grimeville05
New member
Natural Hierarchies in Society
Aristotle, the Greek philosopher believed in natural hierarchies, which are outlined in the article Politica - Book 1. Basically, Aristotle's concept was that the freeman, the man who was not a slave, was the top person in the hierarchy, as constituted by nature and the universe (Aristotle, 560). I agree to some extent to these theories, as I don't believe that equality can exist in this world. Also, my background causes me to acknowledge and agree to these theories, as they are quite similar to the culture I was brought up in. However, despite agreeing to the theories in Politica, I have found some flaws in them, which cause them to contradict each other.
Politica - Book 1, covers many topics, with hierarchies being the protagonist part of Aristotle's explanations. He mentioned hierarchies between the family and state; body and soul; man and woman; and freeman and slave. Aristotle explained that the state was prior to the family. After all, Aristotle stated that "man is by nature a political animal." (Aristotle, 556). The state is established for the good of everyone as whatever man produced was for a benefit. The state also brought the good out of man. Without the state, man would be "either a beast or a god." (Aristotle, 557).
The soul was naturally higher than the body as it naturally governed the actions of the body. People whose bodies were in control could be hurtful.
"… Although in bad or corrupted natures the body will often appear to rule over the soul, because they are in an evil and unnatural condition." (Aristotle, 560).
Aristotle wanted to show that when the soul was not in control, the person would be in an unnatural state.
Men should control woman according to Aristotle, as it was natural for them to be in control. "The male is fitter by nature for command than the female…" (Aristotle, 574). It was also thought to be morally virtuous and courageous for a man to command, and for a woman to obey (Aristotle, 576). However, the inequality here was not as severe as with the slaves as the rule by men on women was “constitutional.” (Aristotle 574).
Aristotle defined slaves as subjects, people who use their body as a tool for the freeman's 'foresight' through mind. (Aristotle, 554). "The servant is a kind of instrument." (Aristotle, 558). Aristotle believed that Nature gave a purpose to everything she made; the slave's to be an instrument in a freeman's household. Within the household instrument hierarchy though, the slave was the highest. The slave, a freeman's possession, was regarded as "an instrument of action." (Aristotle, 559). Aristotle also believed that slaves were marked for subjection from birth, while leaders for rule. At birth, the child who showed signs of disorientation and indiscipline and who needed direction was a slave, while one who portrayed strength and leadership qualities went on to be the master. Aristotle also believed that some slaves needed to be ruled, as they were almost the same as animals, with only their instincts to rely on. The slave was also regarded as part of the master, as when the two corabined together, work was done allowing for something 'good' to be accomplished. The duality of this existence is in many things, which could be why Aristotle only had hierarchies between two paradigms as shown above. Slaves who understood and accepted this fact of life would have a better life, with even frienRABhip between the slave and master. This would have to work both ways though, with the freeman understanding his priorities too. A freeman was expected to instill excellence into the slave and not merely control him:
"It is manifest, then, that the master ought to be the source of such excellence in the slave, and not mere a possessor of the art of mastership which trains the slave in his duties." (Aristotle, 577).
By training the slave correctly, the freeman was ensuring that the job done by the slave was to an excellent standard, resulting in the most good being done.
Aristotle also discussed the evolution of money and the evil of it. He believed that usury: money lending, was a hated sort of obtaining money, as it was not natural.
"Usury which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest." (Aristotle, 572)
The evolution of money came through Aristotle's explanation of the art of obtaining money. He believed that acquiring money was part of managing a household, another topic Aristotle commented on. Aristotle preferred the art of acquiring money through household management rather than retail as mentioned before:
"There are two sorts of wealth getting, as I have said; one is a part of household management, the other is retail trade: the former necessary and honorable, while that which consists in exchange is justly censured; for it is unnatural and a mode by which men gain from one another." (Aristotle, 571).
Aristotle also explained that once one became self sufficient, they had reached the peak of their life and full potentiality.
My own background and practices does not cause me to be mortified by what Aristotle has stated about hierarchies. Being Indian, I have and will be subjected to constant hierarchy. Firstly, there is the Caste System in India, where different people are born into specific castes. They will remain in their caste forever. Their wealth, holding of power or social standing will not alter or evolve their caste. Although it has been banished from practice by the government, I know I still adhere to it. For instance, I have segregated myself from other castes, by ensuring that when I marry, it will be to someone from the same caste as mine (Brahmin). Also, women were thought to be traditionally inferior to men. When a young woman reached the age of 19 or 20, she were to marry a man chosen for her by her parents. Where after, the women would stay at home and look after her husband and children. This occurred in my home too, with my own mother marrying a man chosen by her parents. She then came to an unknown land, Zarabia where she then stayed at home and lived the life of a domicile housewife and mother. And although being married to my father for over 20 years, my mother will not speak up to my father nor take her own independence and ‘do her own thing.’ Behavior such as this is greatly frowned upon by the respectable elders in the Indian society as women are meant to do as their husbanRAB say. This has been changing though, with the women coming up in the world. Now, women are allowed to do much more and have been granted liberty from the social norms of before.
