Saturday 8 March 2014

FATHER FRANK’S RANTS - Philosophy of Slavery


Rant Number 575        4 March 2014

Slaves

Some people are slaves by nature’ wrote Aristotle, forever angering yet unborn egalitarians. However, Will Durant argued that ‘slave’ is too harsh a translation of the Greek doulos. It was merely ‘the frank recognition of a brutal fact’ today ‘perfumed with talk about …the brotherhood of man.’ Indeed.
I doubt those rejoicing at the Oscar awards to the melodramatic weepie, 12 Years A Slave, would bother about the philosopher whom Dante calls ‘the Teacher of those who know’ but the question is worth asking: are there people who are naturally slavish or servile?
Anyone concerned only with the gratification of his non-rational desires is essentially a slave, Aristotle affirms. A slave’s soul is low, base and mean. He lacks proper, higher human aspirations because he readily accepts subordination, humiliation in order to escape pain – that is what makes him a slave. A being fit to be an instrument, ‘a living tool’, in the hands of his rational master.
Thus far, theory. Reality was otherwise. In the ancient world anyone captured in war could be enslaved, never mind how intellectually superior to his barbarous masters. Many Greek slaves were highly educated. They often served as teachers and tutors of their master’s children. A story has it that even Plato was sold into slavery once. But slavery was not necessarily a lifelong affair, pace Aristotle. Some slaves legally achieved manumission, freedom. Many became immensely rich and influential, like Pallas, secretary/minister of Emperor Claudius. That invalidates Aristotle’s definition – men like Pallas must have been highly capable chaps.
12 Years A Slave trades for its emotional blackmail on the colour issue. I ask: had the unfortunate protagonist been white, would the film have got the same acclaim? Note that ancient slavery had nothing to do with race. Your skin could be as white as the driven snow, your eyes as blue as a Finland lake and you hair as blond as bonehead Mayor Boris Johnson’s – if you were taken prisoner in war…you became a slave. And of course innumerable slaves were white. Turkish, Saracen and Barbary pirates thrived on such a vile trade. 16 year-old boy Joseph Pitts, for example, was seized by Algerian privateers during a sea voyage and sold into slavery. After many years of degrading servitude, he gained his freedom, eventually escaping back to his native England. Yes, England – a nation which itself transported hundreds of thousands of whites to the American colonies…as slaves!
It was not primarily thanks to the high-minded efforts of Christian abolitionists in Europe that slavery ended but because it was no longer economically necessary. As for theology: the Old Testament happily countenances slavery. In the New, Christ never condemns it. Nor does St Paul, although he urges masters to be kind to their slaves. Nonetheless, St Thomas Aquinas taught that servitude does not belong to the natural state of man but ‘was introduced for human convenience’. That means that society could not have functioned without the labour of slaves. Once proletarians would replace slave labour, that ‘convenience’ became inconvenient.
The Qur’an does not reject slavery, nor did the Prophet Muhammad. Hence for the four Sunni schools of Islamic jurisprudence slavery was perfectly legal. In the Saudi Kingdom – the land of the Wahhabis - slavery was only outlawed in 1962. I would inquire from Muslim scholars: as sharia’ is the sacred law of Islam, how can a divinely mandated thing that was for nearly 1400 years legal be made illegal? Is that possible?
Secular ethics. From a Kantian standpoint slavery is intrinsically immoral because it would violate the rational maxim to treat every person not exclusively as a means to your ends but as an end in himself. Aristotle of course could counter that a slave is not a person at all, therefore the reasoning is fallacious. Still, Kant’s position is powerful. Forcing someone into slavery seems incompatible with treating him as a moral subject, a locus of rights and duties. I see no way of refuting it, unless…What if someonevoluntarily decided to sell himself into slavery? It may seem an odd thing to do but not quite impossible. Subject to some basic conditions, like the master’s obligation to provide the slave with food, shelter, clothing and medical care. In contemporary societies, where state services and provisions grow increasingly scarce it might soon become a sensible option, who knows?
But might someone want, desire to be slave? Sounds implausible but not strictly logically absurd. Wouldn’t such a person then show himself to be exactly what Aristotle claimed a slave to be? Lacking in self-esteem, base, despicable, a slave by nature? Wouldn’t slavery, the servile condition, then suit him?
A crucial question is whether the aspiring slave would ipso facto wrong himself, do an injustice to himself, violate his own fundamental human rights. Kant of course would answer yes but not Aristotle. Thanks to his axiom that ‘no one willingly suffers injustice’. His interesting examples are that you can’t commit adultery with your spouse, burgle your own home or steal your own possessions. Thus, the fellow who willingly chose to be a slave could not be said to be unjust to himself…
Beyond logic, what bothers modern folks is the idea of slavery being attached to particular peoples or races. The helots, the indigenous inhabitants subjugated by the Spartans, were indeed one such people. Aristotle however did not think such races existed. He speaks of ‘bestial’ people but that denoted hideous customs, such as eating your own children, yak! Low, vile and mean-minded folks exist, alas, but they are to be found among any race.
‘What would you do if you were a slave, dad?’ asks impertinently Linus.
‘I would follow St Paul’s advice: I would obey my master.’
Revd Frank Julian Gelli

Copyright © *Revd Frank Gelli

No comments: