought that even if a person wasn’t inferior before they became a slave, enslaving them changed them in such a way as to make them a natural slave:
Jove takes half the goodness out of a man when he makes a slave of him.
Christian theologians
St Augustine
The prime cause, then, of slavery is sin, which brings man under the dominion of his fellow -- that which does not happen save by the judgment of God, with whom is no unrighteousness, and who knows how to award fit punishments to every variety of offence.
St Augustine, The City of God, 19:15
St Augustine thought that slavery was inevitable. He didn't think that it was the result of the natural laws of the universe - indeed he thought that in a pure world slavery would be quite unnatural, but in our world it was the consequence of sin and the Fall of Man.
Slavery was unknown, Augustine said, until "righteous" Noah "branded the sin of his son" with that name, and established the principle that the good were entitled to use the sinful.
It is with justice, we believe, that the condition of slavery is the result of sin. And this is why we do not find the word 'slave' in any part of Scripture until righteous Noah branded the sin of his son with this name. It is a name, therefore, introduced by sin and not by nature.
St Augustine, The City of God, 19: 15
Aquinas
for men of outstanding intelligence naturally take command, while those who are less intelligent but of more robust physique, seem intended by nature to act as servants;
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles
Aquinas largely agreed with Augustine that slavery was the result of the Fall, but he also thought that the universe did have a natural structure that gave some men authority over others.
He justified this by pointing out the hierarchical nature of heaven, where some angels were superior to others.
Aquinas had a much higher opinion of slaves than Aristotle. He considered that slaves had some restricted rights.
A son, as such, belongs to his father, and a slave, as such, belongs to his master; yet each, considered as a man, is something having separate existence and distinct from others. Hence in so far as each of them is a man, there is justice towards them in a way: and for this reason too there are certain laws regulating the relations of father to his son, and of a master to his slave; but in so far as each is something belonging to another, the perfect idea of "right" or "just" is wanting to them.
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica
And while it was perfectly acceptable for a master to hit a slave, it might be better to be merciful
since the child is subject to the power of the parent, and the slave to the power of his master, a parent can lawfully strike his child, and a master his slave that instruction may be enforced by correction...
The command that masters should forbear from threatening their slaves may be understood in two ways. First that they should be slow to threaten, and this pertains to the moderation of correction; secondly, that they should not always carry out their threats, that is that they should sometimes by a merciful forgiveness temper the judgment whereby they threatened punishment.
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica
Philosophers justifying slavery
Throughout history there have been people who attempted to justify slavery. Many of them did so purely out of self-interest, in order to continue a barbaric trade, but some historical philosophers sought to justify slavery from the best intentions.
Aristotle
The great Greek philosopher, Aristotle, was one of the first. He thought that slavery was a natural thing and that human beings came in two types - slaves and non-slaves.
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...
Aristotle, Politics
Some people, he said, were born natural slaves and ought to be slaves under any circumstances. Other people were born to rule these slaves, could use these slaves as they pleased and could treat them as property.
Natural slaves were slaves because their souls weren't complete - they lacked certain qualities, such as the ability to think properly, and so they needed to have masters to tell them what to do.
It's clear that Aristotle thinks that slavery was good for those who were born natural slaves, as without masters they wouldn't have known how to run their lives.
In fact Aristotle seems to have thought that slaves were 'living tools' rather like domestic animals, fit only for physical labour.
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.
Aristotle, Politics
Slaves were not totally incapable of thought, but they only needed minimal amount of rational ability; just enough to understand and carry out their duties.
Similarly, slaves were not devoid of 'virtue', but once again, they only needed just enough to carry out their duties. But that 'virtue' was enough for them to be treated as human beings.
Aristotle doesn't provide any sensible practical method of recognising natural slaves, and without that it's inevitable that some people will be made slaves who should not be.
Aristotle also had a category of 'legal slaves'; they weren't natural slaves but through bad luck - perhaps being taken prisoner in war - they just happened to be slaves at a particular time.
Aristotle argued that if the world was just, the legal slaves would be freed, and if any natural slaves were by chance free, they should be made slaves.
Plato
The Greek philosopher Plato thought similarly that it was right for the 'better' to rule over the 'inferior'.
...nature herself intimates that it is just for the better to have more than the worse, the more powerful than the weaker; and in many ways she shows, among men as well as among animals, and indeed among whole cities and races, that justice consists in the superior ruling over and having more than the inferior.
Plato, Gorgias
Homer
Homer seems to have thought that even if a person wasn’t inferior before they became a slave, enslaving them changed them in such a way as to make them a natural slave:
Jove takes half the goodness out of a man when he makes a slave of him.
Christian theologians
St Augustine
The prime cause, then, of slavery is sin, which brings man under the dominion of his fellow -- that which does not happen save by the judgment of God, with whom is no unrighteousness, and who knows how to award fit punishments to every variety of offence.
St Augustine, The City of God, 19:15
St Augustine thought that slavery was inevitable. He didn't think that it was the result of the natural laws of the universe - indeed he thought that in a pure world slavery would be quite unnatural, but in our world it was the consequence of sin and the Fall of Man.
Slavery was unknown, Augustine said, until "righteous" Noah "branded the sin of his son" with that name, and established the principle that the good were entitled to use the sinful.
It is with justice, we believe, that the condition of slavery is the result of sin. And this is why we do not find the word 'slave' in any part of Scripture until righteous Noah branded the sin of his son with this name. It is a name, therefore, introduced by sin and not by nature.
St Augustine, The City of God, 19: 15
Aquinas
for men of outstanding intelligence naturally take command, while those who are less intelligent but of more robust physique, seem intended by nature to act as servants;
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles
Aquinas largely agreed with Augustine that slavery was the result of the Fall, but he also thought that the universe did have a natural structure that gave some men authority over others.
He justified this by pointing out the hierarchical nature of heaven, where some angels were superior to others.
Aquinas had a much higher opinion of slaves than Aristotle. He considered that slaves had some restricted rights.
A son, as such, belongs to his father, and a slave, as such, belongs to his master; yet each, considered as a man, is something having separate existence and distinct from others. Hence in so far as each of them is a man, there is justice towards them in a way: and for this reason too there are certain laws regulating the relations of father to his son, and of a master to his slave; but in so far as each is something belonging to another, the perfect idea of "right" or "just" is wanting to them.
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica
And while it was perfectly acceptable for a master to hit a slave, it might be better to be merciful
since the child is subject to the power of the parent, and the slave to the power of his master, a parent can lawfully strike his child, and a master his slave that instruction may be enforced by correction...
The command that masters should forbear from threatening their slaves may be understood in two ways. First that they should be slow to threaten, and this pertains to the moderation of correction; secondly, that they should not always carry out their threats, that is that they should sometimes by a merciful forgiveness temper the judgment whereby they threatened punishment.
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica