How did Plato and Aristotle justify slavery?

Sam Gregg, author of On Ordered Liberty, discusses the views that two influential ancient philosophers held regarding human equality and the practice of slavery.

[Jordanicolass]

Most people today are mentally enslaved, ironically they truly believe they are free. Plato said “For a man to conquer himself that’s the most noble and greatest of all victories. To be free you need virtue and most of this hedonistic generation led by passions and vices has little to no virtue.

[McScreenName]

Well, I suppose you can never really be free until you are able to free yourself.

[kpresidente]

Your average Youtube commentator is strong evidence that Aristotle was onto something.

[timfinch]

This video was absolutely life changing. The world has never been so clear to me as it is now. How could I not have realized that all non greeks should be slaves to the greeks? Its so obvious.

Thank You Based God, Thank You Lil B

[mockingbird]

We still practice this kind of kin-selective behaviour by consdering animals and insects to be unworthy of rights and fair-game for exploitation abuse and slaughter. At that the time many ppl outside Greece may have seemed like Barbarians by their standards just as non-humans seem 'sub-sentient' by ours

[Riteshkrpanda]

How is this YouTube video from 2008 has this much video and audio quality .... something is fishy here 😶

[FRISHR]

Persian Empire is best empire because they had no slaves.

[MichaelHall]

This guy has obviously never studied Plato's Republic...

[s-dohealingmovements]

Doulos=Δούλος=servant,  attendant, not a slave!!! 

"Eílotes" means doúlous from captivity. (Sparta) The etymology seems to be preferable to the useless root "elo=έλω", which produces many years of the verb "airéo= αιρέω= αἱρώ", "airó" meaning arrest where perhaps "eílos= είλως" is derived and Eilotes comes out.

To be able to understand Aristotle you need to know greek very very very well because the meanings of the greek words are different then the English, please if you want to understand the greek philosophers learn  the meanings of the syntheses of a greek world not only the English translation because is wrong, you have to analyze a Greek word when it is a complex word otherwise you have a translation problem and you lose the meaning of the word and of the text.

From the beginning in Politics, Aristotle saw that nature has hierarchy with human beings. Hierarchy is inevitable and it is in their common interest.

The same thing happens in every person's soul. The soul has two parts, one command (έλλογο μέρος=the wise part, the scholar, the educated) and the other being dominated by (άλογο μέρος=without logic part).



The dominated by part must obey the dominant part of the soul. Thus, the soul is characterised by balance.

The same applies to the relation of the servant and the master, without implies that the servant is a inferior being, on the contrary one cannot survive without the other.

The need of one relies on the need of the other.

[Coheed]

it's sad to see such brilliant men be held back by social norms of their times. even the founding fathers debated the issue of slavery during the constitution convention, but apparently it wasn't their time to do away with it. slavery is immoral because it is collectivism, the idea that one group, or idea, or anything...is better than another, when the reality is, that nothing is better than anything, everything has its advantages, and flaws, but eventually everything returns to the one source.

[s-dohealingmovements]

Aristotle is the first philosopher to give a clear picture of the natural doúlou or servant  (slave is the wrong world it refers to slavery)  in Politics. Aristotle has today been accused of encouraging the notion that natural doúlou or servant are not morally acceptable, but also hierarchical in human existence.

He himself begins with the principle that "the one who gives the command - and the one that accepts the command", formulates his view of the particular institution on which he builds the "teleological" perception of the world (notion that everything in the world comes from a purpose they tend to fulfil)

He believed that every event in the world is connected to a purpose an (end).

He considered that the relationship between the one who dominates and the one who accepts the domination is a relationship that is in the mutual interest and there is no form of exploitation.

Aristotle is the one who systematises in his written sense the concept of nature doúlou, to what extent he has developed his “éllogi” power (the wise part) and why the relationship between master and doúlou is necessary for the survival of both. 

Ο Αριστοτέλης είναι ο πρώτος φιλόσοφος που δίνει μια σαφή εικόνα για τον φύσει δούλο στα Πολιτικά. Ο Αριστοτέλης έχει κατηγορηθεί σήμερα πως ενθάρρυνε την αντίληψη πως οι δούλοι δεν είναι δεκτικοί ηθικής τελείωσης, αλλά και πως ιεραρχεί την ανθρώπινη ύπαρξη. Ο ίδιος, όμως, κινείται με γνώμονα το «άρχειν-άρχεσθαι», διατυπώνοντας τη θεώρησή του για το συγκεκριμένο θεσμό, πάνω στον οποίο οικοδομεί την τελεολογική αντίληψη που είχε για τον κόσμο. Πίστευε πως κάθε γεγονός στον κόσμο είναι συνδεδεμένο με κάποιο σκοπό (τέλος). Θεωρούσε πως η σχέση είναι μια σχέση που αποβλέπει στο αμοιβαίο συμφέρον και δεν υπάρχει κάποια μορφή εκμετάλλευσης. Ο Αριστοτέλης είναι εκείνος που συστηματοποιεί στο γραπτό του λόγο την έννοια του φύσει δούλου, σε ποιο βαθμό έχει αναπτύξει την έλλογη δύναμή του και γιατί η σχέση κυρίου-δούλου είναι αναγκαία για την επιβίωση και των δύο.