Living in Zarabia, a postcolonial country all my life, I have seen a very real and vivid hierarchical system. It is quite common for a bourgeois household such as mine to employ servants, which are literally, modern day types of slaves. The servants usually do the 'dirty' work of washing dishes, cleaning the house, gardening, looking after and cleaning pets and other tasks as such. Their pay if converted to American dollars is well below the working class standard for the work they do. However, they do not complain, as this is what has been done in Zarabia for so long. They are not forced into being a servant, yet prefer to do it, as they know that they can get many things from their employers. For example, my father bought our servants bicycles, which they were very happy with: it was the first time they had ever owned a bicycle. Therefore, by working well and pleasing my father, they got rewarded. This can be seen as a direct example of Aristotle’s theory of the most good being done once both parties work well together. I don't believe that this form of using other human beings to do work is wrong as both benefit in the end. As long as both the slave and master treat each other with respect and do not mind doing what they do, the relationship is all right as neither damage nor exploitation is occurring.
Personally, I think that Aristotle's argument was well thought out. His arguments on hierarchy although unethical in today's society seemed to be commonplace during his life. Even today, I see some of the hierarchies as explained above. My life in Zarabia and my Indian background exemplify some of the theories of hierarchy. Gender division and the relationship between masters and slaves in postcolonial Zarabia are ideal illustrations to what Aristotle discusses. However, this does not mean that everything Aristotle said was right.
There are some flaws in Aristotle's theories. It seems that if we all lived the way Aristotle describes, it would be good for all. However, it will not be good for the slaves. The context of slavery can be misused, causing advantage to be taken of them. If they are not used for work, but for forms of entertainment, it will not be ethically right. Although Aristotle does not mention any of this as part of the job of the slave, it can occur. Some people's own absurd thrill with physically or mentally torturing others and disregard for the slaves individuality, can cause them to act harshly with slaves. For example, if we look at slavery in the United States, we can see that because only one sort of person was a slave, (African-American), a stereotype was formed causing racial divide. Due to the earlier typography of a black person being a slave they are still treated similarly to slaves even though slavery had been banished for a while. This example shows that if only one specific person was chosen to be a slave, that kind of person would be subjected to the treatment associated with slaves even if slavery was no longer practiced. If they are merely possessions then they will lose their natural self worth that is instilled into every human being when they are born. They will not understand that there is more to life than the rut they may be stuck in. Personal drive and the desire to succeed may shrivel up causing slaves to lose excellence and become apathetic. This lack of commitment to a job results in the job being done poorly. If one is not allowed to change between the class distinction they are born in, there may be no evolution in the world. Only the same sort of people will be in charge. The world will not be enlightened with new ideas and new perspectives of the world. The state will only be dominated with one class of people, thus not being the most good, as it would not be benefiting to the slaves. And, Aristotle stated that the state was the most important of all in the hierarchical system. If their purpose in life is to be servile labor, their body will be in charge, with the soul being dominated. This acutely goes against Aristotle's hierarchy between soul and body as explained before. The person will then be "in an evil and unnatural condition." (Aristotle, 560). What may also contradict another theory could be the sex of the freeman. What if it were a woman who was in charge of a male slave. Which hierarchy would come first? And much more, which hierarchy would be more natural?
It may be easy to say that Aristotle's theories of slavery are unethical in today's politically correct world. However, for me, reaching a personal conclusion is difficult. The world we live in has many different cultures, some, which practice the theories of hierarchy as stated by Aristotle, and some, which stress the equality of all people. No definite explanations can be given, as the roles people play in life are continually changing. What we have done so far though, has been instigated in us through our biological and psychological selves. Therefore, the behaviors Aristotle's theorizes about could be natural behavior for us as they stem from our what is natural: our instinct and mind. However, ethics today generated through culture causes us to be aware of what it is that we do, bringing our attention to the morality of slavery. Nonetheless, I believe that the actions of one are done through biological programming. Therefore, by acting through instinct, we still are the people that Aristotle theorized about, over 2000 years ago.
