Skip to main content

Why would a liberal object to Aristotle's understanding of political association?

The major difficulty in answering this question has to do with defining liberal. The term is thrown around somewhat at random in U.S. politics, and means something quite different than classical liberalism or neoliberalism, which in most other western countries are considered similar to the philosophies espoused by many "conservative" or Tory parties. For example, neoliberalism advocates free market economies while, for example, many people called "liberals" in the United States advocate strong government regulation and intervention in the economy.


There is one aspect of Aristotle's theory of political association that most modern people, including liberals of all stripes and almost anyone not a member of a neofascist political movement, would find objectionable. This has to do with Aristotle's theory of "natural slavery."


Aristotle believes that some people are "natural" masters and others are "natural" slaves. The former are have a high degree of innate intelligence and thus are most fitted to rulership. Natural slaves possess brute strength but lack higher order reasoning skills. According to Aristotle, certain races, such as the "barbarians" of northern Europe, due to their cold, sluggish natures are only suited to be slaves. Political association brings together slaves, who do brute physical labor in exchange for being guided by the reason of their masters, who develop complex forms of social organization, medicine, architecture, and other elements of society that require intelligence.


Aristotle not only believed that certain races were naturally inferior, but he also believed that women were naturally inferior to men. He objected strongly to democracy, feeling that societies should be run by a small group of qualified men. Most liberals (and, in fact, most people in modern western societies across the political spectrum) would find the sort of racism and misogyny repugnant. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

A man has a garden measuring 84 meters by 56 meters. He divides it into the minimum number of square plots. What is the length of the square plots?

We wish to divide this man's garden into the minimum number of square plots possible. A square has all four sides with the same length.Our garden is a rectangle, so the answer is clearly not 1 square plot. If we choose the wrong length for our squares, we may end up with missing holes or we may not be able to fit our squares inside the garden. So we have 84 meters in one direction and 56 meters in the other direction. When we start dividing the garden in square plots, we are "filling" those lengths in their respective directions. At each direction, there must be an integer number of squares (otherwise, we get holes or we leave the garden), so that all the square plots fill up the garden nicely. Thus, our job here is to find the greatest common divisor of 84 and 56. For this, we prime factor both of them: `56 = 2*2*2*7` `84 = 2*2*3*7` We can see that the prime factors and multiplicities in common are `2*2*7 = 28` . This is the desired length of the square plots. If you wi...
Post a Comment
Read more