[VixeyTeh]

Just... *facepalm* .... I did philosophy as a minor in my bachelor of arts degree, so I do know a little bit about this.

These philosophers valued thinking. Being able to think is paramount to them. Their view was that "the masses" or general public was not ever as capable in thinking or making decisions as a professional thinker. Their view was most people have no idea what they should be doing, and that is very stressful and problematic to both the leader and the plebs that should be following the leader. People like to know what the heck they should be doing. So it follows that if the followers/"slaves" did what the leader says without question and accepted their place as people that take orders everyone would be happier and better off.

Leaders would be in control, philosophers would do all the thinking, slaves would know to do as they are told, everything would be just so, everything would work like clockwork.

In short blunt terms: some people are too stupid to make any decisions, those people should just leave the thinking up to us philosophers and leaders.

By our modern views and values of freedom that of course appears to be barbaric and cruel, but when managing a whole country with no means of rapid communication or monitoring and control and very little educational infrastructure, someone stepping out of line and making a whole lot of stupid decisions would be an operational nightmare that could jeopardise the safety and wellbeing of the whole country. So in this context it is a utilitarian decision for the greater good and civilian peace.

[sergioblazic]

That because we learn so much about these two guys but on the other side about socrates not to much. Guy who was killed by greeks because of his ideas.

[superresistant]

It's true most people are incapable of responsibilities.

[rumpranger]

Aristotle is half right, even if nobody is by their essential nature destined for slavery. If you look at how ignorant most of society acts and allows itself to be, even though we have the economic means and political freedom to give ourselves liberal education, slavery is justified along with a non-constitutional form of government. So far, we have not proven Aristotle wrong nor have we proven ourselves worthy of constitutional rule and suffrage. Hopefully we will realize this and change.

[smallscreentv]

It’s the complete opposite of might is right.

Jesus, is this analysis serious?

[billaros]

You must look into what these people said and then you will realize that's the case for millenia.

Plato said a proven truth. That the Greeks of his era were the most advanced, the most cultured and the most powerful society on the planet. Thus slavery wasn't very likely to occur to them because who would come to enslave them? The Persians tried and failed. Nobody was strong enough to enslave them and even when Rome conquered Greece 400 years later the Greeks still enjoyed equal rights to the Romans because of this cultural dominance. Who had more chances to become a slave? The philosopher, mathematician, sculptor and politician or the farmer? Who adds more value to a society? The historian or the butcher?

Aristotle said that many people can't assume responsibilities. It's the duty of a society to put responsibilities on it's people. Societies which don't put responsibilities on their people are failed states and are doomed to be ruled by more advanced societies. Some years ago that was called slavery, today it's called neo colonization.

Instead of trying to understand these people's mindset you are judging them with your 21st century mind. That's totally dumb. Slavery was legal 50 years ago in some countries and these men lived almost 2.500 years ago.

It would make sense if you tried to judge the Americans for practicing slavery in the 1800s when it was abolished in most of Europe, but ancient Greece or Rome? That doesn't make sense.

[mockingbird]

@dbzboxer Im not one of those people who believe the end justify the means or that 'survival' is a justification for anything. Its unfortunate that so many lifeforms can not survive without harming another but fortunately humans are not one of these lifeforms. So even tho its not possible for life to sustain itself without harm being caused to lifeforms, its still very possible for humans to survive without delibaratly killing and exploiting animals. Nature may be cruel but humans dont need 2 b

[allangardiner]

This is shallow at best, wrong in many ways, and definitely not useful to proper engagement either with the critique of slavery or the study of foundational western philosophies.
These comments are "sound grabs". Such simplistic assertions are typical of people who are not seriously committed to understanding ideas but merely using them for short term and sectional gain - in this case the tacky world of selling ideological apologetics in favour of the rich and powerful, whose own license to do what they will overrides genuine interest in human flourishing.

[becauseitscurrentyear]

Plato and Aristotle would be censored today. You can only get away with talking about their ideas through Marx's lense.