ARISTOTLE

Aristotle (384–322 BC) was a genius well-versed in a number of disciplines: aesthetics, biology,
ethics, logic, physics, politics and psychology. He combined research with teaching, dominating the
entire spectrum of human thought for centuries. Even today he remains the starting point for any
scholarly enquiry in political science.one of his most prominent works is Politics. . His primary
interest lay in subjects like human behaviour, political institutions, constitutions and factors of
political stability. In the history of Western intellectual tradition, both Plato and Aristotle enjoy a pre-
eminent position as the great masters. While Plato was an idealist and a radical, Aristotle is a realist
and a moderate.

Aristotle has been regarded as the father of political science as he was the first to analyze, critically
constitutions is still used in understanding constitutions comparatively.

LIFE SKETCH

Aristotle was born in 384 BC at Stagira, which is located on the northeastern coast of the AegeanSea.
His father, Nicomachus, was a court physician to King Amyntas III of Macedon. The family was
affluent. Aristotle developed a long-lasting interest in medicine and biology. In 367 BC Aristotle, 17
years of age, joined Plato’s Academy. He remained in the Academy for the next 20 years, first as a
student and then as a member of the faculty till 348 BC, and left the Academy for Asia Minor after
Plato’s death. Aristotle established his school, Lyceum, when he was denied an opportunity to head
the academy for the second time. From 335 BC till his death, he devoted himself to research,
teaching and administrative duties in Lyceum. Lyceum was more than a school or university.

JUSTICE
Aristotle’s theory of justice: The entire Greek political thought revolves around the important
concept of Justice. This is an abstract concept and is difficult to define it in fixed terms, as it is viewed
differently by different thinkers. Like his teacher Plato, Aristotle believed that justice is the very
essence of the state and that no polity can endure for a long time unless it is founded on a right
scheme of Justice. Aristotle believed that justice provides an aim to the state, and an object to the
individual.
Like his teacher, Plato Aristotle regarded justice as the virtue, complete virtue, and the embodiment
of all goodness. Justice is virtue, but it is more than virtue; it is virtue in action. Justice saves the
state from destruction, it makes the state and political life pure and healthy. The principal source for
Aristotle’s theory of justice is Book V of his Nicomachean Ethics, a book that is a companion to, and
precedes, his Politics in expository order.

As far as Aristotle was concerned he makes a reference to two typee of justice viz.,
1. complete justice - r
2. particular justice - it is again of two types, viz.,

• Distributive justice - implies that the state should divide or distribute goods and wealth among
citizens according to the merit. •remedial or corrective justice - divided into two, dealing with
voluntary transactions (civil law) and the dealing with involuntary transaction (criminal law). Further,
Aristotle added commercial and cumulative justice to the above-mentioned types of justice

Complete justice is broader and corresponds to the idea of moral virtue concerned with the
regulations of the public and social relations. This implied complete obedience to law and was
possible only in an ideal state. On the other hand, the particular justice is considerably narrower and
is concerned with the distribution of offices and observance of rules of proportionate equality.

For Aristotle, then, ideas about justice – that is, about the kind of justice that deals with the fairness
of individuals’ shares (particular justice)- are concerned centrally with relations among men who are
free and equal to one another in the sense that none is entitled by nature to command
over any of the others.(complete justice)

Aristotle further divides particular justice into two groups distributive justice and corrective justice.
Distributive justice lays emphasis on proportionate allocation of office according to the worth of the
individual and is mainly concerned with political privileges. If two persons are equals, then their
shares should be equal as a matter of distributive justice. If the persons are not equals, then their
just shares will be unequal in proportion to the inequality between them. According to Aristotle,
distributive justice was most powerful instrument for prevention of revolution, because it ensures to
each person what is due to him as a member of society and keeps him satisfied. In short we can say
“distributive justice consists in proper allocation of reward to each person according to his worth or
desert”. it is a form of Justice which allots burdens according to the individual's ability to carry them
and accords sup-port in amounts which vary with the needs of the individuals and thus is called
"distributive Justice." According to Aristotle, each type of political organization has its own
distributive justice. For example, in democracy it was birth, in oligarchy it was riches and in
aristocracy it was virtue. Aristotle rejects the democratic and oligarchic criteria of justice and insists
on allocation of offices to the virtuous only because they alone could make the best contribution to
the society. He asserts that since virtuous are few, most of the offices should be assigned to only
few. He argues that as the virtuous citizens possess more wisdom, courage and efficiency it would be
unjust to give offices and honours to persons other than the virtuous ones.

