Aliens and Monsters: Aristotle’s Hypothetical “Defense” of Natural Slavery

Q4 Arts and Humanities
William Harwood
{"title":"Aliens and Monsters: Aristotle’s Hypothetical “Defense” of Natural Slavery","authors":"William Harwood","doi":"10.5840/du202232230","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper examines Aristotle’s discussion of slavery, showing his description of actual slavery to be an indictment and those regarding natural slavery to be a hypothetical investigation of a separate kind. Aristotle not only precludes the inclusion of natural slaves and freepersons in a single natural kind, but also articulates such bizarre requirements for natural slaves that they ultimately cannot exist. While this reading avoids notorious difficulties associated with Aristotle’s discussion of slaves, it replaces them with impossible preconditions for just slavery—so much that one must consider the possibility that Aristotle did not believe there was such a thing as “just” slavery. Was Aristotle’s otherwise acute mind blinded by the prejudices of his time? Or is this the inevitable result of “defending” the indefensible: an ad absurdum that has been ironically misunderstood and anachronistically misapplied to modern race and racism?","PeriodicalId":36732,"journal":{"name":"Dialogue and Universalism","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dialogue and Universalism","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5840/du202232230","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper examines Aristotle’s discussion of slavery, showing his description of actual slavery to be an indictment and those regarding natural slavery to be a hypothetical investigation of a separate kind. Aristotle not only precludes the inclusion of natural slaves and freepersons in a single natural kind, but also articulates such bizarre requirements for natural slaves that they ultimately cannot exist. While this reading avoids notorious difficulties associated with Aristotle’s discussion of slaves, it replaces them with impossible preconditions for just slavery—so much that one must consider the possibility that Aristotle did not believe there was such a thing as “just” slavery. Was Aristotle’s otherwise acute mind blinded by the prejudices of his time? Or is this the inevitable result of “defending” the indefensible: an ad absurdum that has been ironically misunderstood and anachronistically misapplied to modern race and racism?
外星人和怪物:亚里士多德对自然奴隶制的假想“辩护”
本文检视亚里士多德对奴隶制的讨论,显示他对实际奴隶制的描述是一种控诉,而那些关于自然奴隶制的描述是一种单独的假设调查。亚里士多德不仅排除了将自然奴隶和自由人包括在一个单一的自然种类中,而且还阐明了对自然奴隶的奇怪要求,以至于他们最终不可能存在。虽然这篇阅读避免了与亚里士多德关于奴隶的讨论有关的臭名昭著的困难,但它用公正奴隶制的不可能先决条件取代了它们——以至于人们必须考虑亚里士多德不相信“公正”奴隶制存在的可能性。亚里士多德敏锐的头脑是否被他那个时代的偏见蒙蔽了?或者这是“捍卫”不可辩护的不可避免的结果:一种被讽刺地误解和不合时宜地误用于现代种族和种族主义的荒谬?
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Dialogue and Universalism
Dialogue and Universalism Social Sciences-Communication
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信