questions held more than mere philosophical interest. On the contrary, they
bore directly on the issue of how the peoples of distant lands should be
treated by the Europeans who traveled there, particularly if they came as
representatives of princes or of the church (Todorov 1992 ; Watner 1987 ). For
Juan Gine ́s de Sepu ́lveda ( 1494 – 1573 ), the Spanish colonists were right to
regard the native Americans not as humans but as natural slaves, inferior to
Europeans as children were to parents, women were to men, and cruel people
were to the mild. In the controversy at Valladolid in 1550 this theologian and
philosopher defended these views before Charles V, against the arguments of
Bartholome ́ de las Casas ( 1484 – 1566 ), who contended that the natives of
America were human and could not rightly be enslaved. Although both
men thought that the natives could not be left to govern themselves, Las
Casas held that they should be governed just like the people of Spain,
according to the universal standards of natural law (Hanke 1994 ).
The Dominican theologian, Francisco de Vitoria, went further to make it
clear that the wish to extend the empire could not serve as a basis for just war.
Nor could conquest be justiWed by pointing to the idolatory or unnatural
sexual practices of the natives. The Spanish had the right to engage in lawful
commerce with the Indians of America, but no right to expropriate their
property; the right to preach but not to convert; the right of free passage but
not the right to inXict harm (Vitoria 1991 ).
These writings and disputes reveal the emergence of a debate within
Western thought that remains salient today. In part this is because discussions
of the status of the peoples of the new world did much to shape the
development of international law. But more broadly, these discussions estab-
lished the idea that all people should be viewed as participants, if not
members, of a global moral community—all of whom were bound to ac-
knowledge universal rights and obligations. In a stroke they established both
the humanity of distant peoples and the duty of these peoples to abide by
universal laws—regarding free passage or rights of commerce—of which they
knew nothing. In denying European princes the right of conquest, the
theologians and philosophers invoked moral principles that also denied
native peoples any claim to moral separateness or independence.
Today, the issues whichWrst provoked such controversy in the sixteenth
century are very much alive, although in a diVerent guise (Keal 2003 ). Four
centuries of colonialism have seen the economic and political transformation
of Asia, Africa, and the Americas, as well as important changes to the cultural
composition of Western societies that have seen an inXux of immigrants of
582 chandran kukathas