Bk. I, chap. 8 of Aristotle's Politics is littered with complex ideas and notoriously difficult notions. These include slavery, war, justice and the natural. In this particular piece of literature, Aristotle explains that some people are born as natural slaves. Their natures are such that they are instinctively (naturally) submissive and compliant. From Aristotle's other works, such as the Republic, we know that these slaves are the blood in the veins of society. They take care of the dirty work (farming, cooking, cleaning, etc.) so the Greek citizens can spend their time philosophizing and debating about politics, virtues and the higher qualities of life. Concerning the obtainment of these slaves, Aristotle is famously quoted in the Politics bk. I, chap. 8 as saying, "the art of war is a natural art of acquisition." [1256b1137] What he means by this is that war can be justified if its end is the acquisition of natural slaves. Of course, this doesn't mean that anything goes; there is still a strict set of ethical rules that must be followed. So, not only is a war for slaves justified (a seemingly warped notion on its own), but it's natural.
What bugs me is that Aristotle also posited a notion of "natural law" and "natural justice." They each refer to the natural order of the world - the way things were "meant" (I'm not implying a divine creator here) to be. The reason that acts like murder, rape or lying seem wrong is because they are not part of the natural law. They are inherently unjust. Now, it seems to me that there is a problem between Aristotle's notion of natural justice and his idea of a naturally just war in pursuit of slaves. The problem is not that slavery is unjust, but that stealing is unjust. Indeed, it seems that the only reason one would have to wage war for slaves is because one would need to steal slaves from someone else (a different nation or empire, of course). So, assuming theft is not a quality of natural justice (admittedly, I am not aware whether or not Aristotle specifies what natural justice is, but I would guess that it aligns with the virtues, in which case theft would obviously be unjust), a war that aims to essentially steal slaves from someone else cannot be naturally just, as Aristotle claims it is. Perhaps I am missing something, but, if I have not made a terrible misinterpretation or unwarranted assumption, this is a searing contradiction in Aristotle's ethical and political theory.
What bugs me is that Aristotle also posited a notion of "natural law" and "natural justice." They each refer to the natural order of the world - the way things were "meant" (I'm not implying a divine creator here) to be. The reason that acts like murder, rape or lying seem wrong is because they are not part of the natural law. They are inherently unjust. Now, it seems to me that there is a problem between Aristotle's notion of natural justice and his idea of a naturally just war in pursuit of slaves. The problem is not that slavery is unjust, but that stealing is unjust. Indeed, it seems that the only reason one would have to wage war for slaves is because one would need to steal slaves from someone else (a different nation or empire, of course). So, assuming theft is not a quality of natural justice (admittedly, I am not aware whether or not Aristotle specifies what natural justice is, but I would guess that it aligns with the virtues, in which case theft would obviously be unjust), a war that aims to essentially steal slaves from someone else cannot be naturally just, as Aristotle claims it is. Perhaps I am missing something, but, if I have not made a terrible misinterpretation or unwarranted assumption, this is a searing contradiction in Aristotle's ethical and political theory.
No comments:
Post a Comment