Yunan uygarlığında ve Avrasya'da kurulan uygarlıklarda köleliğin müesseseleştiği görülmektedir. Köleleştirme sebepleri ve kölelere yapılan uygulamalar farklı olsa da köleler hemen hemen tüm iş kollarında ağır koşullarda çalışmıştır. İlk Çağ'da tarım, hayvancılık, beden gücüne dayanan zanaatlar ve denizcilikte kol gücüne duyulan ihtiyacın, köleliğin bir olgu olarak ortaya çıkmasına etki ettiği söylenebilir. Aristoteles de Atina'nın ekonomik koşullarını göz önünde bulundurarak köleliği değerlendirmiştir. Diğer uygarlıklarda olduğu gibi Yunanlarda da kölelerin özgürlüğe kavuştukları görülmektedir. Aristoteles vasiyetinde kölelerine mirastan pay ayrılmasını ve bazı kölelerin ise özgürlüğe kavuşturulmalarını varislerine tavsiye etmektedir. Aristoteles, kölelik olgusuna duyarsız kalmamış ve felsefi bakış açısıyla konuyu ele almıştır. Onun kölelik hakkındaki düşünceleri, içerisinde yaşadığı toplumun değer yargılarını yansıtmaktadır. O, köleliği doğal ve hukuki olmak üzere ikiye ayırır ve felsefi olarak temellendirmeye çalışır. Ona göre zihinsel yetileri yetersiz olan ya da zihinsel yetilerini tam olarak kullanamayanlar doğal olarak köledir. Böylece bu durumda olan insanların köleliğini haklı bir uygulama olarak sunmuştur. Hukuki olarak uygulanmakta olan kölelikte ise tamamen çifte standart ortaya koymuştur. Yunanlar dışında kalan milletlerin bir savaş sonucu hukuki olarak köleleştirilebileceğini kabul ederken Yunanların köleleştirilemeyeceğini iddia etmektedir. Aristoteles, Yunanların dışındaki milletlerin savaş sonucunda köleleştirilebileceğini kabul ederek, Yunan site devletlerinin dış kaynaklı kölelik anlayışlarını haklı çıkarmaktadır. Onun bu yaklaşımı evrensel insan doğasına aykırıdır

Slavery was institutionalized in Greek and Eurasian civilizations. Although the justifications for slavery and related practices are different, slaves worked in almost all fields under severe conditions. It can be said that the need for work in agriculture, livestock, and crafts based on physical strength in antiquity prompted the emergence of slavery. Aristotle also evaluated slavery by taking into account the economic conditions in Athens at the time. As in other civilizations, slaves were sometimes freed in Ancient Greece, and Aristotle suggested in his will that a share from the inheritance should be given to his slaves and some of them should to be freed. Aristotle did not remain insensitive to the concept of slavery and addressed the issue from a philosophical point of view. His thoughts on slavery reflect the value judgements of the society he lived in. He divides slavery into two categories, namely “natural” and “legal” slavery, and tries to ground it philosophically. According to him, those who are inadequate with respect to mental abilities or those who cannot fully exercise their mental abilities are naturally slaves. Thus, slavery in this case is introduced as a just practice. On the other hand, regarding legally practiced slavery Aristotle holds a double standard. While accepting that nations other than Greeks could be enslaved legally because of a war, he claims that Greeks cannot be enslaved. Accepting that nations other than Greeks could be enslaved as a result of war, Aristotle justifies the “outsourced” slavery of Greek city states. This approach is obviously contrary to the idea of universal human nature Did social and universal values have any effect on the opinions of Aristotle concerning slavery? If yes, what was the level of this effect? In the era when Aristotle lived, what were the attitudes of states and societies towards slavery? Were the views of Aristotle similar or different compared to practices in the First Age? In order to answer these questions, to begin with, the phenomenon of slavery in ancient civilizations should be analyzed. After this has been established, the meanings of his beliefs can be clarified. In their study, Early State, Henri J. M. Claessen and Pater Skalnik investigated the attitudes of the first states towards slavery. In their analysis, they found that slavery was institutionalized in 15 of the 21 early states. In four states, relevant data could not be acquired and in two states, there was no phenomenon of slavery (Claessen and Skalnik, 1993: 174-177). This indicates that slavery emerged and became systematized with the early states. The states established in Mesopotamia, Egypt, Anatolia, China and India were observed to acknowledge and practice slavery as a phenomenon. In the states of the First Age, the resources of slavery have great similarities. In all of the states established in the regions listed above, war captives were enslaved. As the number of wars increased, the number of slaves also increased. In most of these states, the resources of slavery comprised indebted people, criminals and traded children. In the lowest social stratum, there stood the slaves (Ekinci, 2015: 33-82). Despite the fact that there were differences in the practice, they were forced to work under aggravated conditions at tasks that required physical strength. Although in some states slaves had certain rights, such as property ownership, marriage with the free and being a party in legal procedures, they were deprived of the basic human right of freedom. The resources of slavery that were approved by the cultural and religious values of Greek society were almost the same as those in the states of the First Age. Furthermore, pirates kidnapped free people and traded them as slaves. This led to a widespread slave trade. Wars and financial developments also increased the number of slaves in Ancient Greece. Colonies established by Greeks on the Mediterranean and Black Sea coasts led to improvements in trade and, as trade improved, a need for a workforce emerged. Addressing this need with slaves led to an increase in the number of slaves. This resulted in many people being slaves, as long-term investments. Those who invested in long-term businesses became enslaved when they were unable to pay their debts on time. This