Aristotle on Slavery

[BaalChatzaf]

To see Aristotle's pro-slavery positions see

http://www.mdx.ac.uk/www/study/xari.htm

Which contains numerous extracts from -The Politics- translated by Benjamin Jowett (1885). Context is well preserved.

Aristotle differed very little from his mentor Plato in the area of Politics. Aristotle sees the science of politics as the essential science for ethics. See -Nichomachean Ethics-. 1094b 6-12. Plato attacks the question of Justice, by defining the Just State as analogous to Justice in individuals. One is ruled by the mind (Philosopher Kings), spirited and animated (The Guardian Soldier Corps of the State) and sustained by the apatite and materialistic impulses (the merchants and workers who sustain the Polis).

Aristotle, Plato's prize pupil, defines virtue in a political, therefore social context. Aristotle differed from his mentor Plato on the matter of Ideas and Forms, but he stayed pretty close to home in matters of Ethics and Politics.

Which raises a question: Why does Ayn Rand, who is presumably pro-liberty, weigh Aristotle's philosophy so heavily? Did she read Aristotle thoroughly?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

Maybe OL should be renamed: GFR (Gunning for Rand) or RB (Rand Bashing).

--Brant

[John Dailey]

~ Rand referred obliquely to 'whatever his flaws.' Mesuspects such had to do with his views on 'the State'/Politics and even Ethics (being primarily [as even Oriental concerns therein were] socially oriented.)

~ So, what-oh-what could she have seen any worthwhileness in, in his writings? Real conundrum there. Hmmm...possibly, just possibly, his Metaphysics (named such) and Epistemology (6 books of Logic) being so well elucidated, ergo useable as a framework of clarifying how to control one's thought processes to be/stay rational, and a basis of why and how to see the world-we-live-in as a rational one our thinking is applicable to (unlike Plato) might be the reason?

~ Just a guess.

LLAP

J:D

Edited December 21, 2007 by John Dailey

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I moved this from the section: "Objectivist Philosophy," "Politics" to here since it is not really a discussion of Objectivist philosophy, but a veiled swipe at Rand instead.

There is a legitimate issue involved, so it can be discussed over here in the Living Room.

I will not have the "Objectivist Philosophy" section on OL used for Anti-Objectivist propaganda.

Michael

[RTB]

Isn't this a silly question?

When we're dealing with the writings of a man that lived 2,500 years ago it is especially important to consider and keep in mind the essentials of his premises and the times that helped form them.

Let's not step too hard on the toes of our intellectual ancestors.

[Selene]

Isn't this a silly question?

When we're dealing with the writings of a man that lived 2,500 years ago it is especially important to consider and keep in mind the essentials of his premises and the times that helped form them.

Let's not step too hard on the toes of our intellectual ancestors.

Yes.

Adam

[Chris Grieb]

RTB; Good Post!

I note you are new. Welcome! If your future posts are half as good as that one, you will be a great addition to OL.

Edited December 21, 2007 by Chris Grieb

[BaalChatzaf]

Isn't this a silly question?

When we're dealing with the writings of a man that lived 2,500 years ago it is especially important to consider and keep in mind the essentials of his premises and the times that helped form them.

Let's not step too hard on the toes of our intellectual ancestors.

I say stomp and stomp hard. The way we progress is to learn from the errors of those who have gone before us.

In Aristotle's thinking on slavery, he considers as one possibility that slavery is unnatural. He then rejects this possibility. In short, he was aware that slavery might have been wrong (unnatural), but he opted for slavery anyway. So ignorance is no excuse for The Philosopher.

Aristotle, as brilliant as he was (and he was brilliant) was willful in his support of slavery. In addition he believed in the inferiority of females. In his understanding of reproduction and regeneration of the human kind he sees women as the potting soil (the Material) and Men as providing the seed (The Form).

Aristotle is a neo-conservative (in a manner of speaking), not a pro-liberty freedom advocate. His positions on the functions and virtues of the State (Polis) are barely distinguishable from those of his mentor, Plato.

I should add that I do not cut Thomas Jefferson one bit of slack. He knew slavery was wrong, yet he kept his slaves while he lived. Only after his death were they manumitted. Shame on Jefferson! He knew better.

As Francisco said -- It is against the sin of forgiveness I warn you--.

Never forget and rarely forgive.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[RTB]

RTB; Good Post!

I note you are new. Welcome! If your future posts are half as good as that one, you will be a great addition to OL.

You made me smile.

[Selene]

Isn't this a silly question?

