Aristotle argues that some people are just born to be slaves, it’s in their nature to be obedient.
“Some people,” he said, “were born natural slaves. They differ from ordinary people in the same way that the body differs from the soul. Such people are by nature slaves, and it is better for them…to be ruled by a master. Just as are some are by nature free, so others are by nature slaves, and for these latter the condition of slavery is both essential and just” (Aristotle, Right Thing To DO pp 202). In Aristotle’s mind, the difference between a freeman and a slave is that a slave is obedient and will not mind doing forced labor, while freemen would run away or rebel if he was enslaved, since it would be unnatural for a freeman to be a slave. …show more content…
Only a hypothetical contract such as such as a this, carried an original position in equality, would procedure principles of justice untiered by difference of bargaining power of knowledge.” (Reader page 203) This means if we're in an imaginary society where laws and social structure has been made, it is our job to make it as just as possible. His first principle of justice is that everyone is entitled to basic liberties. The second is the difference principle, which is meant to show there can be inequality within society if it can help those who are disadvantaged. “Laws and institutions, no matter how efficient and well arranged, must be reformed or abolish if they are unjust.” (A Reader page 203) Aristotle’s views are unjust by nature. Since no one is truly born to be a slave, Aristotle’s justification is invalid according to Rawls. In his first principle, basic liberties, slaves have no liberties or say in the government and therefore Aristotle’s view is again invalid. Another thing is that slaves are not given potions and can not vote like women of the time, so how are slaves benefiting if they have no voice? Even Rawls contracts the slaves did not agree or sell themselves to slavery to was forced upon them. “It is fair what is agreed to?” (Rawls Right Thing To Do page 143) If a …show more content…
Mill’s Utilitarian view of happiness is just as flawed as Aristotle’s justification for slavery. This is because going to back to Utilitarianism is promoting the greatest happiness and has no regard for individual rights. It may cause people to be unhappy, but if it brings the greatest joy to the community, then it's justifiable. Another reason why I would prefer Rawls is going back to veil of ignorance, if we were in together a place where there are no classes, race, gender etc it would only seem fair to give everyone an equal chance in life. Rawls’s veil of ignorance is the antithesis to Aristotle’s justification of slavery because no one was born is a natural slave. We were born into something because of chance whether it's rich or poor it all was predetermined and we no control over. His first principle states that everyone is entitled to basic rights which goes against Aristotle’s slavery because slaves have little to no rights. On top of that, slaves are not really benefiting. His beliefs of basic rights protects me from enslavement since it was forced upon me and I didn't actually agree to become slave. Aristile only favor masters who voted and participated in government. When he criticized the oligarchs is was because they were only in it for themselves. It is better to be in even playing field because you will never know if you will end up a slave. Aristotle justification only
“Some people,” he said, “were born natural slaves. They differ from ordinary people in the same way that the body differs from the soul. Such people are by nature slaves, and it is better for them…to be ruled by a master. Just as are some are by nature free, so others are by nature slaves, and for these latter the condition of slavery is both essential and just” (Aristotle, Right Thing To DO pp 202). In Aristotle’s mind, the difference between a freeman and a slave is that a slave is obedient and will not mind doing forced labor, while freemen would run away or rebel if he was enslaved, since it would be unnatural for a freeman to be a slave. …show more content…
Only a hypothetical contract such as such as a this, carried an original position in equality, would procedure principles of justice untiered by difference of bargaining power of knowledge.” (Reader page 203) This means if we're in an imaginary society where laws and social structure has been made, it is our job to make it as just as possible. His first principle of justice is that everyone is entitled to basic liberties. The second is the difference principle, which is meant to show there can be inequality within society if it can help those who are disadvantaged. “Laws and institutions, no matter how efficient and well arranged, must be reformed or abolish if they are unjust.” (A Reader page 203) Aristotle’s views are unjust by nature. Since no one is truly born to be a slave, Aristotle’s justification is invalid according to Rawls. In his first principle, basic liberties, slaves have no liberties or say in the government and therefore Aristotle’s view is again invalid. Another thing is that slaves are not given potions and can not vote like women of the time, so how are slaves benefiting if they have no voice? Even Rawls contracts the slaves did not agree or sell themselves to slavery to was forced upon them. “It is fair what is agreed to?” (Rawls Right Thing To Do page 143) If a …show more content…
Mill’s Utilitarian view of happiness is just as flawed as Aristotle’s justification for slavery. This is because going to back to Utilitarianism is promoting the greatest happiness and has no regard for individual rights. It may cause people to be unhappy, but if it brings the greatest joy to the community, then it's justifiable. Another reason why I would prefer Rawls is going back to veil of ignorance, if we were in together a place where there are no classes, race, gender etc it would only seem fair to give everyone an equal chance in life. Rawls’s veil of ignorance is the antithesis to Aristotle’s justification of slavery because no one was born is a natural slave. We were born into something because of chance whether it's rich or poor it all was predetermined and we no control over. His first principle states that everyone is entitled to basic rights which goes against Aristotle’s slavery because slaves have little to no rights. On top of that, slaves are not really benefiting. His beliefs of basic rights protects me from enslavement since it was forced upon me and I didn't actually agree to become slave. Aristile only favor masters who voted and participated in government. When he criticized the oligarchs is was because they were only in it for themselves. It is better to be in even playing field because you will never know if you will end up a slave. Aristotle justification only