Aristotle defended slavery in his writings on politics by inferring that some people are naturally slaves and if they were not allowed to perform this function for which they were “marked out” forthey would not be able to attain true happiness (achieve eudaimonia). A life given to slavery was their telos (end purpose) and to deny them this would be unnatural and would prevent them from obtaining the happiness that all humans sought after through achieving their highest purpose or end reason. Aristotle did not believe that slavery should be enforced on people by subjugation through strength or warfare, or because of the subject’s ethnicity, but in his view, mental capacity should be the deciding factor. He states:
“The body is the inferior, and where it rules we are slaves. Where the soul is dominant we are masters.”
However, is this just a narcistic view of the world, where Artistotle can be seen to value the skills that he has above those of other people, stating that those who are stronger should not just take others as their slaves because they are physically weaker, instead those of higher intellect should rule those of lower intellect? What would he have thought if he were a physically stronger man, would his views then be the same? Take his student Alexander the Great, despite Aristotle’s teachings did he not believe that he should rule over others and expand his rule indefinitely just because he and his army were strong and capable, not because of his superiority of soul but of body?
Where would Aristotle draw the line in today’s society and how do these opinions tie in with his theories on education? Aristotle believed that education was central and the fulfilled person was an educated person. He also valued a balanced development of physical, musical, science, debate and philosophy and yet despite this he excluded subordinated groups such as slaves and women from the benefits of education even though he stated that “man is a rational animal” and the functions that set us apart from animals are there for a reason (“nature does nothing in vain”). As women, children and slaves also have these human characteristics that set us apart from animals and allow us to reason and therefore learn, why then were they excluded from education and why was it only the practical wisdom of men that was developed to rule over women, children and slaves? Aristotle also stated that a citizen of the state was one who is able to participate in the deliberative and judicial areas of government and yet he chose that it should only be men and boys who were to be educated to do so. He was therefore an elitist, opining that the purpose of the state is to educate the people and make them virtuous and yet it was really to cultivate people into the roles in which he sought fit to keep society running. This was not too dissimilar to the way in which Plato divided his ideal state into the roles of the rational (philosopher-rulers), the spirited (guardians of the state) and the appetitive (the “drones”, everyday workers or peasants), as here the slaves, women and children would take the role of the “appetites”.
In today’s society especially with its current financial problems, what would Aristotle’s solution be? We currently have staff shortages in lower skill-based jobs because in our society some people believe themselves too good for certain jobs including domestic work. We have seen an increase in numbers of students who enter higher education but similarly have seen an increase in courses in more vocational areas (so-called “Micky Mouse” degrees or “soft-subjects” which do not lead to functional jobs in society (for instance, degrees in surf science at the University of Plymouth, which do not contribute to society) but lead to people with degrees who then feel over qualified to perform certain roles in society. What would Aristotle think of these courses or the government initiatives such as Every Child Matters? Would Aristotle mark people out to not continue in education but to sweep the streets, empty the bins and clean the toilets, while only those who show distinct academic ability from an early age could continue in education to become future scientists, politicians and business managers? Did Aristotle believe intellect is inherent before it can be developed and with others it is totally absent so no amount of teaching or fostering will achieve enlightenment, and if so, how do we measure this? Would people with lower academic ability really achieve their true eudaimonia through sweeping the streets? Then again, would this approach be any more unfair than future practice where universities are about to start charging thousands of pounds for an education and once this happens, what is the difference between this and a oligarchy, where only the wealthy can afford to be educated to positions of rule?
No comments:
Post a Comment