Corrective Justice: All laws related to commercial transactions are dealt within the remedial and
corrective actions. It aims to restore what an individual had lost due to the injustice of the society.
This justice prevents from encroachments of one right over the other. This concept, as
he envisages it, applies to private transactions of two types. Voluntary
transactions are those into which all parties enter voluntarily. Eg sale and purchase, lending funds
with or without interest, renting, giving security, and depositing funds in trust. The second category
is comprised of involuntary transactions. In modern English we normally apply the term
“transactions” to voluntary exchanges, but for Aristotle any interaction between two or more
persons that involves a transfer of benefits or harms is a transaction to which principles of
justice apply. Involuntary transactions are of two kinds. Some, by his account,
involve activities, such as theft, adultery, poisoning, assassination, procuring, the enticement of
slaves to escape their bondage, and bearing false witness. The other kind of involuntary
transaction involves the use of force; examples include assault, imprisonment, murder, robbery,
maiming, defamation, and libel.

In the theory of distributive justice, Aristotle proposes the principle of merit. What is the
difference between desert and merit?
Desert means what one deserves (Person’s Talent). Merit is a social concept. It is the value society
gives to the particular work. For example, it depends on society whether it gives better importance
to the work of the teacher or domestic servant. Aristotle gives the principle of merit. Reward should
be in accordance to the importance of the work of the person for the society. Aristotle does not
believe in absolute equality, he believes in proportionate equality. “it is unjust to treat equals,
unequally. It is equally unjust to treat unequal, equally.” This statement explains Aristotle’s theory of
justice. His theory of justice is linked to the theory of equality / idea of equality. According to
Aristotle, justice demands that the persons who are equal, possess equal merit, ought to be treated
equally. If a state go for discrimination against the person who deserve to be treated equally, such
person will be tempted to go against state. The commonest cause of revolution is the feeling of
inequality, real or imagined
Aristotle does not support absolute equality. Absolute equality will be injustice with the person
who is more talented or meritorious. If state will give equal treatment to more meritorious and less
meritorious, it will give rise to the feeling of injustice. Feeling of injustice will also lead to Revolution
and suggestions. We can see the linkage between Aristotle theory of justice and his theory of
slavery. It will be injustice if state will treat master and slave equally

Comparison of the notion of justice As given by Plato and Aristotle:

▪ Plato's justice is the performance of one’s duty to the best of one’s abilities and capacities. For
Aristotle, justice is the reward in proposition to what one contributes.
▪ Plato’s justice is related to duties; it is duties-oriented where as Aristotle’s justice is related to
rights; it is rights oriented.
▪ Plato’s theory of justice is moral and philosophical and that of Aristotle is legal.
▪ Both had a conception of distributive justice. Foreplay to, that meant individual excellence and
performance of one’s duty while for Aristotle it meant what people deserve, the right to receive.
▪ Plato’s justice is spiritual where as Aristotle’s justice is practical that is it is virtue in action,
goodness in practice.

