 Hello, my name is Monty Johnson. In this video, I'm going to discuss Aristotle's politics Book one and this is the first of two parts in this part I will discuss the first seven chapters on different kinds of rule on the definition and parts of the state and on the defense of slavery and critique of despotic rule And I'm using the Oxford translation of Benjamin Jowett, which is available in the public domain First an outline of the entire book the first two chapters are devoted to the definition of the state and Offer an account of its origin and growth through a combination of its elements People and it also draws a distinction between two kinds of rule In the third chapter Aristotle introduces the idea of household management or economics as being a presupposition of politics and political science in Chapters four to seven he offers a critique of despotic rule that is the rule of masters over slaves in chapters eight to eleven he Describes how household management is distinguished from the art of acquisition and he offers a critique of wealth-getting Which he calls an unnatural form of the art of acquisition and in the final two chapters 12 and 13 He differentiates and compares despotic paternalistic and political forms of rule Now in the first chapter Aristotle introduces a number of Relationships between rulers and ruled and explains that they differ in kind not merely in quantity So he discusses a flawed concept of the difference between these different kinds of rulers a Flawed concept that holds that it's just a matter of the quantity of those ruled So a master rules over one or a few slaves a household Manager rules over a few more people one or a few slaves plus his wife and some children a King rules over many more many such households consisting of slaves wives and children and so forth and finally a statesman rules over Many more and is ruled in turn. He says The view that these kinds of rule are all part of a single master Science differentiated only by the quantity of those ruled is advanced in Plato's statesman Aristotle doesn't explicitly refer to this Dialogue but he says that all of this is a mistake Because governments differ in kind which he says will be evident to anyone who considers the matter according to the method Which is hitherto guided us although he doesn't make it clear exactly which method he has in mind It is probably explained in his subsequent definition of the state and explanation of how these come into being now he just defines the state as a community of some kind and He points out that every community is established with a view to some good for Humans or mankind always act in order to obtain that which they think is good but if all communities aim at some good the state or political community which is the highest of all and Which embraces all the rest aims at good in a greater degree than any other and at the highest good So therefore political science which corresponds to this state which aims at All the other goods and to a greater degree than any other has a claim for being the highest kind of science Now he says as in other departments of science so in politics the compound should always be resolved into the simple Elements or least parts of the whole and this is the method that he seems to have referred to in That I mentioned on the previous slide He says we must therefore look at the elements of which the state is composed in order that we may see In what the different kinds of rule differ from one another and whether any scientific result can be attained about each one of them So this really shows the overall object I think of this entire book which is to distinguish the different kinds of rule show that they are different in kind and not merely in quantity and Determined to what extent a science corresponds to each one So for example if the rule of a master over a Slave is different from the rule over wives and children and the rule over wives and children is again different from the rules over Equal citizens then the question arises whether there is a science corresponding to each of those kinds of rules a science of mastery a science of domestic or economic Government and a science of the state or the political community Now in chapter 2 Aristotle describes the origin and growth of the state from families and Villages and he even explains how families come together First advancing a principle of union which he takes to be a very general principle So he says in the first place there must be a union of those who cannot exist without each other Namely of male and female that the race may continue and this is a union Which is formed not of deliberate purpose, but because in common with other animals and with plants Mankind have a natural desire to leave behind them an image of themselves and Again the principle applies to Natural ruler and subject that both may be preserved for that which can foresee By the exercise of mind is by nature intended to be lord and master and that which can with its body give Effect to such foresight is a subject and by nature a slave hence master and slave have the same interest so Because of this principle of union males and females necessarily come together out of a kind of biological necessity to Reproduce but also natural rulers and subjects that his masters and slaves Aristotle asserts naturally come together Now though he assumes that the same principle accounts for the union of both male and female and Natural ruler and subject or master and slaves He is quick to point out that females and slaves differ by nature only barbarians treat their wives as slaves And the implication is that there is a different kind of rule Proper to slaves and proper to women or other spheres of the household such as children The former kind of rule we can call despotic meaning rule of the master and the latter Domestic or paternalistic the rule of the husband over the wife or of the father over the children So the origin of the family is that individuals unite together for the sake of basic needs So quote the family is the association established by nature for the supply of men's every day once But the origin of the village is that various Families unite for the sake of goods beyond their daily needs beyond what is necessary just to survive quote When several families are united and the association aims at something more than the supply of daily needs The first society to be