When we're dealing with the writings of a man that lived 2,500 years ago it is especially important to consider and keep in mind the essentials of his premises and the times that helped form them.

Let's not step too hard on the toes of our intellectual ancestors.

I say stomp and stomp hard. The way we progress is to learn from the errors of those who have gone before us.

In Aristotle's thinking on slavery, he considers as one possibility that slavery is unnatural. He then rejects this possibility. In short, he was aware that slavery might have been wrong (unnatural), but he opted for slavery anyway. So ignorance is no excuse for The Philosopher.

Aristotle, as brilliant as he was (and he was brilliant) was willful in his support of slavery. In addition he believed in the inferiority of females. In his understanding of reproduction and regeneration of the human kind he sees women as the potting soil (the Material) and Men as providing the seed (The Form).

Aristotle is a neo-conservative (in a manner of speaking), not a pro-liberty freedom advocate. His positions on the functions and virtues of the State (Polis) are barely distinguishable from those of his mentor, Plato.

I should add that I do not cut Thomas Jefferson one bit of slack. He knew slavery was wrong, yet he kept his slaves while he lived. Only after his death were they manumitted. Shame on Jefferson! He knew better.

As Francisco said -- It is against the sin of forgiveness I warn you--.

Never forget and rarely forgive.

Ba'al Chatzaf

What ten aspects of American society do you, personally, think are wrong?

Adam

[BaalChatzaf]

What ten aspects of American society do you, personally, think are wrong?

Adam

Income tax

Eminent Domain

Compulsory Jury Duty

Abandonment of Common Law (we rely exclusively on positive law)

Discouragement of Jury Nullification

Religious Institutions getting services for no payment at our expense

Unlimited Terms in office (except for president, we finally cured that one)

Tax Funded Schools

Tax Funded Scientific Research (other than for defense).

Regulating the foreign travel of citizens (you can't go to Cuba legally, for example).

That is ten I can think of, right off hand.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

What ten aspects of American society do you, personally, think are wrong?

Adam

Income tax

Eminent Domain

Compulsory Jury Duty

Abandonment of Common Law (we rely exclusively on positive law)

Discouragement of Jury Nullification

Religious Institutions getting services for no payment at our expense

Unlimited Terms in office (except for president, we finally cured that one)

Tax Funded Schools

Tax Funded Scientific Research (other than for defense).

Regulating the foreign travel of citizens (you can't go to Cuba legally, for example).

That is ten I can think of, right off hand.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Excellent. We have found areas of common ground. A second question, and I do not in any way mean this personally, as you are judgmental of Jefferson for his" support" of slavery, are you equally judgmental of yourself for support of the ten items on yourself, for supporting these ten with every unjust tax or act currently being effected by this current government? An argument could be made that the traffic in human slavery within the US is being supported by every income tax that you have and are paying right now.

Except for your apparent endorsement of term limits which is a credible position, I completely agree with the other nine.

Good list.

[BaalChatzaf]

Excellent. We have found areas of common ground. A second question, and I do not in any way mean this personally, as you are judgmental of Jefferson for his" support" of slavery, are you equally judgmental of yourself for support of the ten items on yourself, for supporting these ten with every unjust tax or act currently being effected by this current government? An argument could be made that the traffic in human slavery within the US is being supported by every income tax that you have and are paying right now.

Except for your apparent endorsement of term limits which is a credible position, I completely agree with the other nine.

Good list.

Two more. Affirmative Action required by law and corporate subsidies. Corporations which received subsidies (that includes farmers) are the biggest "welfare queens" of the land.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

Excellent. We have found areas of common ground. A second question, and I do not in any way mean this personally, as you are judgmental of Jefferson for his" support" of slavery, are you equally judgmental of yourself for support of the ten items on yourself, for supporting these ten with every unjust tax or act currently being effected by this current government? An argument could be made that the traffic in human slavery within the US is being supported by every income tax that you have and are paying right now.

Except for your apparent endorsement of term limits which is a credible position, I completely agree with the other nine.

Good list.

Two more. Affirmative Action required by law and corporate subsidies. Corporations which received subsidies (that includes farmers) are the biggest "welfare queens" of the land.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Agreed, but you haven't answered the Jefferson-Baal question.

[RTB]

You seem to be fairly educated. Why would you impugn Jefferson when you know, or ought to know, that he did whatever he could given the context of his times to eradicate slavery? This is a matter of historical record. He bravely fought for the abolition of the institution of slavery and was unable to achieve that precept's inclusion in the Constitution. He was only 26 years old at the time. He argued for it but failed.