Works Cited
Aristotle, Politics, Book 1. Class Handout, IH 51
Aristotle, the Greek philosopher believed in natural hierarchies, which are outlined in the article Politica - Book 1. Basically, Aristotle's concept was that the freeman, the man who was not a slave, was the top person in the hierarchy, as constituted by nature and the universe (Aristotle, 560). I agree to some extent to these theories, as I don't believe that equality can exist in this world. Also, my background causes me to acknowledge and agree to these theories, as they are quite similar to the culture I was brought up in. However, despite agreeing to the theories in Politica, I have found some flaws in them, which cause them to contradict each other.
Politica - Book 1, covers many topics, with hierarchies being the protagonist part of Aristotle's explanations. He mentioned hierarchies between the family and state; body and soul; man and woman; and freeman and slave. Aristotle explained that the state was prior to the family. After all, Aristotle stated that "man is by nature a political animal." (Aristotle, 556). The state is established for the good of everyone as whatever man produced was for a benefit. The state also brought the good out of man. Without the state, man would be "either a beast or a god." (Aristotle, 557).
The soul was naturally higher than the body as it naturally governed the actions of the body. People whose bodies were in control could be hurtful.
"… Although in bad or corrupted natures the body will often appear to rule over the soul, because they are in an evil and unnatural condition." (Aristotle, 560).
Aristotle wanted to show that when the soul was not in control, the person would be in an unnatural state.
Men should control woman according to Aristotle, as it was natural for them to be in control. "The male is fitter by nature for command than the female…" (Aristotle, 574). It was also thought to be morally virtuous and courageous for a man to command, and for a woman to obey (Aristotle, 576). However, the inequality here was not as severe as with the slaves as the rule by men on women was “constitutional.” (Aristotle 574).
Aristotle defined slaves as subjects, people who use their body as a tool for the freeman's 'foresight' through mind. (Aristotle, 554). "The servant is a kind of instrument." (Aristotle, 558). Aristotle believed that Nature gave a purpose to everything she made; the slave's to be an instrument in a freeman's household. Within the household instrument hierarchy though, the slave was the highest. The slave, a freeman's possession, was regarded as "an instrument of action." (Aristotle, 559). Aristotle also believed that slaves were marked for subjection from birth, while leaders for rule. At birth, the child who showed signs of disorientation and indiscipline and who needed direction was a slave, while one who portrayed strength and leadership qualities went on to be the master. Aristotle also believed that some slaves needed to be ruled, as they were almost the same as animals, with only their instincts to rely on. The slave was also regarded as part of the master, as when the two corabined together, work was done allowing for something 'good' to be accomplished. The duality of this existence is in many things, which could be why Aristotle only had hierarchies between two paradigms as shown above. Slaves who understood and accepted this fact of life would have a better life, with even frienRABhip between the slave and master. This would have to work both ways though, with the freeman understanding his priorities too. A freeman was expected to instill excellence into the slave and not merely control him:
"It is manifest, then, that the master ought to be the source of such excellence in the slave, and not mere a possessor of the art of mastership which trains the slave in his duties." (Aristotle, 577).
By training the slave correctly, the freeman was ensuring that the job done by the slave was to an excellent standard, resulting in the most good being done.
Aristotle also discussed the evolution of money and the evil of it. He believed that usury: money lending, was a hated sort of obtaining money, as it was not natural.
"Usury which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest." (Aristotle, 572)
The evolution of money came through Aristotle's explanation of the art of obtaining money. He believed that acquiring money was part of managing a household, another topic Aristotle commented on. Aristotle preferred the art of acquiring money through household management rather than retail as mentioned before:
"There are two sorts of wealth getting, as I have said; one is a part of household management, the other is retail trade: the former necessary and honorable, while that which consists in exchange is justly censured; for it is unnatural and a mode by which men gain from one another." (Aristotle, 571).
Aristotle also explained that once one became self sufficient, they had reached the peak of their life and full potentiality.
My own background and practices does not cause me to be mortified by what Aristotle has stated about hierarchies. Being Indian, I have and will be subjected to constant hierarchy. Firstly, there is the Caste System in India, where different people are born into specific castes. They will remain in their caste forever. Their wealth, holding of power or social standing will not alter or evolve their caste. Although it has been banished from practice by the government, I know I still adhere to it. For instance, I have segregated myself from other castes, by ensuring that when I marry, it will be to someone from the same caste as mine (Brahmin). Also, women were thought to be traditionally inferior to men. When a young woman reached the age of 19 or 20, she were to marry a man chosen for her by her parents. Where after, the women would stay at home and look after her husband and children. This occurred in my home too, with my own mother marrying a man chosen by her parents. She then came to an unknown land, Zarabia where she then stayed at home and lived the life of a domicile housewife and mother. And although being married to my father for over 20 years, my mother will not speak up to my father nor take her own independence and ‘do her own thing.’ Behavior such as this is greatly frowned upon by the respectable elders in the Indian society as women are meant to do as their husbanRAB say. This has been changing though, with the women coming up in the world. Now, women are allowed to do much more and have been granted liberty from the social norms of before.