formed is the village and of quote Then the state is formed when villages unite for the sake of self-sufficiency and in fact the good life Quote when several villages are united in a single complete community large enough to be nearly or quite self-sufficing The state comes into existence originating in the bare needs of life and Continuing in existence for the sake of a good life So the family comes to be for the sake of life itself the origin of the Village the village comes to be for the sake of going beyond those Everyday basic needs and the state for the sake of a kind of self-sufficiency and good life So Aristotle holds and this differentiates him from some but not all modern political theorists But he holds that the state is Natural it is not an artificial thing constructed only by humans It's a natural thing that arises in nature and there are analogies in nature Among gregarious animals and other kinds of animals like bees and ants and so forth two things that look like Economic and political communities, but humans he says are the only true political animals So quote if the earlier forms of society and he's referring again to families and villages are natural Then so is the state for it is the end of them and the nature of a thing is its end For what each thing is when fully developed we call its nature whether we're speaking of a man a horse or a family so in essence Aristotle sees the state as the final and complete development of The forms of association that we see in families and villages those are just in a way Proto states when we when it finally comes to maturity In a state then we have a complete and self-sufficient Good and the possibility of a good life and not mere life and survival and so Aristotle again conceives of this entire process is natural and says quote hence it is evident that the state is a creation of nature and that a human is by nature a Political animal and he who by nature and not by mere accident is without a state is Either a bad man or is above humanity He's like the tribalist lawless Heartless one whom Homer denounces the natural outcast is then a lover of war And he may be compared to an isolated peace or pawn in a board game So here we see again the Serious view that the state is a creation of nature that it is a sort of natural development or evolution and that humans are merely Activating their nature when they contribute to a political society and Though there are other analogous things to Political communities among the animals humans are clear in a way the most political of animals and in fact Really the only truly political animals because they can use a speech and reason and Therefore have a sense of good and bad just and unjust and convey that to other people and reach agreements and disagreements with them Quote now that man is more of a political animal than bees or any other gregarious Animals is evident nature as we often say makes nothing in vain and man is the only animal whom she has endowed with the gift of speech And whereas mere voice is but an indication of pleasure or pain And is therefore found in other animals for their nature Attains to the perception of pleasure and pain and the intimation of them to one another and no further The power of speech is intended to set forth the expedient and Inexpedient and therefore likewise the just and the unjust and it is characteristic of a human That or a man that he alone has any sense of good and evil of just and unjust And the like and the association of living beings who have this sense makes a family and a state now one implication of This natural development of the state of which humans are a part is that the state is prior to the individual and Also that individual humans can be the best or worse of all natural things So he offers a kind of part whole argument to the conclusion that the state is prior to the individual Quote the state is by nature clearly prior to the family and to the individual Since the whole is of necessity prior to the part for example if the whole body be destroyed There will be no foot or hand except in an equivalent Equivocal sense as we might speak of a stone hand for when destroyed the hand will be no better than that But things are defined by their working and power And we ought not to say that they are the same when they no longer have their proper quality But only that they have the same name the proof that the state is a creation of nature and Prior to the individual is that the individual when isolated is not self-sufficing and therefore He is like a part in relation to the whole But he who is unable to live in society or has no need because he is sufficient for himself Must be either a beast or a god He is no part of a state a social instinct is implanted in all humans by nature So humans cannot exist in isolation from a community. They cannot exist as humans They cannot pursue the good life, but they must live like beasts or if they are entirely self-sufficient Then they must live like gods, but humans occupy a kind of middle condition between these two Where they must engage in politics They cannot be sufficient to themselves, but only in the context of a political community and so a political community is a great benefit to human beings and Quote yet he who founded the state was the greatest of benefactors For a human when perfected is the best of the animals, but when it separated from law and justice is the worst of all So Aristotle argues that in the context of a political community when working together towards the common end The common good that humans can achieve the best things in all Nature, but when they're separated from this and separated from law and justice, they can be the worst things in nature again continuing with the quote since armed justice is the more dangerous and Humans are equipped at birth with arms meant to be used by intelligence and virtue But which he may use for the worst of ends Wherefore if he have not virtue He is the most unholy and the most savage of animals and the most full of lust and gluttony But justice is the bond of men in states for the administration of justice Which is the determination of what is just is the principle of order in political society so the principle of order in political society is justice and When humans live in accordance with this justice in a political society They reach the highest fulfillment that any natural thing is capable of