Plato’s justice is related to one's inner self that is what come straight from the soul. Aristotle’s justice
is related to man's action that is with his external activities. Aristotle’s theory of justice is worldly,
associated with man’s conduct in practical life, of course with all ethical values guiding him. But he
was unable to correlate the ethical dimension of justice to its legal dimension. His distributive justice
is far away from the realities of the political world. It is indeed, difficult to bring about a balance
between the ever-increasing population and ever decreasing opportunities of the state

Criticisms
Aristotle’s concept of justice suffers from numerous defects. In the first place he insists that the
virtuous should rule because he can contribute most to the welfare of the state. However, the term
virtue is quite discreet and cannot be accepted as a standard or measuring rod.
Second, there is a clear contradiction in the view of Aristotle. On the one hand he pleads that the
cultivation of virtue should be the criteria for the distribution of office, but on the other hand he
insists that the masses should not be ignored. He pleads for the sharing of honour by all because
collective wisdom was superior to the wisdom of the few virtuous. Third, Aristotle’s conception of
justice, particularly his views on particular and distributive justice, do not fit in well with the modern
notions. It is indeed difficult to contemplate how offices can be distributed to all the citizens. Again
in our times distributive justice is taken as payment of due taxes to the state rather than distribution
of offices.

ARISTOTLE ON STATE
Aristotle, the father of political science, says that person is a social animal and is different from the
other animals because of his civilized nature or nature of going from good to better and from better
to the best. Human progress and cultured status is impossible without interrelations. So, man
prefers to live with the others to get various basic needs that cannot be achieved lonely. To get the
very basic needs, man and women, roasters and slaves came together and as a result, the first
institution of human civilization, family, was formed. And eventually a greater institution the state
was formed. Aristotle’s state concept shows that he believed in evolutionary or historical theory of
the origin of state. Therefore his approach in this connection is correct. Man as a civilized individual
cannot survive without state and if he claims, then it means from human beings, he is nation-less,
lawless, and homeless. He is either above or below humanity.

Origin of state
Aristotle pointed out that the state evolved from lower associations. The first association was a
household or the family, which arose to satisfy an individual’s biological urges and everyday wants.
A cluster of households became a village, and a group of villages constituted a political community
or the polis. Each of these household, village and the state indicated different levels of self-
sufficiency or autarchy.
The nature of an association was in its end, namely self-sufficiency, which meant not only the
satisfaction of economic needs, but also the realization of the full human potential. This was possible
only within the polis. The polis was the most sovereign and inclusive association offering a
framework for a full and true life.

Nature of Aristotle’s state

In Aristotle’s own words:
“Our own observation tells us that every polis is a community (or association) of persons formed
with a view to some good purpose. I say ‘good’ because in their actions all men do in fact aim at
what they think good.
Clearly then all communities aim at some good, that one which is the supreme and embraces all
others will have also as its aim the supreme good. That is the community which we call polis (or
State) and that type of community we call political.”
According to Aristotle, the state is a community of persons. Every community has certain purpose
and that purpose is good. As a community the state has a purpose, and that purpose is also good.
But the state is not an ordinary community. It is the highest of all communities and naturally its
purpose shall be the highest or supreme. It is thus evident that like all associations the state is an
association. But its purpose is different from that of other associations. Again, it is not an ordinary
association. It enjoys the highest rank or position in the society or social structure.

As a typical biologist, Aristotle has analyzed the nature of state by dividing it into several
components. let us in the same way examine the state and its component parts.
The application of natural method reveals that the state is natural or exists by nature. In the analysis
of the natural method we find the application of physic and nomos. Physic implies growth, nature
and fundamental reality. The meaning of nomos is man-made, convention and custom. Aristotle says
that the state is characterized by natural growth. But, during its different stages of progress, man-
made laws and conventions have intervened.
It is true that man is, by nature, a self-interest seeking animal and he does not hesitate to oppose
the fulfillment of others’ interests. So the law, justice, institutions and conventions which are made
by man may be evil. But Aristotle does not accept it.
He is of opinion that laws and conventions are basically good and man has made them to serve their
beneficial objectives. To sum up, the state has developed naturally. It must not be treated as a result
on contract or human contrivance. Men have made laws, institutions and conventions for their own
benefit and these have facilitated and enriched the functioning of the state.
Aristotle’s concept of “social or political animal” can be explained from the two aspects: firstly, the
growth or development of all kinds of animals is natural and evolutionary. They develop from single
and simple to complex through stepwise progress. Similarly, state is the result of an evolution.
Individual’s natural tendency compels them to be organized through families, families unite in
villages/ tribes and expanded form of a tribe or village is state. Therefore, formation of the state is
not a designed activity but this is the outcome of human needs and a result of gradual development.
Aristotle seems to believe in the organic theory that means state is like an individual and individual
has a body which is made of certain organs like head, arms, legs and face, etc. In the same way, the
state is a body and individuals are its organs. Aristotle does not like too much state interference in
the affairs of its citizens and gives certain liberties tend rights to individuals. The civilized life of
individual starts from the family reaches its top in the form of state. Therefore family is the starting
point and state is the last point of human development. Although most of the needs are fulfilled in
family, villages and tribes but the super sufficient life is not possible without state. Therefore state is
a natural need of human uplift. Aristotle explains the concept of government and divided
government in various organs that is, legislature, executive and judiciary.

