Many universities around the United States require students to take philosophy as a university core class.  Philosophy is an important subject for students because it broadens a student’s view on the workings of the world and proposes an important question: what makes humans, human? One of the most popular and studied philosophers in world history is Aristotle. For over two thousand years, the work of Aristotle has been influencing philosophers, scientists, and students alike. Across generations, this influence has shaped Western culture from the social dynamics of class and how people treat each other, to policy decisions of government. Although greatly influential, not all of Aristotle’s beliefs have had a positive impact. One such belief is that some people are naturally slaves, and some are naturally masters. This belief has a had a damaging effect through history starting with the earliest fifteenth century European explorers and continuing through today.

            Aristotle’s book, Politics, is arguably one of the most read books in Western society. Written in the fourth century BCE, it should come as no surprise that some of the ideas in the book are outdated for the twenty-first century. In his book, Aristotle states, “from the hour of their birth, some are marked for subjection, others for rule.”1 With this quote, Aristotle is stating his belief that some people are born naturally inferior to others. In history, this concept can be seen in obvious and commonly applied ways such as slavery and bondage, as well as less commonly known manifestations such as race science. 

During the European expansion into the Americas, Spanish colonists argued that indigenous people that lived in the Americas were barbaric and subhuman; therefore, it was the natural state of the indigenous people to be inferior to the Spanish. One influential Spaniard that held this belief was Juan Gines de Sepulveda. Sepulveda was an avid supporter of Aristotle’s beliefs and studied his work frequently. In Politics, Aristotle discusses his concept of inferiority by employing the terms “master” and “slave.” Sepulveda then used these same terms for his beliefs. During the Valladolid debate (1550-51), Sepulveda applied his knowledge of Aristotle’s concept to argue in favor of enslaving the indigenous population in South America with the Spaniards as their masters. As an indirect result of Sepulveda’s argument, the Spanish enslaved the indigenous people believing it was their right and their duty to eliminate cannibalism and human sacrifices practiced by this inferior group. It is important to note that although the Spanish Crown deemed slavery technically illegal in the Americas via the New Laws of the 16th Century, the practicality of the laws was not sound, causing slavery to continue on in Spanish America for centuries. In the years that followed, this idea grew to encompass the migration into North America. Soon Native Americans were joined as inferior by the African population brought to the Americas as slaves. Groups beyond the Spanish began taking up Sepulveda’s basic argument for inferiority and soon the British and Portuguese joined in on the control and mistreatment of those they deemed inferior. It’s clear that Aristotle’s influence on Sepulveda helped to encourage the enslavement and subjugation of entire classes of people in the Americas.  

Aristotle’s concept was examined in a different light during the Enlightenment Period of the eighteenth century. The concept of “slave” and “master” at birth contradicted the beliefs of European philosophers that all humans were created equal and were entitled to certain rights. The Enlightenment Period paved the way for democracy to take hold in the British colonies in North America and in France in the late eighteenth century. In the American Declaration of Independence and the French Declaration of Rights of Men and of the Citizen, equality of men was a signature theme. That begged the question, if all men are created equal, why, then, was slavery allowed to exist in the lands that declared all men are free? This is similar to the question posed by Aristotle in Politics, “But is there any one thus 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?”2 Scientists of the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries responded by using scientific methods to investigate these questions. Unfortunately, previously learned Aristotelian beliefs of natural slavery were so engrained in the scientists, it prevented unbiased studies from being conducted. The scientists set out to prove that the black man’s intellect, reason, and maturity was inferior to that of the white man, justifying the institution of slavery. The dangers of Aristotle’s inferiority concept started as simple investigations to justify social inequality and grew into larger “studies” of hierarchies of race. 

Scientists began using anthropology and physical traits as a method to prove the inferiority of the African people. For example, one prominent voice on racial science was French aristocrat Arthur de Gobineau. He believed that the white race was the only race that naturally possessed beauty, strength, and intelligence. He further believed that any positive trait that the African possessed was because that person had some mixture of the white race. The emphasis on superior and inferior biological traits allowed for the continuation of slavery until the American Civil War when slavery was abolished. Scientists setting out to prove the inferiority of the black race did not stop. While the American government abolished slavery as an institution, it did not stop the physical attacks on black American nor did it promote black Americans as equals to the white Americans. Black Americans may have been freed from the institution of slavery, but they were not free from the societal slavery of being called inferior. In a way this new form of slavery could be considered worse than the institution because the former slaves were uneducated, unskilled, and unable to provide for themselves. They had the freedom of movement but no money to move their families off the plantations of former slave owners. 

Twenty-first century Americans may believe that racism in science is a thing of the past; that assumption is wildly inaccurate. For example, Nazi scientist Otmar von Verschuer and British eugenicist Roger Pearson, were unable to get their “studies” published so they created their own journal called Mankind Quarterly in 1961. Mankind Quarterly became a platform for race based scientific studies. Additionally, in 2005, Bruce Lahn published an article in the journal Sciencethat 5800 years ago “one genetic variant that was linked to the brain, among other things, had emerged and swept through populations as a result of evolution by natural selection.”3 This genetic variant increased the intelligence of certain populations. Lahn identified that those populations were “people living in Europe, the Middle East, North Africa and parts of east Asia, but was curiously rare in the rest of Africa and in South America.”4 Again, scientists are seeking to prove the inferiority and superiority of certain people from around the world. The superiority complex of people from Western culture is deeply rooted. Aristotle’s concept of natural inferiority is, to this day, frequently noted. In Ibram Kendi’s book, How to be an Antiracist, he refers to “biological racism.”5 No matter the phrasing used, biological racism or natural inferiority, it is clear that Aristotle’s original concept of race superiority still permeates our culture today.

Aristotle cannot be blamed for the race issues in modern America; however, this paper suggests that Aristotle’s belief in superior and inferior humans lead Sepulveda argue in favor of slavery some 1700 years after Aristotle’s death. The Enlightenment Period did not extend to the slaves from Africa because science was setting out to prove that people of dark complexion were savages and inferior to the white man. The science to prove that black Americans were inferior lead to racist scientific “studies”, “proving” that blacks did not deserve the same rights as whites. This notion of inferiority is the basis of biological racism that still plagues the United States and much of the white world. There is no suggestion that we should never study Aristotle, quite the contrary. Aristotle’s work should be studied by modern day philosophers and students, but in an ever-changing world it is the modern philosopher’s duty to think critically about the practical applications of a man who lived over two thousand years ago.

End Notes

1. Aristotle and Benjamin Jowett, Politics (New Delhi, India: Global Vision Publishing House, 2020), 8.

2. Ibid, 8.

3. Angela Saini, “The Disturbing Return of Scientific Racism,” WIRED UK (WIRED UK, June 13, 2019), https://www.wired.co.uk/article/superior-the-return-of-race-science-angela-saini.

4. Ibid

5. Ibram X. Kendi, How to Be an Antiracist (New York, NY: One World, 2019), 44.

Bibliography

Aristotle, and Benjamin Jowett. Politics. New Delhi, India: Global Vision Publishing House, 2020.

Kendi, Ibram X. How to Be an Antiracist. New York, NY: One World, 2019.

Saini, Angela. “The Disturbing Return of Scientific Racism.” WIRED UK. WIRED UK, June 13, 2019. https://www.wired.co.uk/article/superior-the-return-of-race-science-angela-saini.