When they perverted or deform it or attempt to live apart from it They live in some kind of subhuman or bestial condition and in fact can be the most as he says unholy and Savage of all the animals who cannot of course rival humans in their Vice and ability to do evil because we possess such more effective arms a point far more true In the age of nuclear weapons than it was in the time Aristotle was writing, but the same point obtains Now in the third chapter Aristotle introduces the idea of household management as a necessary part of the state and here he really describes the various parts of the household so since the state is made up of these family Households we have to consider what makes up a family household itself And by the way the Greek term for a family household is Oikia And this is the root of English words like economics and ecology Economics being the laws of household management ecology being something like the scientific account of the environment or the dwelling in which we live Now the fewest parts of a family household are Master and slave husband and wife father and children Aristotle says He says you also need an art of acquisition. That's part of household life but most of household life consists of a set of Ruling and ruled relationships the master slave relationship, which we call despotic The husband wife relationship, which we call domestic father child relationship paternalistic and The acquisition and management of resources used by the household. We call economic And Aristotle treats each of those subjects in the subsequent chapters of this book So he discusses despotic rule in chapters 4 to 7 domestic rule and paternalistic rule in chapter 12 and Economic rule including acquisition and management of household resources in chapters 8 to 11 So again this point about differentiation of kind of rule Structures the entire book Now why does he discuss it in this order? Why does he immediately go on to discuss master and slave and not husband and wife or father and child which you might think By nature are prior Aristotle says let us speak first of master and slave Looking to the needs of practical life and also seeking to attain some better theory of their relation than exists at present For summer of the opinion that the rule of a master is a science and that the management of a household and the Mastership of slaves and the political and royal rule as I was saying at the outset are all the same So again, the reason he wants to return this point is because he wants to show that these are These various kinds of rule are not the same And they are not different just on the basis of the quantity of who is ruled but they differ in kind and that difference in kind can be between for example political or even domestic and paternalistic rule and despotic rule Can be shown most clearly by contrast to despotic cool So in chapter 4 and the next three chapters Aristotle discusses Despotical the rule of master over a slave. He says is a necessary part of household management so He's just mentioned some people who think that it's an important science and some people who even think that the science of politics is Essentially the same thing just a matter of a difference of quantity He points to other people who quote affirm that the rule of master over slaves is Contrary to nature and that the distinction between slave and freemen exists by law or by convention only and not by nature and Being an interference with nature is therefore unjust that he says at the very end of chapter 3 So in chapter 4 he discusses their view Now who are these critics of slavery Aristotle doesn't name them and we're not sure They may have been radical Democrats who actually argued for extending the right to of political rights To former slaves or at least those who are worthy among former slaves It could have been Sophists who argued for all kinds of controversial subjects like giving Incomiums to Alan of Troy or arguing that nothing exists and so forth It could have been early cynical philosophers who Claimed that there's no distinction between the mass of humanity and slaves or non philosophers and slaves Sophists and early cynics made a big Distinction between What exists by nature and what exists merely by law or convention this appears to be an argument of the of that kind and So those are pretty good guesses, but the fact of the matter is we don't know who these are the views of Opponents of slavery have not been preserved. It's not hard to see why Because the people who could afford to copy books were probably mostly slave owners and people who didn't want those other arguments copied out and So It was a lot more likely that the arguments in favor of slavery would be copied out by the people paying for these kind of books perhaps Now Aristotle offers to prima facia arguments in favor of rule of masters over Slaves and over the next couple of slides will look in detail at each of those arguments the first is that slaves are Necessary tools that is their tools that are necessary for the natural functioning of the family household Again, the family household is a natural part of the village in a village the natural a natural part of the state And so slaves are necessary tools for the natural functioning of the entire state Further the second argument is that slaves are actually parts of their masters and are Imperfect or incomplete somehow without them Okay, so the first of those two arguments which you can call the hypothetical necessity argument that if We're going to live the good life or if the household is going to be managed correctly and in accordance with nature Then slaves will be necessary They aren't sort of absolutely Necessary, but they are necessary on the hypothesis that some natural end is going to be achieved And so here's a kind of reconstruction of that argument first We assume that property like land buildings tools Is Hypothetically necessary part of the household without it a family household can't possibly exist or sustain itself And it would be impossible for anyone to live well without these things and living Well is again the natural end of both the household and the state Now second tools are Hypothetically necessary property without tools Property itself cannot possibly be used correctly or used well so you need tools for building buildings for maintaining buildings for Cultivating land for constructing and making use