Can someone explain Aristotle's theory of natural slavery?

[fakename]

Originally Posted by sw85

By "natural slave," Aristotle simply meant people who are incapable of directing their lives and so need someone else to do it for them. It's not the same thing as slavery the legal institution (though, as he noted, slavery as a legal institution is best suited for natural slaves; people who are not natural slaves will tend to chafe at the arrangement). He's basically talking about idiots. We all know people like this, myself included -- my brother is one such idiot. If he had to live on his own, he'd probably die. Frankly I'm surprised he's lived this long even as a total leech off my father's seemingly boundless good will.

It's a regrettable thing that our fetish for democratism has led us to abandon the historically common-sense recognition that some people are simply irreparably stupid and unable to lead well-ordered lives on their own. We used to recognize this fact and make arrangements for how to deal with these people, who often need a strong dose of paternalism. Now we don't. The consequences are predictable. Lots of them wind up violent criminals.

But they would make rather bad servants wouldn't they? How would this benefit the master? And there are plenty of people who are inept due to a lack of common sense and not really a lack of pure intelligence. So that being the case, how would they not be natural slaves?

[sw85]

Originally Posted by fakename

But they would make rather bad servants wouldn't they? How would this benefit the master? And there are plenty of people who are inept due to a lack of common sense and not really a lack of pure intelligence. So that being the case, how would they not be natural slaves?

The point is not to benefit the master. (Nor is it necessary to make literal slaves of actual slaves). The point is to protect them from themselves, and to protect society from them. I don't see that the common sense/IQ distinction is very interesting; my idiot brother probably has a higher IQ than me, he just can't do anything with it because he's a bum.

It's not a will to power thing. The ancients didn't really think like that and it's anachronistic to impose that sort of idea on them.

[fakename]

Originally Posted by sw85

The point is not to benefit the master. (Nor is it necessary to make literal slaves of actual slaves). The point is to protect them from themselves, and to protect society from them. I don't see that the common sense/IQ distinction is very interesting; my idiot brother probably has a higher IQ than me, he just can't do anything with it because he's a bum.

It's not a will to power thing. The ancients didn't really think like that and it's anachronistic to impose that sort of idea on them.

Could you explain this further and/or provide a source that explains natural slavery in your manner?