Aristotle’ssupportforslaveryiswellknown;hethoughtthat
somemenareslavesbynatureandthatslaveryisbothright
andexpedientforthem.Imentionthisnotinordertodiscredit
Aristotle, but because it is essential for understanding his
attitudetoanimals.Aristotleholdsthatanimalsexisttoserve
thepurposesofhumanbeings,although,unliketheauthorof
Genesis, he does not drive any deep gulf between human
beings and the rest of the animal world.
Aristotle does not deny that manis an animal; in fact he
definesmanasarationalanimal.Sharingacommonanimal
naturehowever,isnotenoughtojustifyequalconsideration.
For Aristotle
themanwhoisbynaturea slaveisundoubtedlya human
being,andisascapableoffeelingpleasureandpainasany
otherhumanbeing;yetbecauseheissupposedtobeinferior
tothefreemaninhisreasoningpowers,Aristotleregardshim
asa “livinginstrument.”Quiteopenly,Aristotlejuxtaposes
thetwoelementsinasinglesentence:theslaveisonewho
“though remaining a human being, is also an article of
property.”^3
Ifthedifferenceinreasoningpowersbetweenhumanbeings
isenough tomakesome mastersandothers theirproperty,
Aristotlemusthavethoughttherightsofhumanbeingstorule
over otheranimals too obvious torequire muchargument.
Nature,heheld,isessentiallyahierarchyinwhichthosewith
less reasoning ability exist for the sake of those with more:
Plantsexistforthesakeofanimals,andbrutebeastsforthe
sake ofman—domesticanimals forhisuseand food,wild
ones (or at any rate most of them) for food and other
accessories of life, such as clothing and various tools.