of other tools and even as we'll see using other tools So this third premise is that slaves are hypothetically necessary tools tools being of two kinds One kind animate the other inanimate The animate ones Aristotle argues are primary because they engage in activities that use the tools The other tools merely help produce the things that we need so he compares a rudder on a ship as a kind of inanimate tool to a Pilot who is a kind of animate tool you need both kinds in order for these to function and slaves are necessary For tools to be used property properly Now here Aristotle actually digresses to Make a quite extraordinary remark. He says quote if every instrument could accomplish its own work obeying or anticipating the will of others like the statues of Daedalus or the tripods of Hephaestus Which says the poet of their own accord entered the assembly of the gods if in like manner the shuttle would weave and The Plecton touched the liar without a hand to guide them chief workmen would not want servants nor masters slaves so he actually sort of imagines a situation where through you know some kind of perhaps technological innovation Tools could work themselves could be automated to sort of automatically do the work So you can have a kind of automatic robotic person to work your Robot to work your vacuum and then you wouldn't need Servants to do it or other people to do it as it is Tools can't work themselves and so they require Animate workers in order to function correctly and of course we need them to function correctly in order to maintain Our property and we need to maintain our property in order to maintain the household That is necessary for the state to exist and for us to flourish and have the good life Therefore we draw the conclusion that slaves are hypothetically necessary for the natural end of the state that is the good life to come about Now the second kind of argument might be independent is another kind of part whole argument and This results in a definition of a slave as a human that is possessed by another So quote a possession is spoken of as a part is spoken of for the part is not only a part of something else But holy belongs to it and this is also true of a possession So a thing that's possessed is like a part of its possessor and the master is only the master of the slave He doesn't belong to the slave whereas the slave is not only the slave of his master, but holy belongs to him And a possession may be defined as an instrument of action separable from the possessor but still according to the prior premise still Belonging to him hence. We see what is the nature and office of a slave And here's the definition Quote he who is by nature not his own but another's human being is by nature a slave And he may be said to be another's human being who being a human being is also a possession So the question then becomes who Among us among human beings is a possession and is another's human being and that of course Adverts to the question who is by nature a slave so the next task is going to be determined if If anyone is by nature a slave and if so who? So this leads Aristotle to discuss the appearance of despotic rule or power in nature itself So he again asks is there anyone intended by nature to be a slave and for whom such a condition is Expedient and right or rather is not all slavery a violation of nature So this is one of the clearest and earliest extant Raisings of that question whether or not slavery is not actually contrary to nature and thus unjust But Aristotle says that there's no difficulty in answering the question He says on grounds of both reason and fact For that some should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only necessary But expedient From the hour of their birth some are marked out for subjection Others for rule Now he makes this argument on the basis of a kind of inductive argument or argument from analogy where he describes seven or eight kinds of natural hierarchical Relationships between rulers and ruled that Seem to exist out there in nature in parallel to one another so he says in Even if we take inanimate substances, there is a kind of dominant element in them and This is like a ruler compared to the other elements that exist in those things which are ruled So the dominant if the dominant element in the thing is fire then it will tend to be hot even if it Contains a bit of earth or water, which would be cold these get ruled and dominated by the dominant element and he says in musical melodies even among notes, there's the kind of keynote and then the other notes and This he describes as a kind of ruler ruled Relationship one on a par with master slave Relationships among living things he says the soul is naturally a ruler and the body is naturally ruled so we think that my mind or my soul rules my body and that parts of my body like my hands or my legs are Like my servants or slaves and that I should not be enslaved to my hand or my feet but it my hand or my feet should be enslaved to me and in souls in general the intellect of the rational part rules the appetite or Irrational part by nature and in nature among animals humans naturally rule the irrational animals or beasts and This is parallel in the social sphere in marriages Males rule females or husbands rule wives in families parents rule children and Then Now we should be prepared for the example. We're wondering about in households. There's a natural relationship between master and slave and in Aristotle's view in each case it is better that Those who are ruled are ruled and that the ruler is Dominant so it is better in producing melodies that the keynote really rule the other notes And it's really better for living things if their souls or minds rule their body parts and not vice versa Or that their intellect rules their appetites and they aren't let around like a slave He elsewhere says by their appetites Certainly it would be absurd if beasts ruled over humans He thinks it's equally absurd, although perhaps it's not if females rule over males As The idea that children would rule over parents No, these would all be violations of an apparent natural order of things that includes the rule of masters over Slaves and it's better that masters rule over slaves than vice versa So this leads to a conclusion and a revised definition of the slave Where then there is such a difference as that between Soul and body or between men