caused an increase in the number of people who became slaves because of debt. A small number of aristocrats benefited from the long-term investments. This led to monopolization and social unease. As a result of these financial developments, certain aristocrats who lost power, demanded reform. Individual legal experts, such as Solon, were provided with the authority to reconstruct society. With his reforms, there was a significant decrease in the number of slaves (Tanilli, 2015: 216- 232; Şenel, 2013: 124-125). However, aristocratic values dominated these reforms and slavery once again became popular, as slaves were mostly used in agricultural production and mercantile trade. The public also perceived slavery as a legitimate practice and therefore the reforms that were made were not conclusive. Aristotle was born in such a cultural and economic environment. His father was a physician in the palace; as a result, he spent his childhood around the palace. During his childhood, he made friends with the crown prince and he tutored Alexander the Great when he grew up (Weischedel, 2014: 55-57). This may have caused him to have aristocratic attitudes. For a long time, Aristotle attended Plato’s academy and took some classes from him. Naturally, his teacher influenced him in certain topics. Plato classified people according to their spiritual characteristics and thought it natural for those whose spiritual aspects were more dominant to enslave those who pursued sensual pleasures (Plato, 2015: 331). Therefore, the opinions of Aristotle regarding slavery could be interpreted as a reflection of the ideas of his teacher. According to the accounts that are available today, it is understood that before Plato, famous philosophers such as Heraclitus and Democritus accepted slavery. Several Greek philosophers, including Antiphon who lived in the 5th Century, emphasized that all human beings should have equal and comparable rights. Despite the fact that Antiphon and such philosophers were not taken into account in the cultural environment of those times,after two thousand years the opinions of Antiphon started to be accepted and defended in the West. Aristotle interpreted slavery by considering the general practices in and around Athens. As he was not able to dissociate himself from the values of his time, he remained under their influence and acted with prejudice. He made a philosophical analysis of slavery and classified it in two ways: as natural and legal slavery (Tannenbaum and Schultz, 2007: 78-79). Based on a subjective thesis that some people did not have the thinking capacity of the spirit, Aristotle created the natural slavery concept because in the conditions of those times, it was not possible to prove through experimentation that slaves did not have the capacity to think. Therefore, in his thesis, he tried to conceptualize theoretically that slaves did not have the capacity to think, instead of using an experimental approach. Based on this approach, he stated that some people should be born slaves. Aristotle expressed that the second type of slavery was contractual. Contractual slavery was the enslavement of the war captives. This type of slavery was relatively common in the states of the First Age; as in those times, war captives were enslaved. Therefore, enslaving war captives became an international practice. Aristotle agreed to the enslavement of captives of a rightful war; however, he stated that the Greek war captives could not be enslaved. Aristotle perceived the Greeks as a superior race and reached such a conclusion. He tried to prove his opinion theoretically. According to him, weather conditions affected the human character, either positively or negatively. Races that remained outside the Greek lands did not have administrative skills, as they were under the influence of negative climate conditions. On the other hand, the Greeks had administrative skills as they lived in the most suitable climate conditions. Therefore, it was inappropriate to enslave them legally (Aristotle, 2000: 207). Aristotle’s approach did not mean anything other than presupposition of Greeks being the superior race and did not depend on any objective criteria. This prejudiced approach of Aristotle was quite similar to the approaches of Jews towards slavery. Jews did not have Jewish slaves; they enslaved the people of other races. Aristotle tried to attribute a philosophical foundation to the publicly approved and institutionalized slavery practices. He agreed that the people and nations, who did not meet the subjective criteria that he determined, could be enslaved, and he instrumentalized them. Therefore, he perceived slaves as the instruments of production. The economic conditions and aristocratic social order of the First Age were main determinants in the development of his opinions on this issue. Furthermore, his opinions about slavery were a part of the elitist approach and far behind even some states of the First Age. For instance, while Aristotle perceived slaves as commodities, the Hittites accepted them as parties in law. The fact that Aristotle accepted slavery as a phenomenon and attributed a philosophical basis to slavery could be seen as a reason for the institutionalization of slavery or its perception as a legitimate practice after him. While interpreting contracted slavery in terms of mental ability and virtues, he did not consider basic human rights. Slavery continued in the West until the philosophical opinions based on basic human rights were legitimized. In the event that Aristotle, who has an important place in the history of philosophy, interpreted slavery on objective grounds and basic human rights, instead of subjective judgments, the solution to this issue could be included in the priorities of philosophy a long time ago. Aristotle emphasized that slavery should continue as long as the need for such as workforce remained. According to him, what made slavery necessary was the method of production or economic conditions.