Aims and objectives of Aristotle’s state

Aristotle’s state is the super-most and top human institution that is a sovereign body and it works for
comforting its citizens. State exists for the establishment and preservation of a perfect and healthy
life. Aristotle’s state provides a safe and sound environment to enable its people to use their
capabilities and potentials for the common good and welfare. Aristotle says that , “state is not only
an association of associations, but it is the highest natural association. Man is basically good and the
functioning of the state is to develop his good faculty into a habit of good actions”. So, he explains
state in the context of evolutionary and organic theories of the origin of state. Aristotle’s concept of
nature of state may be summarized as :

• Family is the starting point of human civilization and state is the last step progress from family to
state is evolutionary and natural. It is needed for human progress and development. It is not an
imposed institution.
• An individual out of the state has no status and his honour and respect is due to state.
• individuals and state in their composition are similar. His approach is evolutionary and organic.
• Aristotle believes in balanced collectivism. He dislikes absolute state powers and gives certain
rights to its citizens.
• Aristotle’s state major aims are the economic development, protection of rights and liberties,
formation of government and civil service structure to enable its citizens to use their capabilities for
collective happy life.

Man is by Nature a Political Animal:

It is now clear that the state is a natural form of organization and by nature man has become the
member of the state. Therefore, both state and individuals as its members are natural. Aristotle
does not stop here. Continuing his logic he has said that man is by nature a political animal.
The term political animal means an animal that lives in polis or state. Nature has inspired and
encouraged man to be a part of the state. Aristotle believed that it was not possible for man to live
outside the state.
It is the state that fulfils all his requirements. If out of ill luck no man can get the membership of polis
he will come down to the level of sub-man. On the other hand, if anybody refuses to live in a state
he may be regarded as a superman.
It is the nature of man to live in a state. Aristotle says that, nature does nothing without purpose,
and for the purpose of making man a political animal he has endowed him alone among the animals
with the power of reasoned speech and other good qualities.
The implication of the term political animal is man is reasonable and with the power of reason he
can distinguish between good and bad; right and wrong; just and unjust. Reasonability is the basis,
according to Aristotle, of sharing a common view in the matters that makes a household or city.
The meaning of the term ‘as a member of the polis’ or ‘state’ is to be abundantly found in different
ethical and political writings of Aristotle. He was also, record shows, interested in life sciences and
extensively studied them. In his zoological works, he also used the term political animal. Aristotle has
said that gregariousness is to be found both in man and other animals.But the fundamental
difference is man possesses consciousness and reasonability and man enables him to form
organisation and also pursue a good life while other animals do not have these features.

Aristotle says that," What effectively distinguishes the citizen from all others is his participation in
Judgement and Authority, that is, holding office, legal, political, administrative ... a citizen in the
fullest sense is
one who has a share in the privileges of rule ... a share both in ruling and in being ruled with a view
to a life that is in accordance with goodness"

Aristotle’s analysis of state and individuals as its members is based on stark logic. This is possible due
to the fact that Aristotle had sufficient knowledge on various branches of science. He was a man of
great reason.