and animals as in the case of those whose businesses to use their body and who can do nothing Better the lower sort are by nature slaves and it is better for them as For all inferiors that they should be under the rule of a master for He who can be and therefore is another's and he who participates in a Rational principle enough to apprehend but not to have such a principle is a slave by nature now in chapter 6 Aristotle describes further critics and Defenders of conventional slavery which is Can be differentiated from this natural kind of slavery which he has just set out by analogy to other natural things He points out that unnamed People have taken the opposite view and he says Importantly that they in a certain way are right And that can easily be seen and that's because the word slavery and slave are used in different senses there are Those who are slaves and there is slavery that exists only by law or convention as well as by nature So there's a law that says Whoever is taken in war is supposed to belong to the victors But this right to take and possess and own other people as spoils of war Many jurists he says without naming them impeach as They would an order who brought forward an unconstitutional measure This is a quote They detest the notion that because one man has the power of doing violence in a superior and brute strength Another should be his slave and subject and of quote now the response to this is that power implies virtue and virtue implies justice and Superior power is naturally found where there is superior Excellence and superior excellence is naturally able to exercise the greatest power So that makes it seem as if those who are exercising power must actually be just by virtue of the fact that they have power But there's really two different concepts of justice at play here One being something like goodwill the other Power power or rule of those who happen to be stronger now Critics of slavery embrace the idea that justice is something like goodwill Whereas advocates of conventional slavery define justice as mere power or rule of the stronger so they say that slavery is just because Slaves are ruled by those who are stronger their masters And thus one can object to the position and say that doesn't make it just just because they The powerful rule or the mighty get their way doesn't mean that justice is served So Aristotle describes a criticism of conventional slavery if Even if those who are taken in war are justly enslaved What if the war itself is unjust well then the enslavement Would have to be unjust and so all those taken slaves in an unjust war would not justly be slaves or Suppose that one's grandparents were Greek nobles who were captured and sold at the end of an unjust war as a result one's Parents were born into slavery and so was one's self then both the descendants of Greek nobles and descendants of their slaves would be slaves by convention and So people would naturally be both slaves and not slaves which seems like a contradiction So this conventional idea of slavery that it's just seems wrong Quote where for Greeks do not like to call Greeks slaves but can find the term to barbarians yet in using this language They really mean the natural slave of whom we spoke at first for it must be admitted that some are slaves everywhere others nowhere So Aristotle here restricts his justification of slavery Only to those who are natural the so-called natural Slaves and all the others those who either were captured in War or were born to those who were captured in war Their descendants none of those people does he have any justification for their slavery? Again, he claims to have justification for certain natural slaves All we have seen so far is that there is an analogy between the idea of natural slaves and certain other kinds of natural ruled ruler and ruled Relationships and we haven't really seen the way to identify who is naturally an actually slave But Aristotle next argues that some slaves are not just conventionally, but naturally slaves Quote they think that as men and animals beget men and animals So from good men a good man springs, but this is what nature though. She may intend it cannot always accomplish So that seems to indicate that sometimes good people can produce defective children That is children with certain kinds of congenital Defects and that such people will then naturally be slaves it also seems to imply that good people could produce as A freak accident as a genetic mutation or something could actually produce good people who wouldn't be slaves That would have a certain mental quality for example such that they weren't naturally slaves now neither of those Practices were widely observed at the time that he was writing, but that's a theoretical possibility opened by his argument So next he says quote We see then that there is some Foundation for this difference of opinion and that all are not either slaves by nature or freemen by nature And also that there is in some cases a marked distinction between the two classes Rendering it expedient and right for the one to be slaves and the others to be masters the one Practicing obedience the others exercising the authority and lordship with nature intended them to have So nature marks out certain people as defective and who are in need of The leadership authority and lordship of somebody else who naturally has it And according to Aristotle quote the abuse of this authority is Injurious to both for the interests of part and whole of body and soul are the same and the slave is a part of the master a Living but separated part of his bodily frame But a lot like a connected body part So again if I think of my hand as being like my slave it better do whatever I want my mind Controls my hand and it is better For my hand and for me in general if my mind controls my hand and my hand doesn't spasmatically control the rest of my body or something like that, but I Should not abuse this authority injuring my hand injures me and so a master shouldn't injure The slave because that's like injuring himself injuring a part of himself Now the difference is that this part of himself is separate from his bodily frame But it is still metaphysically considered part of the master Hence he says and this is a quote where the relation of master and slave between them is natural They are friends and have a common interest but where it rests merely on law and for us the