There's no such thing as an immoral man that uses his intent within his circumstances and is left with no other recourses when he met failures. You can run around and say this or that using 20/20 magical god given hindsight but it's just unfair to put him out of his time and demonize him. It's wrong. Worse yet, it's irrational.

Edited December 21, 2007 by RTB

[BaalChatzaf]

There's no such thing as an immoral man that uses his intent within his circumstances and is left with no other recourses when he met failures. You can run around and say this or that using 20/20 magical god given hindsight but it's just unfair to put him out of his time and demonize him. It's wrong. Worse yet, it's irrational.

In his time he knew slavery was wrong and he said so. He could have freed his slaves, but he did not. Had a man of Jefferson's standing free his slaves, it might have made a very big difference in subsequent happenings. Who knows? It might have averted the Civil War.

Aristotle discusses this state of mind where one -knows- what to do, but still does not. It is called accratia. See -Nichomachean Ethics-.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

There's no such thing as an immoral man that uses his intent within his circumstances and is left with no other recourses when he met failures. You can run around and say this or that using 20/20 magical god given hindsight but it's just unfair to put him out of his time and demonize him. It's wrong. Worse yet, it's irrational.

In his time he knew slavery was wrong and he said so. He could have freed his slaves, but he did not. Had a man of Jefferson's standing free his slaves, it might have made a very big difference in subsequent happenings. Who knows? It might have averted the Civil War.

Aristotle discusses this state of mind where one -knows- what to do, but still does not. It is called accratia. See -Nichomachean Ethics-.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Jefferson lost the value of a tremendous amount of property because of the Revolutionary War and was consequently in debt the rest of his life. Thereafter he was incapable of freeing his slaves even after he died. This didn't keep him from living very well, however.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

Jefferson lost the value of a tremendous amount of property because of the Revolutionary War and was consequently in debt the rest of his life. Thereafter he was incapable of freeing his slaves even after he died. This didn't keep him from living very well, however.

--Brant

In short, he talked a good game and he spent money he could not afford to spend. This shows a decided lack of discipline. He could have freed his slaves and he could have made ends meet by practicing law. All he had to do was to load up his slaves on wagons, ride them to a "free" state and manumit them there. Then his creditors could go hand themselves.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[John Dailey]

~ Well, it's clearly documented that all/most of Jefferson's slaves really wanted to be out on their own (and, of course, were ready to handle it), and that Jefferson refused to take them to a 'free' state where the unbiased community there was ready to teach these former-slaves how to do the jobs needed in that community, right? R--i--g--h--t. His protective paternalism of uneducated serfs is to be castigated as damn near hypocritical evil, no doubt.

~ Well, from Aristotle to Jefferson in one fell swoop of contempt for our ancestors dealings with their social milieu.

~ Is there going to be more discussion on the Helots and Spartans in this thread too? I mean, slavery is evil, and, all our ancestors obviously knew that. Were that they were so enlightened as us Baby-Boomeranging Genital 'X's; lucky us we've read Rand and Mises to find rational justification which those nincompoops never found (clearly they were all evaders.)

LLAP

J:D

[John Dailey]

~ Since Jefferson's been brought up, anyone have any ideas re my following questions:

1) If any slaves of his ran away to a (so-called) 'free' state, what would Jefferson have done?

2) For that matter did any try? -- If none, why not? They feared his Simon LeGree punishments? -- If some, what happened? Did he send the dogs after them?

LLAP

J:D

Edited December 22, 2007 by John Dailey

[syrakusos]

One of my documented areas of expertise is numismatics. The American Numismatic Association granted me two literary awards. I worked as the international editor of Coin World for a year. The Celator published a dozen of my works. I speak at ANA conventions and at a conference hosted by the U of Alberta Art Museum. I currently write the "Internet Connections" column for The Numismatist of the ANA.

All of which to say that Aristotle is wrong about the origins of coinage and the origins of money.

Most of his errors continued down to the Austrian ecoomists. I have tried talking this through with libertarians and objectivists, writing the history of money in general and coinage in particular and while most people seem to get it, inevitably, someone (sometimes most ones) reply by paraphrasing the works I contradict.

That said, while I find it annoying, I do not condemn them as immoral or unthinking or whatever.

One of my areaa of lesser documented achievement is in physics. It was my elective science in college. I worked as a lab aide for undergraduate classes. I also worked as an undergraduate assistant on doctoral and post doctoral projects. Most recently, I worked for a year in public presentations at the Hands-On Museum here in Ann Arbor. So, I have some facility at this.