Functions of State:
Aristotle has not elaborately analyzed the different functions of the state. The reason is unknown to
us.
He has not viewed the state from an ordinary point of view. The state is not simply a pact of mutual
protection or an agreement to exchange goods and services.
If certain people assemble together and enter into a pact to materialize commercial interests and
mutual protection and for that purpose form an association that cannot be called a state.
In ancient Greece there were many such associations but they were not worthy of being called a
state. The state is more than a contractual society and its function is not to help its members to gain
few commercial and economic benefits. Its purpose is to attain virtue. If it fails in this sphere it will
be an alliance.
The state is intended to enable all, in their households and their kingships, to live well, meaning by
that a full and satisfying life. The citizens and inhabitants will not have a satisfying life if they have
not established a relationship among themselves through marriages and brotherhoods.
So, mere formation of associations does not make a state. In the words of Aristotle “the political
association which we call a state exists not simply for the purpose of living together, but for the sake
of noble actions. Those who do noble deeds are therefore contributing to the quality of the political
association.”
What Aristotle wants to say is that the objective of the state is to make the life of the individual
noble and happy. This is the most important function. But the state must also look after the security
and general welfare of its citizens. It, of course, comes under secondary functions.
His theory of the function of the state is quite different from that of Locke. The purpose of Locke’s
contract is to establish a civil society and the primary function of the civil society is the preservation
of rights of its members against the infringement by others. Every individual has a right to his life,
liberty and property which he could not exercise and enjoy in the state of nature.
The state will ensure rights through the use of force. Any violation of rights and misappropriation of
property shall be prevented by the state alone. The state, in Locke’s view, is the manifestation of
combined strength and force.
It is the legal right of the individual to claim that their rights, liberties and property are to be
protected and, at the same time, it is the legal as well as moral duty of the state to fulfil this
demand.
But nowhere has Locke written of ennoblement of the citizens’ life. Here lies the fundamental
difference between Locke and Aristotle. A real state is concerned with both outward and inward
actions of man. If the state makes itself busy only with the outward actions, it will do only half of its
functions.
Aristotle has emphasized upon education. Education is the most powerful weapon of making men
good or of training them to virtue. Education can be impacted by the institutions set up by the state.
On this point Aristotle follows Plato very strictly. The object of institutions should be to train men to
goodness, not only to intellectual, but to moral and physical, excellence.
The state should be the school of citizens. The state in Aristotle’s theory is a reformatory. Why the
state is entrusted with this task he has not vividly discussed. Our opinion is, since the state is the
supreme organization it is entitled to look after the interests of all men in a balanced way which no
other association or institution can do. The outlook of church or any other religious institution is
highly biased. These organizations or institutions cannot maintain discipline in education.

Criticism of Aristotle’s Theory of State:

Aristotle’s theory of state has been variously criticized. The first criticism against his theory of state
is it is totalitarian in character. His concept of the state is all- embracing. The individuals in his state
have no separate status. They are completely merged with the state. Its organic nature reveals the
totalitarian feature.
If the individuals are separated from the state they will lose their importance as the separated parts
of human or animal body lose their activity. Critics are of view that this contention of Aristotle about
the relationship between the state and individuals is unacceptable.
Secondly, in Aristotle’s theory of state, associations or communities have no separate importance or
position. The state or polis embraces all other communities. They owe their existence to the state. It
means that all the communities are merged in the body of the state.
It implies that the polis has absolute control over all communities. He observes—”all forms of
community are like parts of political community”. It is now quite obvious that both the individuals
and the community are integral parts of the polis. This view of state is anti-democratic. We do not
regard individuals or associations as mere appendix parts of the state. In modern times, the
community plays the important part in the field of developing the personality of individuals.
Thirdly, it is not true that the state or polis is the greatest manifestation of supreme good. It aims at
some good no doubt but not the supreme good. By supreme good he means complete human good,
the good life of all members of the polis as distinct from the lesser goods or partial welfare of the
individuals.
In real life, the state in no capacity can mould or determine the character of individuals in an
absolute way. The state has a role, but it shares with numerous other communities. By denying
giving importance to the community he has done injustice to it.
When he says that the polis is the manifestation of supreme good he wants to assert that it is an
institution of supreme authority. The state, in practical life, is never the holder of supreme authority.
Although Aristotle does not talk about sovereignty in its absolute sense, his analysis indicates that he
had developed a fascination about absolute nature of sovereignty. The absolutist character of a state
is always inimical to the balanced development of human personality.

