2. How would you argue against Aristotle’s defense of Natural slavery? Did he make false assumptions? Were his arguments illogical? Can you argue against his view starting from his assumptions? How?

Natural slavery is inhumane and degrading.

Explanation:

Although natural slavery seems like it makes sense for a constructive society and Aristotle thought that slaves needed their masters to survive because they were so helpless, he was generalizing and his argument is flawed when most of the slaves who were freed in the 1900s could survive well on their own. I think I can argue against Aristotles arguements for natural slavery because his assumption is that slaves were lesser, more inferior humans or tools. I can disprove these by the obvious mistreatment these slaves were put through like: their owner hitting them or starving them. People who were slaves could not marry or raise children without their owner’s permission. And their owner could sell them or their children at any time.

president thomas jefferson hoped that the embargo act of 1807 would the united states by demonstrating to britain and france their dependence on american goods, convincing them to respect american neutrality and stop impressing american seamen. instead, the act had a devastating effect on american trade.