Slavery for Plato and Aristotle

Slavery for Plato and Aristotle

In the Ancient Mediterranean cultures, the institution of slavery took on a number of meanings. It could mean debt-slavery, or as a punishment for a crime; or enslavement of prisoners of war. Primarily, slavery was designed as an economic way to work agriculture or household duties. In the Roman Empire, for instance, slavery was such a large part of the overall economic system that without it, Rome could not have expanded or retained power for such a long period (Westerman). However the circumstances of slavery, though, are not static for such philosophers as Aristotle and Plato. For instance, in Book I of the Politics, Aristotle asks us to think about slavery as either a natural institution that is primary to nature, or contrary in other words, are some better off by being slaves:

… 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 -- are slaves by nature. For them it is better to be ruled in accordance with this sort of rule, if such is the case for the other things mentioned (1254b 16-21).

Similarly, Plato finds slavery to be a more natural institution for some people by way of observation, that some are more predisposed towards slavery than others. This is shown in his typologies of government. In Plato's state, there are leaders and there are followers. The followers (slaves) do not have the negative connotations we associate with that in the modern world -- they simply have a different focus and set of gifts to contribute to society. Plato goes much further in hypothesizing that the majority in a society should be followers with a few strong and wise leaders to guide them. In the Republic, Plato notes, "If then a man is like his city, isn't it also necessary that the same arrangement be in him and that his soul be filled with much slavery and illiberality" (577d 1-3).

Thus, to understand the manner in which both Aristotle and Plato view the concept of slavery, we must first understand how they view human nature -- or one might say how they view the hierarchy of humanity. Aristotle noted that "a victor is always pre-eminent in respect of some sort of god…. And that the superior in goodness ought to rule over, and be the master of his inferiors" (V). This concept is integral to the Platonian notion of society being a macrocosm of the home. For Aristotle, in this example, there are many kinds of both rulers and subjects -- to rule over people is better than to rule over animals, etc. The household is a microcosm, moving into the various organizations (farm, store, manufacturing, etc., and then to government as a whole).

In the Republic, Plato disccuses five types of regimes that are part of the overall paradigm of his political and social views. Within each of these regimes, Plato assigns a man as a way to illustrate their basic premise. In each regime, there are the rulers and the followers -- or more specifically, the slaves and the non-slaves. The quality of the regime (government) is based in many ways on the percentage of slaves to non-slaves, but slavery in the context of human development, not the preventing of any actualization. These regimes are, in fact, paradigms of society in general -- and form the nature of how Plato sees the responsibility of the ruler and the ruled -- the slave and the master. The regimes are placed in order of preference and actualization, beginning with Aristocracy, moving to Timocracy, Oligrachy, Democracy, and then finally the last stage of degeneration, Tyranny. For Plato, it is very important to note that governments transition -- there can really be no continual government of the same type because people and cicrumstances change. Aristocracy yields to Timocracy because youth cannot distinguish between people types, and so on.

For Plato, aristocracy is the best form of government because it is ruled by a philosopher king, grounded in wisdom, reason, and forethought. There are three-castes within this state: the ruling class -- gold (philosopher kings), the auxilliaries- silver (mostly soldiers for keeping order), and the majority of the people - bronze, who can own and manage property and must sustain their rulers. Slavery in the case of aristocracy, comes down to the notion of wisdom and ability -- not of birthright or conquest. The skilled are the masters, but skilled in thinking and in governing. The slaves, not in a perjorative way, are those unskilled to lead, but skilled to perform the necessary tasks for society. Slaves, then, are those citizens who do not rule, but make up a majority of the populace. Aristocracy moves to timocracy because slaves, after a time, "will not pay attention to their education, and therefore they will not be able to distinguish between the gold/silver/bronze people. There will be intermixing of the classes that will lead to factions" (546-47a).

