Aristotle justified slavery on the grounds that it was a natural institution. He believed that some men lacked reason and virtue, making them natural slaves. Aristotle argued that slavery benefited both the slaveholder and slave. For the slaveholder, slavery allowed leisure for intellectual pursuits, while slaves benefited from being governed by their masters since they lacked self-governance abilities. Aristotle distinguished between conventional and natural slaves, with natural slaves permanently subordinate due to their lack of reason. While criticized for justifying slavery, Aristotle's views must be understood in the context of political realities of his time.

1. Q) Critically examine Aristotle's views on slavery.
Or
Q) Discuss Aristotle’s justification of slavery.
Ans) Introduction
Aristotle (384 BC-322 BC) is a Greek philosopher and is regarded as the father of political
science as he was the first to analyze, critically and systematically, the then existing
constitutions and classify them. This outstanding Greek philosophers has left behind
many important works, out of which ‘the Politics’ is of great interest to all those
interested in the history of political ideas. In his philosophy he gave many ideas among
which the most prominent one was his justification of slavery. According to Aristotle the
state was made up of several household. Each household consisted of some freeman
and some slaves. He justified slavery on the grounds that it is not a man- made
institution, it is a natural one. It must, therefore, be retained and maintained.
Aristotle’s views on slavery
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 in which
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. 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 Republic’. 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.
Aristotle distinguished between animate and inanimate instruments in a household. The
slave was an animate instrument intended for action and not for production; unlike
artisans, a slave did not create a product, but only helped in the business of living within
the household. Since, as an instrument, he served his master, he had no interests other
than those of the master. The slave not only was a slave of his master, but also belonged
entirely to him in the same way as a possession. The master, on the contrary, was a
master to the slave, and did not belong to him.

2. He distinguished between conventional and natural slaves. The former were not slaves
by nature. They had reason and were qualified to be citizens in their own state.
However, they became slaves if taken as prisoners of war, a common practice during
Aristotle’s time. Natural slaves lacked reason, hence had to be under the permanent
subordination of the master. Aristotle believed that some persons were by nature free
and others slaves.
Aristotle justified slavery from the point of view of the householder and the slave. A
householder gained from the slavery as he was relieved of menial chores, giving him the
leisure time for moral and intellectual pursuits that would enable him to contribute to
the affairs of the state and fulfill his duties as a citizen. Aristotle defined slavery on the
grounds of triumph of reason and virtue, the master representing reason and virtue,
and the slave absence of reason, and non- virtue or less virtue. For a slave, the choice
was between inferior and no virtue, differing from his master for whom it was a choice
between inferior and perfect virtue. Thus slavery was seen as being mutually beneficial
and just. Aristotle believed that men differed from one another in their abilities mental
faculties and justified slavery for those lacking in these qualities. A slave could not
govern himself, for he lacked the reason to do so. Aristotle was against making the
defeated foe a slave. Prisoners of war could be made slaves only if success in war
indicated superior intelligence of the victors. If the causes of a war were basically just,
then prisoners of war could be made slaves.
The theory of slavery was based on two assumptions: first, men were divided in respect
of their capacities of virtue; and second, that it was possible to determine the category
to which an individual belonged. He recommended humane treatment for slaves, and
conceded to them freedom if they so desired. Ross defended Aristotle’s attitude
towards slavery by arguing that “while to us he seem reactionary, he may have seemed
revolutionary to them”. Furthermore, Aristotle pointed out that a master- salve
relationship differed from the one between a political ruler and the subjects. A slave,
unlike a subject, was a tool of the master. “The master must simply know how to
command what the slave must know how to do”. Interestingly, he expressed in his will
that his own slaves would be freed and not sold. In the ‘Ethics’, he suggested that a
slave could become his master’s friend. In Book VII of the ‘Politics’, he recommended
their emancipation as a reward for good service. He also realized that the institution of
slavery was not permanent and it would go with the advancement in technology.

3. Conclusion
To sum up, Aristotle has rightly been called a political scientist, for he defined the
subject matter of politics and identified its core elements. In book V of ‘the Politics’,
Aristotle discussed many issues among which the most important one was slavery.
Aristotle has been criticized by many for justifying slavery but his defense of slavery can
be best understood only in terms of his political realism and expediency rather than on
the basis of sound logic.