Utilitarianism Vs Aristotle

Aristotle, for all of his moral philosophy and talk of the good life, offers an argument for the enslavement of other human beings under certain specific circumstances. His point of view is shaped by the time he lived in, but that does not mean that we should accept it or overlook it. There are multiple ways to approach, and furthermore discuss the topic. However, this essay will proceed by detailing Aristotle’s reasonings for the moral justification of slavery, and then rebuke it using a Rawlsian approach contrasted with a Rule Utilitarian approach to reveal different aspects of both philosophies. Both can be successfully used to contest Aristotle’s beliefs, however the Rawlsian approach is more powerful and thorough in doing so because

This is due to his justification: Aristotle believes that if a man does not properly own himself, that he is then naturally more fit and more naturally able to be owned by someone else, and thereby better off being put to use as a beneficial instrument by a freeman (Reader 268). To give full context, one must understand the concept of telos. Telos is close in meaning to the word, “aim,” or “purpose,” but the reader describes it more as being the, “essential nature of the social practice in question” (Reader 301). The telos line of thinking is partially what allows for Aristotle’s mindset, as he follows the reasoning in a strangely linear way to his conclusion: one must look for the telos, and decide on whether something is right or not. Aristotle believes that there are people born to be enslaved, and that for these people, “the condition of slavery is both beneficial and just” (Reader 269), and this is the core justification behind his belief that slavery has a place in a moral

Utilitarianism certainly cannot be said to favor the institution of slavery, as being a slave would likely cause those being enslaved to become less happy and thereby cause a loss of utility; however, the utilitarian idea of the greatest good principle supports the rule upholding the institution of slavery so long as the overall utility to those slave-owners outweighs that of those who are enslaved (in general), according to the Greatest Happiness Principle (Reader 20). This is because it could still be argued that more people could possibly benefit from the utility of following the rule/norm of having slaves, regardless of the state of happiness of the slaves themselves. So long as one could prove that having a small amount of unhappy slaves could greatly and tangibly improve the greater public’s utility, it would be justified to have a law allowing slavery using rule utilitarianism-- and that does not even account for Aristotle’s idea that some slaves may actually somehow be benefitting from their state of