To condemn Aristotle (or Jefferson) on slavery is to condemn them for not having electric lights. Surely, they knew about magnets and static electricity. Surely, they had copper and even copper wire. Why did not Aristotle, who is widely considered a scientist, not put 2 and 2 together and build an electric generator? This is an experiment for school children. Why did they not see it? In point of fact, it is a freshman lecture from Feynman, but also others, of course, to demonstrate that E=mc^2 can be derived directly from Maxwell's Equations, though that is not how Einstein did it. Why did Maxwell himself not do this?

Slavery existed. It was the alternative to slaughtering the people you subjugated. We might as well as ask why no one questioned war. In fact, even here and on other boards among nominally "objective" thinkers, the assertion that conflicts can be resolved without violence is rejected outright. Pacificists, it is claimed, want to lay down and die in the face of aggression. I assure you that is not the case. Rather than argue that in this thread, though, I point out only that like the ox-drawn wagon, slavery (and war), was a problem left unsolved in Aristotle's day.

Any true scholar of Aristotle, interested in exploring the intellectual exposition of a man whose ideas we know only second hand, might compare and contrast different passages on the same subject. In Aristotlean terms, the investigation would be of the antecedents and predicates of the ideas under consideration. This would, of course, require some work.

Edited December 22, 2007 by Michael E. Marotta

[BaalChatzaf]

~ Since Jefferson's been brought up, anyone have any ideas re my following questions:

1) If any slaves of his ran away to a (so-called) 'free' state, what would Jefferson have done?

2) For that matter did any try? -- If none, why not? They feared his Simon LeGree punishments? -- If some, what happened? Did he send the dogs after them?

LLAP

J:D

Many tried to run. Some succeeded. And yes, the slave catchers did go after some. However Jefferson could have "sold" his slaves to a shill who would have taken then to a free state. There were many ways in which Jefferson could have freed his slaves. Of course that would have meant a financial loss to him.

In many ways Jefferson was self indulgent and acratic. He was chronically strapped for cash. He spent more on consumables (his books, hobbies and good wine) than he could afford. In many respects he was undisciplined. His moral judgment of slavery was very harsh. He was convinced that the institution of slavery would literally bring down the wrath of God down upon the nation which it did. The Civil war which broke out thirty five years after Jefferson's death cost 620,000 lives and a million and a half maimed. The butcher's bill was two percent of the entire population (the number dead). In terms of today's population that would have been over six million dead.

Jefferson missed, nay tossed away, his chance to avert the wrath and destruction he saw coming. What does that make Jefferson?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

Once again - can you possible answer the question that I posed to you or are the mists way up there on your moral mountain clouding your view?

"A second question, and I do not in any way mean this personally, as you are judgmental of Jefferson for his" support" of slavery, are you equally

judgmental of yourself for support of the ten items on yourself, for supporting these ten with every unjust tax or act currently being effected by this current

government? An argument could be made that the traffic in human slavery within the US is being supported by every income tax that you have and are

paying right now."

Adam

[BaalChatzaf]

government? An argument could be made that the traffic in human slavery within the US is being supported by every income tax that you have and are

paying right now."

Adam

Like I have a choice? The gummint has the guns, jails and court orders. I do not. Jefferson had more options than I do.

I suppose I could become completely impoverished and not pay a dime. I suppose. Jefferson could have freed his slaves and taken up the practice of law.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

government? An argument could be made that the traffic in human slavery within the US is being supported by every income tax that you have and are

paying right now."

Adam

Like I have a choice? The gummint has the guns, jails and court orders. I do not. Jefferson had more options than I do.

I suppose I could become completely impoverished and not pay a dime. I suppose. Jefferson could have freed his slaves and taken up the practice of law.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Thank you for answering.

Yes, because that is exactly what would have happened to Jefferson. I was reasonable sure that this would be your answer. Yes, you should/ "... could

become completely impoverished and not pay a dime." When I have a chance, I will post or send you the section from Lawrence Tribes most recent book that I read about six months ago.

In it, he spends almost a whole chapter on how risky it was for Jefferson to do what he did publicly. He then analyzes the fact that at that time, as a Virginian and with the respect he was earning, he would have be economically and possibly personally exterminated by the other landed slave holding entities by a prominent man taking that act.

I am personally uncomfortable with folks that preach from the side of the path and do not walk along on it.