When the non-slaves move from philosophers to warriors, we have timocracy. A government based on timocracy values power through military means, honors, and public praise as opposed to intellectual means. All but the warriors, then, are actually slaves -- or non-rulers. "His father will foster the rational part of his soul; the others will stimulate his appetites and passions. The son is not a bad man, but he has fallen in with bad company. Subject to two contradictory influences, he chooses the intermediate ground. He surrenders his soul to the rule of ambition and high spirit and becomes a man arrogant in manner and hungry for honors" (550b). Timocracy degrades based on the non-slaves greed for power, moving into an oligarchy of two classes -- the haves (owners) and the have nots (slaves). This means that society is forever divided; the rich will act in their own interests; be that with conquest, economic control, or social control. Depending on their personal make-up, the slaves will either rebel as revolutionaries or give up and not produce anything good for society. This view of slavery is more economically oriented, since oligarchs value moderation only because they cannot abide the waste of material wealth. Slaves, sometimes called drones, really want education, but the oligarch "holds them forcibly in check by dint of his own vigilance and self-control" (554c). The oligarchy, because of its mistrust and lack of real actualization, degenerates into democracy in which freedom becomes the supreme good -- but also a type of slavery.

Contrary to the modern notion of government, in Platonian democracy, the slave class increases in size and the poor become winners because diversity is a virtue -- people can break the law, do what they want, and live very close to anarchy because there are no checks and balances. "When the poor are victorious & #8230;a democracy emerges" (557a) and everyone will choose their own life, will tolerate everything, so that nothing really gets done. In other words, democracy is like a society made up of non-rulers or slaves, and lacks direction because no one can make a decision. Because of this lack or order in things, society begins to deteriorate, and thus, "democracy is undone by the same vice that ruins oligarchy. but, because democracy has embraced anarchy, the damage is more general and far worse, and its subjugation more complete. The truth is, a common rule holds for the seasons, for all the plants and the animals, and particularly for political societies: excess in one direction tends to provoke excess in the contrary direction" (564).

Finally, in a search for order in society, tyranny results. The non-slave classes find a champion to bring the rule of law to society; but this rule will eventually be hated because the slave class will rise since moderation does not exist. But unlike democracy, this mob operates as forced slavery. Citizens will remain unjust because everyone is miserable and always in rivalry. "The passion that rules within drives him to the extremes of anarchy and lawlessness. Controlling the man like a tyrant controls a city; it will urge him on to every kind of audacity in order to produce sustenance for himself and his clamorous companions." (575a)

As Plato's student, Aristotle saw the journey towards something positive to be far more important than the manner in which one sees the journey towards human actualization as more important than the final destination. While the destination may be pure "non-slavery" -- or human actualization, Aristotle believed that the greatest mistake was to know the right path, but to ignore it. Thus, for Aristotle it was the act of continually living in balance and moderation that allowed the highest pleasure to occur -- not in the individual actions themselves, but in the way of life that is engendered by that type of living. This way of life would lead to the greatest long-term value, rather than being passing, or fleeting, moments of pleasure. During this life, contemplation about life and the journey was also part of the plan toward the best life. Contemplation, for this type of philosophy, is an activity that refines and discovers virtue which, carried out continuously throughout one's life, allows one to reach a clear goal of self-actualization, and thus the potential within.

And it this is true of the body, how much more just that a similar distinction should exist in the soul? But the beauty of the body is seen, whereas the beauty of the soul is not seen. It is clear, then, that some men are by nature free, and others slaves, and that for these latter slavery is both expedient and right (V). In this humans have character, and what that character should be. Some are born to become and remain leaders -- the idea of the philosopher king or the people who can see beyond the objective into the subjective. Then there are those -- still good people, who "are wanting in spirit, and therefore they are always in a state of subjection and slavery" (VII). And while moderation in all things is the prudent path, vice and virtue, happiness and sadness, avarice and complete empathy -- are all examples of modes of behavior that may have adverse moral and ethical components. The modern, or doctrine of the mean, option, allows humans to be sensible and to account towards right action. This, for Aristotle, was the height of humanness -- our ability to contemplate such thoughts as this, debate upon them, and yet societally, find a way to integrate them. Slaves live according to their own rule, their own salvation; they can be no other way.