Conclusion
In spite of these criticisms something need to be said in support of his concept. According to
Aristotle the state is not the product of any contract. It is natural. This does not mean that man has
no role behind the creation of the state. The evolution of man’s consciousness and intelligence has
helped the creation of state.
It has not been made by certain individuals all on a sudden. Efforts of centuries lie behind the
creation of a state. This is the evolutionary theory of state. It is also called the scientific theory.
Family, community and state—all are perfectly natural. We all agree with this contention of
Aristotle. Even modern thinkers are of opinion that the state is the final form as a political
organization.

ARISTOTLES CLASSIFICATION OF CONSTITUTIONS

According to Aristotle, the character of the state was determined by the "constitution" or the
"polity", and a change in the constitution inevitably led to change in the state. He considers the
constitution as an important factor which determines the character of the state. Aristotle
emphasizes that the state changes its identity when the constitution changes. According to Aristotle,
no constitution in the world is either absolutely good or bad but it is only comparatively good or bad.
He defines constitution as, " an organisation of offices in a state, by which the method of the
distribution is fixed on the sovereignty sovereign authority is determined, and all its member is
prescribed."

Aspects of constitution
Aristotle's constitution had to 2 aspects.
1. the ethical or the aims and goals to be pursued by the community
2. the institutional or structure of political institution and offices and the distribution of power.
In ethical sense constitution for a total provided the identity of a state for it examined the
relationship between good citizen and a good man.
the institution aspect involved the determination of sovereign power and allocation of powers
among the offices. the most important institution was a civic body which was sovereign. Every
constitution has three elements namely the deliberate, the official on magisterial and the judicial.

Classification of constitutions
Aristotle carefully studied 158 constitutions of states of Europe in his time. We may note that most
of these states were numerous city states of Greece and western Europe. He then found a pattern in
them. Some of the states were ruled by King or monarch, that is by a single person. In some state
political power were vested in select few persons who ruled as a
group. In the remaining states large numbers of persons together ruled. He also noticed that in some
state political power was used to serve the interest of ruler or rulers, whereas in others
interest of entire community is taken care of by the ruler(s). Thus, he classified all these
constitution in a 2 by 3 matrix. Following diagram depict this 2x3 matrix and 6-fold classification:
Aristotle's classification is thus is based on two principles viz. quantitative and qualitative. The first
takes into account the number of people in whom the sovereign power is rested whether it be one,
few or many. The second takes into account the end which a government serves.
If the government aims at the common interest of all the people, it is a pure form of government
and, if the government serves the private and selfish interests of the ruling class it becomes a
corrupt or perverted government. Accordingly there are three pure forms of governments viz.
Monarchy - the rule of one in the common interest, Aristocracy- the rule of few in the common
interest and Polity - the rule of many in the common interest; On the other hand, these three pure
forms of government have three perverted forms viz. Tyranny - the rule of one in his own interest,
Oligarchy- the rule of the few in their own interest and Democracy- the rule of the many in their own
interests.
According to Aristotle, Polity was the best and the most practicable form of government because it
possessed a healthy combination of liberty and wealth. He held that the best constitution was the
one which was practicable. He was even willing to have a Monarchy provided the Monarch was
enlightened. However, he asserts that Monarchy and Aristocracy have a tendency to degenerate and
do not possess the qualities of moderation and stability which is a characteristic feature of Polity.

Aristotle says that no form of government or constitution is permanent or ever lasting and the
different forms of government keep on changing. This change,, according to Aristotle, takes place in
a circle. The Monarchy, which is a Normal Government, gets degenerated in course of time and is
replaced by Tyranny. In this way the process of change continues. This process of change envisaged
by Aristotle is popularly known as Aristotle’s cycle of change.

