sense the most perfectly civilised man has attained his natural state. The latter sense is the one which Aristotle generally has in his mind; he generally means by “nature” the normal and perfect state of things, or a power in the world working towards that normal state. But the question arises, How do we know what is the perfect and normal state of things? Philosophers are too apt to dignify by the name of “nature” any arrangement for which they may have a predilection. And Aristotle cannot be entirely exonerated from having done so. He sometimes attributes a sort of divine right to things as they are, calling them “natural.” Thus he treats of the family as “naturally” constituted of man, wife, child, and slave. Certain reformers of the 4th century B.C. had already lifted up their voices against the institution of slavery. They had argued that the slave was of the same flesh and blood as his master, and might be as good as he; and that, in short, slavery was merely an unjust and oppressive custom which mankind could and should alter. But to the mind of Aristotle slavery was a necessary institution in order to provide citizens with that amount of leisure which would enable them to live ideal lives in the pursuit of the true and the beautiful (see above, p. 101). Therefore with unconscious bias he proceeded to argue that slavery was “natural,” on the ground that some races of men were by “nature” born to serve, being deficient in that “large discourse” of reason which other men possessed, and which gave them a “natural” right to command. He seeks for external indications of this great difference