Living in Zarabia, a postcolonial country all my life, I have seen a very real and vivid hierarchical system. It is quite common for a bourgeois household such as mine to employ servants, which are literally, modern day types of slaves. The servants usually do the 'dirty' work of washing dishes, cleaning the house, gardening, looking after and cleaning pets and other tasks as such. Their pay if converted to American dollars is well below the working class standard for the work they do. However, they do not complain, as this is what has been done in Zarabia for so long. They are not forced into being a servant, yet prefer to do it, as they know that they can get many things from their employers. For example, my father bought our servants bicycles, which they were very happy with: it was the first time they had ever owned a bicycle. Therefore, by working well and pleasing my father, they got rewarded. This can be seen as a direct example of Aristotle’s theory of the most good being done once both parties work well together. I don't believe that this form of using other human beings to do work is wrong as both benefit in the end. As long as both the slave and master treat each other with respect and do not mind doing what they do, the relationship is all right as neither damage nor exploitation is occurring.
Personally, I think that Aristotle's argument was well thought out. His arguments on hierarchy although unethical in today's society seemed to be commonplace during his life. Even today, I see some of the hierarchies as explained above. My life in Zarabia and my Indian background exemplify some of the theories of hierarchy. Gender division and the relationship between masters and slaves in postcolonial Zarabia are ideal illustrations to what Aristotle discusses. However, this does not mean that everything Aristotle said was right.
There are some flaws in Aristotle's theories. It seems that if we all lived the way Aristotle describes, it would be good for all. However, it will not be good for the slaves. The context of slavery can be misused, causing advantage to be taken of them. If they are not used for work, but for forms of entertainment, it will not be ethically right. Although Aristotle does not mention any of this as part of the job of the slave, it can occur. Some people's own absurd thrill with physically or mentally torturing others and disregard for the slaves individuality, can cause them to act harshly with slaves. For example, if we look at slavery in the United States, we can see that because only one sort of person was a slave, (African-American), a stereotype was formed causing racial divide. Due to the earlier typography of a black person being a slave they are still treated similarly to slaves even though slavery had been banished for a while. This example shows that if only one specific person was chosen to be a slave, that kind of person would be subjected to the treatment associated with slaves even if slavery was no longer practiced. If they are merely possessions then they will lose their natural self worth that is instilled into every human being when they are born. They will not understand that there is more to life than the rut they may be stuck in. Personal drive and the desire to succeed may shrivel up causing slaves to lose excellence and become apathetic. This lack of commitment to a job results in the job being done poorly. If one is not allowed to change between the class distinction they are born in, there may be no evolution in the world. Only the same sort of people will be in charge. The world will not be enlightened with new ideas and new perspectives of the world. The state will only be dominated with one class of people, thus not being the most good, as it would not be benefiting to the slaves. And, Aristotle stated that the state was the most important of all in the hierarchical system. If their purpose in life is to be servile labor, their body will be in charge, with the soul being dominated. This acutely goes against Aristotle's hierarchy between soul and body as explained before. The person will then be "in an evil and unnatural condition." (Aristotle, 560). What may also contradict another theory could be the sex of the freeman. What if it were a woman who was in charge of a male slave. Which hierarchy would come first? And much more, which hierarchy would be more natural?
It may be easy to say that Aristotle's theories of slavery are unethical in today's politically correct world. However, for me, reaching a personal conclusion is difficult. The world we live in has many different cultures, some, which practice the theories of hierarchy as stated by Aristotle, and some, which stress the equality of all people. No definite explanations can be given, as the roles people play in life are continually changing. What we have done so far though, has been instigated in us through our biological and psychological selves. Therefore, the behaviors Aristotle's theorizes about could be natural behavior for us as they stem from our what is natural: our instinct and mind. However, ethics today generated through culture causes us to be aware of what it is that we do, bringing our attention to the morality of slavery. Nonetheless, I believe that the actions of one are done through biological programming. Therefore, by acting through instinct, we still are the people that Aristotle theorized about, over 2000 years ago.
Works Cited
Aristotle, Politics, Book 1. Class Handout, IH 51