Aristotle, who followed Plato closely, was more realist than his master and was quite adequate in
modern time too. Appraising him, Gilchrist writes: "the classification was not sufficient for
modern forms of government, but it has provided the historical basis of practically all classification
made hereto."

Criticisms
Aristotle’s classification of state has been subjected to criticisms on the following grounds
Firstly, it is said that his classification is not applicable to the present times in so far as it does not
cover a number of Governments which exist at present viz. limited Monarchy, Totalitarian
Government, Parliamentary Government, Federalism, etc.
Secondly, Aristotle considers Democracy as a perverted form of government in which the
government is run by many poor people. However, this notion of Aristotle is difficult to accept
because the majority of people in a given society may be prosperous. Would it then mean that if the
power is vested in such people it will not constitute a Democratic Government. In modern times
Democracy makes no reference to the qualification of poverty of the people and simply insists on
the principle of equality.
Thirdly, Aristotle considers Democracy as a degenerate or perverted form of Government, whereas
in our times we consider it as the best form of government in which the individual gets maximum
opportunities to develop his personality.
Fourthly, Aristotle offers mainly a classification of governments and not states. In this respect he is
guilty of confusing the two terms viz. Government and State.
Fifthly, It is said that this classification is not based on any scientific principles. It is quantitative
rather than qualitative. The distinction between Aristocracy and Polity is mainly based on numbers.
Conclusion

In conclusion, it can be said that Aristotle’s classification of states has met with severe
condemnation at the hands of modern scholars and his ideas are not fully applicable to the modern
conditions, but it can not be denied that his classification has proved most lasting. Most of the
political thinkers who offered classification of states or Governments have largely followed the basis
adopted by Aristotle.

Aristotle on slavery
Intro
Aristotle discussed at length the relationship between the master and the slave. He tried to explain
the relevance and use of slavery, an institution that was universal. Greece was no exception. Unlike
Plato, who ignored the institution, Aristotle defended slavery both from the point of view of the
slave and the master, the householder. Many feel that Aristotle endorsed and systematized Plato’s
views on slavery. Plato protested against the enslavement of Greeks by Greeks in the fifth book of
the . In the Laws, he recognized the need for legislation for slaves. He clubbed them with
children, for having imperfectly developed minds. Personally, Aristotle recommended less harshness
towards slaves. He also rejected the enslavement of the Greeks, but thought it proper for barbarians
who were by “nature” slaves.

Slavery
Aristotle as a realist justified the institution of slavery and considered it essential for the proper
functioning of the family. He considered the slaves as a living possession of the family which was
vital for its proper functioning as the lifeless possession of property. According to Aristotle, slave is a
living possession and property of his master. Though he has sufficient power to understand and
follow reason as he has no reasoning power. Since slaves have lower capacities they should obey
those possessing higher capacities.

