Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Aristotle's view on slavery
Aristotle's view on slavery
Aristotle's view on slavery
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Aristotle's view on slavery
In this essay I will examine Aristotle’s ideal state in order to find out whether it is rather a place of hierarchy than equality. First it is necessary to define what is meant by hierarchy and equality. This seems to be an easy task, since these are commonly used words. But by equality, do we mean for example equal property, equal power or equal rights for everyone? For 21st century Sweden, for example, is usually thought to be rather equal state, while it is however true that even there everyone doesn’t have equal property, equal power or even equal rights. And would equal property for everyone even be equality, since then those who work harder would get the same benefits than those who work less and therefore there would be unfair inequality …show more content…
a god), is not a part of the state at all.’ (1253a18) By this definition Aristotle’s ideal state becomes more equal. However, we cannot say that a state is a place of equality by leaving a part of its population outside the definition of a state. Even contemporary states would be seen much more equal if we left women or homosexuals, for example, outside the definition. But that is only a way to modify truth. Furthermore, Aristotle makes an assumption that women are ’incapable of participating in the association which we call the state’, which is clearly a fallacy as we can demonstrate by looking at all the succesfull women participating in politics in modern times. Therefore he creates a state that is unnaturally hierarchical and unequal. For if it was that women in fact are by nature inferior to men, it would be justified to call a state that excludes them from public life equal, since it is rational that not everyone is good at same things and not everyone should do the same jobs. As Aristotle puts it, ‘you cannot make a state out of men who are all alike.’(1261a22) But by differentiating people based on their gender and not even allowing the best of the women to participate in politics, Aristotle creates an unnatural gender …show more content…
If we, however, take a closer look at his ideal state of free men without taking into account unequal positions of women, slaves and non-Greeks, we will still see that his state is quite hierarchical. However, there are many aspects of equality in there,
Cole's article is not to attack Aristotle on his views of where a woman should be placed within the social and political order, in accordance to the Classic Greek period. Her intrigue is within "surveying some central values of that particular social and political institution," (Sterba 79). At first she begins with Aristotle's view on gender and class in ethics. Making a definite point among the social/political class, ancient Greek women and slaves were only allowed their male citizens to think for them. Being dependent on men silences the women and slaves without a voice to speak out, for the women work while the men socialize with others, the men assume that the women do not need a voice. According to Aristotle, even a woman's virtue is to be subservient to all males. As a part of common life the woman is considered the pack horse and the mother to raise the children, for the men. With all the work that women put into their specific households, some education and training would mature from the experience. It was thought again by Aristotle within; Deliberation, Education, and Emancipation, that woman did not possess the aptitude for practical reasoning. For whomever possessed practical reasoning carried with them authority on their decisions and the action pending. From these three classic Greek examples of how women were considered mentally and treated physically, the author Cole provides a progressive outlook of how women could have gained social and political power in a society of male dominant figures.
Throughout the existence of man debates over property and inequality have always existed. Man has been trying to reach the perfect state of society for as long as they have existed. John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Martin Luther King are three great examples of men who broke down the basics of how property and inequality are related. Each historical figure has their own distinct view on the situation. Some views are similar while others vary greatly. These philosophers and seekers of peace and equality make many great arguments as to how equality and property can impact man and society. Equality and property go hand in hand in creating an equal society. Each authors opinion has its own factors that create a mindset to support that opinion. In this paper we will discuss the writings of John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Martin Luther King Jr. and the factors that influenced their opinions on inequality and property.
Aristotle tries to draw a general understanding of the human good, exploring the causes of human actions, trying to identify the most common ultimate purpose of human actions. Indeed, Aristotelian’s ethics, also investigates through the psychological and the spiritual realms of human beings.