reverse is true so if we look at each of those Natural composite holes in which there's a ruler ruled relationship in every case the ruler rules in the interest of Himself but also in the interest of the ruled and it is better for the rule to be ruled It's better for my body parts to be ruled by my mind. It's better for my appetites to be ruled by my intellect It's better for Beasts and animals to be ruled by humans It's better in theory for females to be ruled by males and it is better for slaves to be ruled by masters better for them now We can make a comparison of the different Sciences that correspond to these different kinds of ruling so we've just shown that the kinds of rule differ by nature and There are also corresponding kinds of knowledge or sciences which which Correspond to each of these kinds of rule So there is actually a science of being a master But also a science of being a slave and both of these sciences are according to Aristotle teachable But he says Quote this so-called science is not anything great or wonderful for the master need only know how to order that which the slave Must know how to execute So yes being a master is a science being a slave is a science But they aren't that big of a deal So the so-called despotic science of ruling within a household is Natural and necessary but not a great or wonderful thing Hence Aristotle says those who are in a position which places them above toil have Stewards who attend to their households will they occupy themselves with philosophy or with politics So if I have enough slaves carrying out the necessities Within my household I free up time to do philosophy or politics and thus realize the good life and a true kind of Flourishing But we can distinguish when that within the household This does product relationship between master and slave We can actually differentiate it between the other kinds of rule within a household among Members who were also unequal as slaves are to masters, but the Relationship is between free people so husband and wife are both free even though the husband rules the wife and the parents Who rule the children both the children and the parents are free Now it's only in the context of a fully developed state where we have free and equal People ruling over free and equal people But they take turns ruling and being ruled that we get the true political kind of rule and a kind of constitutional kind of rule as opposed to these despotic and monarchical or paternal kinds of rule So let me conclude this first part of part one of Aristotle's politics by making some Observations about his treatment of slavery Because the theory has been widely Influential and anybody who's interested in arguments for or against slavery must read and grapple with Aristotle's arguments Other kinds of arguments have been invoked from other literary sources in the history of slavery Including most obviously the Bible But Aristotle has lent intellectual authority to certain claims about slavery But a lot of these extensions of his theory are actually quite problematic as I've argued here his primary interest is showing that Kinds of rule differ not only in quantity, but in kind so political power is different than economic or paternalistic power and paternalistic power is different than despotic power and Aristotle critiques despotic power in several ways and it's important that we acknowledge that he is that his text presents the most complete critique of Slavery that survives from the ancient world Even though he's one of the most influential people in justifying slavery his criticism of slavery is also one of the most influential So he considers the kind of knowledge that Corresponds to the master to be nothing great and to be much inferior to the kind of political power or rule that pertains to equals and Second he recognizes that the dominant form of slavery taking and selling captives in war is contrary to nature and in fact unjust Now if we focus on the existence of people who suffer from some kind of congenital mental defect such that they're incapable of using reason to direct their own lives for the better in their own interest Then there may actually be some who fit Aristotle's conception of a natural slave For example those who do the congenital defect are severely mentally impaired or Others who are so through senility or Those like prisoners who through their criminal actions show a kind of mental impairment in the form of vice We think it's justified to deprive these people of freedom and we appoint others Guardians wardens etc in order to make decisions on their behalf and we think that this is not only just but we think that it's justified and That it is in the interest of those who are ruled that somebody else make decisions on their behalf But such examples of mentally disabled people apply Only in those cases where the subject the so-called slave would Actually benefit by being deprived of freedom and it would actually be cruel and unusual to leave them to make their own decisions But this doesn't describe accurately at least the vast majority of those who were actually enslaved when Aristotle was writing and it would of course be invalid to extrapolate from the Natural or just enslavement of such mentally impaired people that slavery in general Or as it is actually practice is justified Now it's not clear whether or not or if so how Aristotle expects us to extrapolate from the theoretical existence of some form of natural slavery to the justice of slavery As it was then being practiced in fact He himself seems to argue offer arguments against making such an extrapolation with his critique and differentiation of conventional from natural slavery So where we end up at this part in the politics is a differentiation of despotic rule from political rule political rule being stipulated rule between equals does despotic rule the paradigmatic kind of rule between unequals and Aristotle has shown which form of that he considers to be natural It remains for the other chapters in this book and thus for the next lecture To discuss the other kinds of rule that are exhibited within the household the rule of husband over wife and of parents over children and then other kinds of economic power that are exerted because they are necessary components of household management and Households management is a necessary component of political science. So stay tuned for that. Thank you