Aristotle's Slaves

Aristotle could write the kind of first sentence that would impress even Hemingway: “The state is the highest form of the community and aims at the highest good.” He knew both how to draw his readers in and how to point their eyes toward the subject under consideration. In this first sentence from The Politics, Aristotle tells us his aim in writing: to analyze the state, what he calls the highest and best naturally forming type of community.

He also tells us his view—teleological. The state, Aristotle says, aims at the highest good. Thus, like his Nicomachean Ethics in which he argues that to understand the good we must understand our end, nature, and function, so here, he argues that to understand the state is to understand its function as derived from its aim.

Aristotle tells us in Book 1, Chapter 2 that “justice is the bond of men in states, for the administration of justice, which is the determination of what is just, is the principle of order in political society.” He sees in political community the aim of justice. He explains the accomplishment of this justice by use of an analogy. In the family, each member has its nature and corresponding function and together they aim toward the highest good of the home. Similarly, in political community, each member has its nature and function, and each contributes to the accomplishment of the highest good.

Tracing out a clear teleology in terms of Nature's aims which are never in vain, Aristotle adopts a teleological metaphysic and political philosophy which, superficially, sits well with this Christian reader. I like, as I suspect we all do, Aristotle's acknowledgement of natures, functions, and aims. I like his attributing to Nature a god-like agency. I can easily substitute God for Nature in Aristotle's thought and map on to his philosophy a Biblical worldview. We can, as Aquinas is said to have done, baptize Aristotle.

There is, however, a problem in Aristotle's teleology which would seem to me to call all of it into question, namely, the teleology of the slave. Aristotle holds the position that at least some people are by nature to be slaves: “But is there any one thus intended by nature to be a slave, and for whom such a condition is expedient and right, or rather is not all slavery a violation of nature?  There is no difficulty in answering this question, on grounds both of reason and of fact. For that some should rule, and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary, but expedient; from the hour of their birth, some are marked out for subjection, others for rule.”  He concludes this section by saying, “where the relation of master and slave between them is natural they are friends and have a common interest.” Notice, some enter into a relationship of slave to master naturally.

Superficially, this seems to suggest that to adopt a teleological view of the state requires that we also adopt a teleological view of slavery, but this is clearly at odds with a Christian teleology. The question that arises for me then is how do we retain a teleological view of political society without adopting all of Aristotle's teleology? One answer is that there may be any number of common relationships within the state that have a natural utility, but which are not God's aim for society. Consider for example, prostitution, drug dealing, or mob rule. Each may occur "naturally" and hold for some a certain utility, and yet we could say with certainty that each is contrary to God's purposes for man. Slavery too is at odds with God's will for man (cf. 1 Timothy 1:10). So, here we have to part with Aristotle, despite his eloquence of speech, and say that some naturally occurring aspects of society are like weeds, they exist because of sin, not because of God's good purposes for man. With this answer, we can both rightly condemn slavery and maintain teleology as a viable view of the state.