Aristotle is one of the earliest philosophers to help establish woman’s place as Other. For Aristotle, individuals act as parts whose participation contributes to the good of the polis (Femenias, 165). Women are not beneficiaries of this relationship, rather, they are subordinate by nature which prevents them from sociopolitical gain (166). Patriarchy in the Greek family and society have influenced Aristotle to believe it’s impossible to change the nature by which women are confined
In his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle works to foster a more precise understanding of complex ideas including justice and friendship. Of course, he assigns varying levels of importance to qualities depending on how necessary they are to becoming a happy and self-sufficient individual, which he sees as the ultimate aim for human beings. As such, he seems to create a hierarchical structure in which aspects that push an individual closer to happiness are effectively superior to those which do not. Yet, as he develops the ideas of friendship and justice more, dividing them into their constituent categories, the hierarchy between them begins to become more obscured, suggesting that, rather than the two existing in service of one or the other, the
To achieve this topic, I have sectioned my paper into three main sections, in which I have subsections supporting. In the first section, I will provide much information about Aristotle and his beliefs in virtue and obtaining happiness. Using information from his book of ethics I will provide examples and quote on quote statements to support his views. In the second section, I will provide my agreements as to why I relate and very fond of Aristotle’s book of Nicomachean Ethics. In the third section, I will provide research as to why there are such objections to Aristotle’s book of ethics, and counter act as to why I disagree with them. Lastly I will conclude much of my and as well as Aristotle’s views on ethics and why I so strongly agree with this route of ethics for humans.
When analyzing equality, a sociological and legal approach must be made. In the case of the United States, the sociological stratification, or division of power, of minority groups had adversely affected the development of the legal system. Especially in the 1600s and 1700s, legal and social equality of those not of the Caucasian persuasion, the less fortunate, and of the female gender was almost nonexistent. This inequality is a direct result of the early American society’s ranking system. Equality was not perceived in the minds of such individuals as John Winthrop, John Adams, and James Madison, and as a result, their significant accomplishments towards the development of the American system have tainted the institution itself.
Have you ever had equal rights just as much as someone who had more money than you or was in higher power than you? Most people may not believe in equal human rights, but it should happen even in the most pore places.
Aristotle’s emphasis is on the city-state, or the political world as a natural occurrence. He says “every city-state exists by nature, since the first communities do.” (Aristotle 3). Aristotle continually reiterates the notion that the creation of a community comes from necessity; individuals aim at the highest good of all, happiness, through their own rationality, and the only way to achieve happiness is through the creation of the city-state. Aristotle follows the creation of a household and a village to the creation of the city-state in which citizens are able to come together to aim at the “good which has the most authority of all,” (Aristotle 1) happiness. In turn, this necessity for the formation of a city state comes from the idea of man as a rational being. “It is also clear why a human being is more of a political animal than a bee or any other gregarious animal… no animal has speech except for a human being.” (Aristotle 4). For Aristotle, human beings are political animals because of their ability to speak, their ability to communicate pleasures and desires, and their ability to reason. Aristotle’s state com...
According to Aristotle, “those who are so much inferior to others as is the body to the soul, and beasts to...
...to be the highest power holder yet everything has to go according to how God created things to be (American Scholar, 1837).
Aristotle’s thoughts on ethics conclude that all humans must have a purpose in life in order to be happy. I believe that some of the basics of his ideas still hold true today. This essay points out some of those ideas.
Plato believed that everything had an ideal form, but Aristotle looked into the real world and studied that. Instead of inventing a system of government, Aristotle explored more of practical things that you can realistically put into effect. Aristotle’s main aim was to “consider, not only what form of government is best, but also what is possible and what is easily attainable”. Meaning that he wanted everyone to be able to relate and adapt to his form of power. He wanted people to be servant to his laws because if the law were an order, it would make a good society. He ended up maintaining a government somewhat like a democracy, where the middle class is strong. Aristotle produced natural domination as one of his biggest theories. Aristotle believed that people were born into being a ruler or in slavery. He wanted people to accept what they are and do what they were born to do. It was the only way that he thought the world would be able to work and not come out with a lot of problems. This is way he believes that everyone is born with a color that tells you your placement in the world. Your placement is not genetic and can’t run in the
Kraut, R. (2001, May 1). Aristotle's Ethics. Stanford University. Retrieved January 26, 2014, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-ethics/#VirDefConInc
What is the ideal state? This question has sparked debate since the very formation of organized political society. In Plato’s The Republic, Plato seeks to define justice and in doing so he seeks to explain the ideal just state. In Plato’s explanation of an ideal state, there is an extreme emphasis on unity and harmony. The reason unity and harmony are so important to Plato are because they are responsible for bonding together Plato’s ideal state and protecting it from tyranny. Plato explains at great length the framework which ties together the individual soul with the ideal political society. Without unity and harmony, an aristocracy would ultimately decay into a democracy, and according to Plato, sooner rather than later a tyrant would rule the state.