Tuesday, January 25, 2011
The nature of slaves
In part III and IV, it is noted that slaves are not "enslaved by nature" but by law instead since they have conquered their people. But can you argue that it is not as all law? The way that slaves are treated are that they are not part of family, all they do is work, like machines do today. One quote that stuck out to me was "Again, the male is by nature superior, and the female inferior; and the one rules, and the other is ruled; this principle of necessity, extends to all mankind." My question is this: Why would he say that if a man still rules another man when male slaves are deemed property of another male?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Lots of people have seen the contradictions here between Aristotle's evident misogyny and his valorization of slavery as somehow 'natural.' Your point brings up a theme in the readings, how the natives of South America were considered effeminate by those who conquered them.
ReplyDeleteAlso, your point seems to be that 'nature' represented by the biological distinction between male and female is trumped by convention, the legal distinction between slave and free.
Good work!