Aristotle justified slavery on three grounds viz. natural, usefulness and expediency.
In the first place he rejected the view of the radical sophists who held that slavery was contrary to
nature because nature had created all men as equals. He on the other hand argues that nature itself
has ordained slavery. He took slavery as another manifestation of general rule of nature that the
inferior should be subordinate to the superior and argued that just as the soul rules over the body
and reason over appetite in the constitution of man , similarly in a state those persons who are
endowed with a higher degree of reason and capacity for virtue must command. It is also useful to
the slave and direct those who possess little or no such capacity. The former are by nature masters
and the latter slaves. Nature has endowed the masters with intellectual strength and bestowed
physical strength on the slaves. The moral and intellectual development is possible only if the slave
meets the material needs of the master. Aristotle asserts it is as impossible for a house holder to live
a good life without slaves as it is impossible for a musician to produce music without musical
instruments.
Secondly, Aristotle justifies slavery on grounds of usefulness. He asserts that in the larger interest of
the community it is desirable that the masters should be free from material worries so that they may
be able to concentrate on public affairs. The slave renders valuable service to the master by freeing
him from material demands and providing necessary leisure which he can utilize for the attainment
of the virtue. According to Aristotle, slavery is not only useful to the master it is also useful to the
slave because he is able to share the virtues of his master and get alleviated. According to Aristotle,
the slaves association with his master brings his “derivative excellence”.
Thirdly, Aristotle justifies the institution of slavery on grounds of expediency. During his times
slavery played a vital role in the maintenance and operation of the Greek economy. A major portion
of the population residing in the city state consisted of states and their emancipation would have
greatly upset the balance of power in the city state and damaged the social fabric. This would have
given rise to social disorder and chaos. It may be observed that Aristotle did not offer unqualified
justification of slavery and approved it only under certain conditions. Aristotle favoured the
enslavement of only those persons who were mentally deficient. He did not approve of enslavement
of prisoners of war because victory in the war did not necessarily mean intellectual superiority of the
victor or the mental deficiency of the vanquished. Thus Aristotle disapproved the idea of forcible
conversion of the prisoners of wars as slaves. He insisted that the master should properly treat their
slaves and wanted the state to give necessary punishment to the masters who were cruel to their
slaves. He stood for the emancipation of slaves who showed good conduct and developed capacity
for reasoning and virtue.

Criticisms of Aristotle views on slavery

Aristotle’s views of slavery have met with severe criticisms.
First, Aristotle wrongly assumes that some are born to rule because they are intelligent and virtuous.
This is contrary to modern notions of equality which assumes that all are born equal and some
develop the faculties which equip them to rule over others.
Second, even if we accept Aristotle’s conception that nature has ordained that the superior should
rule over the inferior , there shall be a number of classes in the society each superior to one and
inferior to others. On the other hand, Aristotle presumes the existence of only two classes the
masters and the slaves.
Third, his theory of slavery is largely the development of his basic notion that the Greeks are
superior to the non Greeks. He believes in the racial superiority of the Greeks and would not permit
their enslavement.
Fourth, Aristotle treats slavery as a hereditary institution and asserts that some people are by nature
slaves. However, he does not lay down any criteria to determine as to who is a natural slave and
who is not. He emphasizes the hereditary character of slavery, whereas modern scholars hold that
environment is more important factor than hereditary.
Fifth, His theory of slavery is contradictory in so far as on the one hand he asserts that man by nature
is good and finds his perfection in the society. On the other hand he subjects a numerically
predominant class of men to perpetual and ever lasting subjection without any hope of
emancipation. Therefore, theologically his justification of slavery is not correct.
Sixth, Aristotle treats the slave as an animate instrument of action, who is not capable of applying
reason. Aristotle on the one hand asserts that the slave is merely a piece of property of an animate
kind and at the same time he holds that the slave should be given some share in law and also
provided chances of emancipation. It is very difficult to reconcile these contradictory stands of
Aristotle.
Seventh, There is a basic contradiction between hi view that men are by nature good and social with
potentialities for moral development and his effort to subject the numerically pre dominant class to
ever lasting subjection.
Finally, his theory of slavery is also contrary to the notion of social justice. On the one hand, he
considers the slavery essential to enable the masters to devote themselves fully to the service of the
society , but on the other hand he does acknowledge their importance or properly reward them for
their services. This is a clear violation of the notion of social justice.
Conclusion
Though Aristotle’s view of slavery have met with severe criticisms at the hands of modern political
thinkers, it can not be denied that judged in the context of conditions prevailing in Greece during his
times , the institution of slavery was essential in so far it provided stability to the city state. Taylor
has said “the slaves of whom he (Aristotle) speaks were household servants in small business. He
had not before his eyes the system of enormous industry carried by the gangues of slaves under the
conditions of revolting degradation which disgraced the later Roman Republic and early Roman
Empire or the Southern states of North America”. Even Murray acknowledges the influence of
Aristotle on modern thinkers in so far his views on slavery are concerned. He says “the modern
world is not without examples or racial discrimination which are defended by essentially the same
arguments as those employed by Aristotle”.